Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: The wrong way to argue about assault weapons bans

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    The wrong way to argue about assault weapons bans

    The
    correct way to argue against Feinsteinís proposed assault weapons ban is to argue that there is no constitutional basis for such a ban, and any new assault weapons ban would be at least as immoral and obscene as the last one was.
    Read the whole thing at http://www.captainsjournal.com/2012/...sault-weapons/

    Now there is an idea that needs to be repeated.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    104
    We can also look at the governments conflicting reasons for gun control. In Miller it was argued, falsely, that the short barreled shotgun in question had no military application. Current trends are to ban firearms that have no "sporting purpose". Which is it, do we get to keep the ones the military uses (Miller) or the ones claimed to have a sporting purpose (whatever that is)?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    300
    Doesn't matter wither way. You show me a military weapon, I'll show you at least two sporting purposes for it. CS gas included.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by mustangkiller View Post
    Doesn't matter wither way. You show me a military weapon, I'll show you at least two sporting purposes for it. CS gas included.


    I'm not sure I wanta know.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,769
    CN is a lot more fun!

    All these "assault weapons bans" are nothing more than an appeal to the emotions of those who know absolutely nothing about firearms. Fact is that most of the weapons they are wanting to ban are not as powerful as many of the available "sporting" weapons. Proof is that most of these laws have verbiage addressing appearance, not function.

    Remember the hullabaloo over "Saturday Night Specials", "cop-killer bullets", and "Black Talon" ammunition? All based on emotional appeals to the ignorant. In order: 1. Some of the so-called Saturday Night Specials, while inexpensive, were quite well made and functioned very well. 2. The so-called "Cop-killer bullets" were anything but. What no one mentioned was that any good rifle round will defeat most body armor. The bullets mentioned were made of brass or steel and were teflon-coated, not to help penetrate body armor, but to reduce wear on the rifling. 3. "Black Talon" ammunition was no more deadly than any other JHP ammunition. It looked scary as hell when expanded, but then most JHP ammo does look scary and does quite a bit of damage. Law enforcement uses this type of ammunition to reduce the likelihood of over penetration and resulting "collateral damage".

    My point is very simply that far too many people will respond to an emotional appeal, especially by a public figure, and will not do the research to find out the truth for themselves.
    "Happiness is a warm shotgun!!"
    "I am neither a pessimist nor a cynic. I am, rather, a realist."
    "The most dangerous things I've ever encountered were a Second Lieutenant with a map and a compass and a Private who was bored and had time on his hands."

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Just on the topic of arguing against assault weapons bans, I've had some luck educating people about the development of assault rifles. More often than not, people get it. And, it raises the obvious question, why are the anti-gunners lying. Essentially, the education step discredits the anti-gunners.

    For any unfamiliar, the information goes something like this.

    Start around 1898 to 1903. Two very important military rifles were invented. The German K98 and the Springfield 1903 which was just a little later rechambered for the .30-06 cartridge.

    At that time, rifles like that were considered to need power and a comparatively heavy bullet to travel long distances on a European battlefield--say 300 to 900 yards--and still kill or badly wound. Such rifles were called battle rifles.

    Being bolt-action they were a little slow to operate. And, they used cartridges that were large enough that only a certain small quantity could be carried in the gun before needing to reload.

    In this era, there were also automatic weapons. Fully automatic weapons that fired battle rifle cartridges were called machine guns and were large and cumbersome enough to need a crew of two or three men. Hand-held automatic weapons are called sub-machine guns. They use pistol ammunition. For example, the American Tommy gun and the American grease gun used the pistol cartridges for the .45 semi-automatic pistol. The German submachine guns did the same with 9mm. Using relatively low powered pistol cartridges, submachine guns were only useful for close fighting.

    During WWII, German engineers realized it would be handy to have an infantry weapon that was more powerful than a pistol cartridge, but could also shoot full auto. Thus the first assault rifle was born, the Sturmgeweher. The new German assault rifle used an intermediate cartridge having more power than a pistol--to get the bullet out to distance if needed, but less powerful than a battle rifle so the gun didn't have to be the size of a full-sized machine gun.

    Also, the word assault designates a particular phase of a military operation. It is that last phase where everyone stands up and moves the final yards towards the enemy, and then through the objective to the other side of the objective, cleaning out the enemy. This is where the name for this type of rifle almost certainly comes from. You can use a battle rifle at distances well removed from an assault, whereas an assault rifle is more effective at assault distances, can be fired full-auto during an assault, and since they are using smaller cartridges, can carry more in the gun before reloading, which is handy during an assault compared to a battle rifle that only holds 6 rounds in the rifle which would, force infantry to resort to the bayonet sooner during an assualt.

    So, assault rifles are better classed as carbines. They are definitely not high-powered rifles by an means. The old battle rifle cartridges were more powerful, and even the .30-06 is considered an mid-power cartridge in the full scheme of rifle cartridge power. The pistol-grip helps its use as a submachine gun. Meaning, an assault rifle by definition is capable of fully automatic fire. And, there are very few of those in civilian hands in the US. So, these "assault weapons" being discussed today are not nearly as powerful as made out, and are, except for a very few that are already strictly regulated, not even capable of fully automatic fire.

    Usually, by the time you explain all that, you can see light bulbs coming on in listeners minds.
    Last edited by Citizen; 11-26-2012 at 11:11 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/DECA496973477C748525791F004D84F9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf

    Another Heller case heard a couple of months back .... the DC court is full of loons ... the dissent is right on the mark

  8. #8
    Regular Member Lasjayhawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    294
    I would be willing to guess Circuit Judge Kavanaugh has more than a basic understanding of firearms.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •