Is There A Calm Explanation Of The Merits Of The Proposed Assualt Weapons Ban?

The NY Times is surprisingly fair and balanced in explaining the controversies around a proposed "assault weapons" ban. However, by the time they are done they leave us wondering just what the objective is of the folks backing a ban.

The gist:

The most basic criteria have to do with a firearm’s ability to fire multiple rounds quickly. Because of this, the firearms included under any assault weapons ban are usually semiautomatic, meaning that a new round is automatically reloaded into the chamber but is not fired until the trigger is pulled again. The weapons also have detachable magazines, allowing them to fire 10, 20, 30 rounds or more without the need to insert a new magazine.

After that, however, the definition becomes more difficult. In calling for a renewed ban, Mr. Obama on Wednesday singled out “military style” weapons.

Those could include features like a pistol grip, designed to allow a weapon to be fired from the hip; a collapsible or folding stock, which allows the weapon to be shortened and perhaps concealed; a flash suppressor, which keeps the gun’s user from being blinded by muzzle flashes; a muzzle brake, which helps decrease recoil; and a threaded barrel, which can accept a silencer or a suppressor. Bayonet lugs or grenade launchers are also sometimes included.

But there is disagreement about which features are worrisome enough to include in a ban. And existing state bans differ in how many features they allow.

Advocates for an assault weapons ban argue that the military features were intended to enhance the firearms’ ability to kill.

But many gun owners argue that they are simply “cosmetic.” The owners reel off makes and models of firearms — rifles by Saiga and Remington, for example — that are mechanically identical to the weapons singled out by bans but that do not have pistol grips or other styling features.

OK, so banners say the features are dangerous and opponents say they are cosmetic. Will the Times, or anyone else, please gather some experts who can explain to us why flash suppressors, bayonet lugs and fittings for grenade launchers are a serious public safety problem? This Times graphic is a helpful starting point.

I accept that the collapsible stock (especially a folding stock) could aid concealment. The pistol grip seems to have found popularity even in modern hunting rifles, so that may just be an ergonomic thing. Let's cut to Wikipedia:

Tools with pistol grips run the range from hand saws to pneumatic nailers. Often the word "gun" appears in the name of pistol-gripped tools such as the glue gun, caulking gun and nail gun. A number of tools, like firearms, have a forward pistol grip. Drills and grinders often include this feature for added control.

One of the reasons the pistol grip style is so common in machinery is because it is possible to ergonomically position the operating controls. For example, on the AR-15 and M16 rifle, a right handed user's index finger can control the trigger and magazine release, while the thumb can control the safety or fire mode selector switch, all without needing to remove the palm from the grip.

For an example of a hunting rifle with a pistol grip, here is the Remington Model R-15:

Overview:

We created an unrivaled combination of precision accuracy, blazing-fast follow-ups and hunt-specific features. The new R-15 VTR™ modular repeating rifle was born of the most advanced design aspects of AR-15-style rifles available today with a strong emphasis on optimizing form and functionality for the modern predator aficionado. The results are astounding – with very serious implications for every coyote, fox or bobcat that crosses its path.

...

Control comes naturally with the ergonomic pistol grip and lightweight overall design of the R-15. Its uppers and lowers are machined from aluminum forgings for featherweight durability, and the fore-end tube is drilled and tapped for accessory rails. This new family of firearms consists of three models. Each was designed with input from leading predator authorities and decked in the ultra-effective Advantage® MAX-1 HD™ camouflage to blend with sage, open country and a multitude of hunting terrains. All come with five-round magazines and are compatible with all aftermarket AR-15 magazines and other accessories.

I assume the assault weapon banners are somewhat terrified by this weapon due to the pistol grip. But would the lack of a flash suppressor, bayonet lug and grenade launcher mount give them peace of mind if a fellow were brandishing this in a movie theatre? (FWIW, yesterday we posted pics of the benign Ruger Mini 14 Ranch Rifle and the terrifying Ruger Mini 14 Tactical Rifle and we have the same question - which one would you rather see in the hands of an assailant, and why?)

For my money the issue is the detachable magazine. Quick reloading helps people in a home defense situation but it also helps crazed killers.

[Jacob Sullum of Reason has more, including this from a Banner:

An effective law will focus on one prime feature—the ability to accept a high-capacity magazine.

Mr. Sullum explains the problems with that.]

As to whether banning magazines that hold more than ten rounds will be enforceable or effective, well, I assume it will reduce ownership among law-abiding citizens. However, there are millions of larger magazines already in existence, and we are talking about metal boxes with springs - the criminal world that brings us heroin refined from opium, chrystal meth refined from Sudafed, and car parts chopped from live cars can probably make as many bootleg ammunition magazines as they can sell.

Fortunately, rifles are rarely used in homicides, so a magazine ban probably wouldn't provide a statistical blip, effective or otherwise.

ERRATA: Obama is also hoping to remove armor piecring bullets from the market. If I routinely wore a bullet proof vest I would surely back such a move. But one might argue that, paradoxically, folks without vests are MUCH better off getting shot with armor piercing bullets that will pass right through them. Then again, if the police are safer, maybe we will all be safer...

DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT HISTORY... The Times tells us that the politics of the phrase "assault weapon" has changed.

Now:

The label, applied to a group of firearms sold on the civilian market, has become so politicized in recent decades that where people stand on the gun issue can often be deduced by whether they use the term.

...

But Second Amendment groups — and many firearm owners — heatedly object to the use of “assault weapon” to describe guns that they say are routinely used in target shooting and hunting. The term, they argue, should be used only for firearms capable of full automatic fire, like those employed by law enforcement and the military. They prefer the term “tactical rifle” or “modern sporting rifle” for the semiautomatic civilian versions.

And then:

Yet as Mr. Peterson noted in his buyer’s guide, it was the industry that adopted the term “assault weapon” to describe some types of semiautomatic firearms marketed to civilians.

“Assault rifle” was first used to describe a military weapon, the Sturmgewehr, produced by the Germans in World War II. The Sturmgewehr — literally “storm rifle,” a name chosen by Adolf Hitler — was capable of both semiautomatic and full-automatic fire. It was the progenitor for many modern military rifles.

But the term “assault rifle” was expanded and broadened when gun manufacturers began to sell firearms modeled after the new military rifles to civilians. In 1984, Guns & Ammo advertised a book called “Assault Firearms,” which it said was “full of the hottest hardware available today.”

“The popularly held idea that the term ‘assault weapon’ originated with antigun activists, media or politicians is wrong,” Mr. Peterson wrote. “The term was first adopted by the manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate sales of certain firearms that did not have an appearance that was familiar to many firearm owners. The manufacturers and gun writers of the day needed a catchy name to identify this new type of gun.”

So the NRA has abandoned Hitler's rhetoric but the assault banners have adopted it. Hmm, we are close to a Godwin's Law issue here.

 

Comments

[Danube of Thought]

Advocates for an assault weapons ban argue that the military features were intended to enhance the firearms’ ability to kill.

Well duh.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

--After that, however, the definition becomes more difficult. In calling for a renewed ban, Mr. Obama on Wednesday singled out “military style” weapons.--

I thought lefties believed in the immutability of stare decisis and the need for the courts to respect precedent even when it hurts.
Is it possible Barry hasn't read Miller.
Nah, he's just a little fascist.

[Melinda Romanoff]

These Executive Actions are going to be tough to nail to the wall, more like Executive Squigglers.

[NK]

As with our wonderful host, my home security is primarily an old field hockey stick in the garage, claw hammers and a nail gun (plug-in), so I am a neophyte about gun design, ergonomics, rate of fire, caliber, ammunition size/weight-- the lot. So in my naivete, I asked here at JOM after Aurora, what benefit is provided to sport shooters, hunters and self-defense by 30 round mags for S-A rifles? Isn't the only real world effect of 30 round mags, to make a mass murder's work easier -- like at Aurora and Newtown? I got a big response from JOMers-- suffice to say I still think the responses claiming that we need 30 rounds to fight the tyrannical Fed Gov't is nutz-- just my opinion. But, the remaining responses at that time were patient and thoughtful, and convinced me anyway, that limiting mag size to 15 rounds, 10 rounds, 7 rounds was a useless exercise and would have no practical effect on the mad shooter- he would kill just as many innocents with 10 round or 7 round mags. Such a limitation is purely cosmetic ass covering by craven politicians. So now, I don't worry myself about the question this post asks about 'mag capacity'-- it's politician BS. First let the politicians fix the debt mess THEY created, let them fix entitlements and balance the fed operating budget-- you know avoid national bankruptcy-- then we can ponder the arcane (and useless) question of mag capacity. My more informed opinion these days -- thanks to JOMers.

[Danube of Thought]

Because of this, the firearms included under any assault weapons ban are usually semiautomatic

Just great. Except that every military assault weapon is also capable of full automatic fire. These dopes call it an assault weapon if it looks like one, even if it isn't.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

--I got a big response from JOMers-- suffice to say I still think the responses claiming that we need 30 rounds to fight the tyrannical Fed Gov't is nutz-- just my opinion.--

I've never quite understood the logic of this.
30 round mags apparently make criminals killing machines and should therefore be banned.
You acknowledge IIRC the 2nd amendment is primarily about providing the people a means to resist a tyrannical government.
And yet you say allowing citizens to retain the right to be killing machines in opposing a tyrannical government is nutz.

Either high capacity mags do not provide an advantage to killing in which case it is pointless banning them or they do in which case it is improper to ban them because it reduces the ability of the citizens to resist a tyrannical government but does nothing to criminals who will have no problem retaining, buying, stealing or manufacturing high capacity mags.

[Appalled]

The Second Amendment says, in full:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Given the language here, wouldn't it seem to be the intent of the framers that individuals would have access to the sort of armament a well-regulated militia would have? You know, stuff like assault weapons?

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

The real issue here is not magazine capacity, it is magazine detachability.

But since lefties say hunting is the only thing the 2nd amendment might cover they are stuck with the problem of semi automatic hunting rifles with detachable magazines as manufactured at various times by Remington, Browning, Winchester, etc, so they come up with the flash suppressor-grenade launcher-pistol grip etc shibboleth.

All of that turns the 2nd amendment's references to a well regulated militia on its head as affirmed in Miller and Heller of course but turning the constitution on its head is just how they roll.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

--Given the language here, wouldn't it seem to be the intent of the framers that individuals would have access to the sort of armament a well-regulated militia would have? You know, stuff like assault weapons?--

Those are almost the exact words of the Miller decision Appalled.

[Rob Crawford]

I accept that the collapsible stock (especially a folding stock) could aid concealment.

Not really.

The minimum legal barrel length is 16" -- that's typically measured from the front-most part of the chamber to the end of the barrel. The .223/5.56mm rifle round is 2 1/4" long; you need to at least double that to allow the bolt enough room to clear the chamber. So we've already got 20-21" of length just from the barrel and a bare minimum action.

So even without a stock, you've got a rigid rod almost two feet in length, and over an inch in diameter for part of its length. Where do you conceal that without looking like you're wearing a cast?

And if the concealment is for transport rather than for concealment on your person, well, don't tell them about the AR-7 or the 10/22 Takedown...

[Rob Crawford]

I am still trying to figure out why they think a flash suppressor makes a weapon more dangerous.

(And no one tell them about vented barrels. I get why they exist, but I don't get why people get self-defense weapons with them.)

[NK]

Ig-- as I think I was careful to say just my opinion. But as you ofttimes remind people - re-read the scholarly decision in Heller proving that the 2nd Amendment is an individual liberty right, rather than a collective 'militia' right as the geniuses like Prof Tribe claimed. According to Heller, he individual 2nd Amendment right however, is not unlimited and it must yield to reasonable health and safety regulation-- then there are of course the constitutional anti-sedition laws. Finally, I do note, in 1789 or so, the Tyrant oppressed the people by sending men with muskets and bayonets, and the people defended themselves with men with muskets and bayonets. Today, the would-be tyrant has Apache helos, cluster bombs and napalm. The people have.... The people's real defense against a tyrannical Fed government today is the US military officers and law enforcement officers who will uphold their duty to the constitution and the people, and refuse unconstituional orders, IMO.

[narciso]

The purpose is what Joyce foundation has been after through the work of Hargaten and Hemenway,
and this little 'fight club' moment;

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/03/18/holder-in-1995-we-must-brainwash-people-against-guns/

[NK]

Narc-- that's the one extant piece of video evidence showing Holder telling the truth as he knew. Save it.. there's no video like it.. anywhere else.

[Fen]

"Quick reloading helps people in a home defense situation but it also helps crazed killers"

Thats a false equivalence.

For home defense, you are ususally surprised and having to adapt on the fly. The perps are armed and you don't know how many there are. The perps pick the engagement range, usually at point blank or in your face. Having to fumble for a new magazine (especially if you are still groggy & disoriented from sleep) loses the initiative and usually means your death.

On the other hand, the "crazed killers" have plotted out their entire adventure. They can plan out firing positions that give them space and time to reload. They aren't deterred by gun laws, so they will have multiple weapons and magazines. And since everyone is running AWAY from them, they have all the time in the world to swap mags.

Its really not the same thing.

[Tom Maguire]

So even without a stock, you've got a rigid rod almost two feet in length, and over an inch in diameter for part of its length. Where do you conceal that without looking like you're wearing a cast?

I was thinking about gym bags or violin cases, although I suppose a Neo-style trench coat might suffice.

Two feet is a big gym bag, though not for hockey. Tennis, anyone?

[NK]

Fen-- is there anyway you can document the scenario you described with an actual event? For example, a police/FBI report that home defenders were killed by intruders because they exhausted their magazine and could not reload fast enough. Personally, I've never heard of such a case.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

--Finally, I do note, in 1789 or so, the Tyrant oppressed the people by sending men with muskets and bayonets, and the people defended themselves with men with muskets and bayonets. Today, the would-be tyrant has Apache helos, cluster bombs and napalm.--

King George didn't have cannons and the greatest Navy in the world?
The Afghan rebels do have Apaches, cluster bombs and napalm?

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

The easiest collapsible buttstock is one made with a hacksaw as is the method of making a barrel under 16 inches.
Of course one could always use a pistol before one went to all that trouble.

All criminals, as stupid as they are, are smarter than the cleverest gun control advocate.

[NK]

GeorgeV did have the greatest Navy. and it gave him unfettered command of the seas, and the Royal Navy allowed him to deliver to North America-- men with muskets and bayonets, and the odd cannon. During the revolutionary war, GeorgeV did not have a massive technological advantage over the colonists. he had far more money, and more men, but not a massive firepower advantage. And no, I don't fancy my chances fighting a US Tyrant the way the Jihadis fought the 10th Mountain Division in Af-Pak. But that's just me.

[lyle]

The 30 round mag obsession is based on emotionalism. Why doesn't anyone mention that even trained shooters...miss targets. The LE types I know tell me police are often the worst shots because they don't often go to the range. So what counterbalances all those missed shots? Anyone?

[lyle]

All criminals, as stupid as they are, are smarter than the cleverest gun control advocate.

I'm so stealing this. With attribution of course.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

Your 1:14 is, if you don't mind me saying so, a little nutz, NK.

[narciso]

Now, on the one hand, he does have to be rebutted, on the other hand he is such a git, that it doesn't seem worth the effort;

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2013/01/17/support-gun-control-slips-piers-morgan-picks-women-gun-rights-advocates

[NK]

Ig@1:35-- to each their own.

I have a question. "Detachable" magazines-- are they predominant for sport shooting/hunting, or are those types of rifles predominantly 'built-in' magazines? The reload ability provided by the detachable magazine, what does that do for the gun owner? (other than the obvious increased volume of bullets that can be pumped out because of faster re-load)

[henry]

NK, faster unload as well as reload, plus easier to tell if it is unloaded. This is an important safety feature for hunting -- you do not want a loaded weapon on a moving quad / boat / rope down from your tree-stand. Other ammo storage include non-detachable box magazine (M-1 Garand) and tube (common on lever action & shotguns). These must be unloaded one shell at a time by cycling the action compared to detach magazine & open action.

[narciso]

keep in mind Taliban don't kill, only guns paid for with money shipped from here do;

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Terror-Support-Charges-Against-Young-Muslim-Cleric-from-Broward-Dismissed-187296921.html

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

--"Detachable" magazines-- are they predominant for sport shooting/hunting, or are those types of rifles predominantly 'built-in' magazines?--

Bolt action rifles have mostly built in or fixed magazines although the Mannlicher Schoenauer, a personal favorite of mine, and some newer model also have detachable magazines.
Most semi auto hunting rifles also have detachable magazines.

Essentially all of the hunting type detachable mags only carry a few rounds due to regulations regarding number of rounds allowed while hunting, portability and practicality.

Increasingly, AR 15 type semi autos are being used for hunting in various calibers.

[matt]

There are a couple of phenomena at play when a shooting begins. The first is that adrenaline kicks in, which increases heart rate, heightens emotional reactions, and sets the body akilter.

Molding that response is one of the primary functions of military training. It is natural to lose one's cool. It is unnatural for most people to focus in on events and respond calmly.

This is one reason 30 round magazines were introduced. The M 1 Garand can hold 8 rounds in a clip. It is a truly great firearm. But in the "mad minute" when firing begins everything goes kablooie, to put it in technical terms.

People shoot everywhere without realizing where the bullets are going or sometimes they even freeze.Most will empty the entire clip in automatic mode. Another good reason for semi-automatic fire.

Today's M-4 military rifles only shoot in 3 round bursts. This allows the shooter to "walk" the target if moving and conserve ammunition.

Calm is usually not a word used in shootings, whether military or civilian. In murders, yes. The murderer has anticipated their action.One of the scary things about massacres is that unnatural calm.

But for most people they would tend to keep pulling a trigger until the last bullet.

The other factor is the level of marksmanship of the shooter. Most cops can't hit the side of a barn door from 10 yards at the range. Imagine what happens on the street.

The California Highway Patrol went to semi - automatic 9mm pistols from the .357 revolver because of criminals outgunning them. A CHP officer used to be known for his marksmanship, and the .357, which holds 6 rounds, is a very accurate firearm.

But if a drug dealer is spraying 9mm rounds from a semi-auto pistol, more rounds and quick reloading are imperative.

These are just some of the physical and psychological aspects. The real reason for high capacity magazines is; because we have the 2nd Amendment, so screw you.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

--Ig@1:35-- to each their own.--

By "a little nutz" I meant your reasoning seemed flawed and the comment was somewhat incoherent, not that we were just experiencing a difference of opinion.

[NK]

I never have flawed or incoherent thinking.... res ipsa

[NK]

Henry/Ig-- very informative and helpful explanation regarding detachable rifle magazines.

[Manuel Transmission]

I was down in the big city yesterday and made my way through traffic to Wade's Gun Shop to check out a new Kimber. While waiting my turn (maybe a dozen customers and 5-6 sales staff), I overheard the conversation between a sharp looking and bright lady who was obviously in there for the first time. Fortunately she had one of the senior sales guys helping her.

The gist of the situation was that she was clearly ready to own a handgun and was, in her initial ignorance, trying to get to the right endpoint. It was a thing of beauty to observe. She hit all the questions about magazine capacity, etc. and was hearing a careful response from the sales guy that didn't include spun yarn, but left it to her as to whether at some point in the future her magazines might be illegal. I'll bet that has been (is) going on all across the country. I'm not sure, but she might have been a Seattle lib, which would have made it all the sweeter.

[Bruce]

Is There A Calm Explanation Of The Merits Of The Proposed Assualt Weapons Ban?

I don't think so, once you get down into the details. For example:

After that, however, the definition becomes more difficult. In calling for a renewed ban, Mr. Obama on Wednesday singled out “military style” weapons.

Those could include features like a pistol grip, designed to allow a weapon to be fired from the hip; a collapsible or folding stock, which allows the weapon to be shortened and perhaps concealed; a flash suppressor, which keeps the gun’s user from being blinded by muzzle flashes; a muzzle brake, which helps decrease recoil; and a threaded barrel, which can accept a silencer or a suppressor. Bayonet lugs or grenade launchers are also sometimes included.

But there is disagreement about which features are worrisome enough to include in a ban. And existing state bans differ in how many features they allow.

For the modern AR type semiautomatic rifles, most of the rifles are highly modular, with these evil features being relatively easily added and subtracted after-market. The part with the serial number is the lower receiver, and different upper receivers, barrels, butts, accessories, etc. can be added and subtracted to/from it, changing calibers, length, etc. Making things worse, a working lower receiver has been fabricated with 3D printing, and isn't currently required to even have a serial number. And, partially complete lower receivers, that can be completed in a machine shop, are also available that also don't require a serial number until sold to someone else.

There isn't a feature on the previous ban list (except maybe detachable magazines) that cannot be added or removed from a modular AR type rifle. And, the directions for doing so are readily available on the Internet - I was looking at the directions from Bushmaster the other day for disassembling and assembling its AR type rifles, and mention was made to different parts and accessories.

So, if they ban guns with specific features, and you have your heart set on a gun with that feature, you just buy it without, and then add it with after-market parts, that may even be purchased from the original manufacturer.

The big feature that I think may not pass Constitutional muster if reinstated in an AWB is a pistol grip. It isn't there primarily for shooting from the hip, but to improve the performance of the weapon. Pistol grips have become almost ubiquitous with power tools and the like for stabilizing them and improving accuracy.

Another thing to be kept in mind is that part of what is scary about these weapons is that they are built using modern composites and the like. Wood stocks became somewhat obsolete with the advent of the AR type rifles in the latter 1950s. Rifles (and, really, muskets) before that looked somewhat similar for maybe the previous century or two, with a wood stock and metal firing and loading parts and barrel. Internally, they progressed from muzzle loading to breech loading to repeating to semiautomatic to full automatic, culminating for the U.S. military in the fully automatic M-14 formally adopted around the time that the AR platform was first developed a bit over 50 years ago. Then, almost 50 years ago, the U.S. adopted the AR descended M-16 select fire rifle, and nearing three generations of military have been trained on that platform. But, the technology has not stood still, and the AR-type rifles, both semiautomatic and select fire (like the current M-16A4) have progressed significantly since then, incorporating many new materials and manufacturing techniques over time, resulting in light, highly modular, weapons that are sturdy, reasonably reliable, with comparatively lighter recoil. Eliminating semiautomatic versions of these weapons would put the civilian population in this country back maybe 50 years in technology.

Why are they so scary to so many? Because the U.S. military has been utilizing a select fire version for almost 50 years now, and they are now in common use with police around the country. So, that is the weapon that you see most often over that time frame in almost any movie or TV show that has a lot of violence, including almost all war movies, and most cop shows. Of course, the military and police mostly use select fire versions, which are mostly illegal, and when legal, highly regulated, for the civilian population.

Finally, even if the guns were not so modular and built using modern materials and techniques, they would still be very popular, because our military has been trained for almost 50 years now on that platform. That translates into many millions of veterans who learned on and then used this platform during their military service.

[Manuel Transmission]

NK, Today, the would-be tyrant has Apache helos, cluster bombs and napalm. The people have....

I read somewhere recently that the real characterization of what the gummint would be facing is a fog of malarial mosquitoes.

Too often our reverie defaults to some Red Dawn scenario.

Even by Iggy's correct comparison of A-stan, there aren't little isolated villages or militia camps in the woods to sneak up on with all that firepower. I would guess that every second or third house in this country, excepting perhaps in the Blue Hells, is a potential resistor. Utterly unconquerable.

Of course, I lost all mine in a freak canoing accident.

[NK]

how many of the resisting houses would have to be cluster bombed to suppress resistance sufficiently to allow the Federal tyrant to operate as they please? 1%, .5%. .0005%?

[Manuel Transmission]

One Ruby Ridge would be a artifact. (And doable via drug raid type planning.) One hundred would immediately light a fuse never to be extinguished until it was all over.

[daddy]

On Topic.

Dennis Miller bummed me a bit this afternoon.

He had on a Congressman discussing the 23 Executive Orders. Dennis says he has taken the 5 minutes to read them and they all sound like common sense to him, so why the pushback from the Congressman to go slow and look at them carefully and deliberately?

When the Congressman says because we have to look at the things carefully for unintended consequences, and then sites cases where previous rushed thru Legislation resulted in things like a 5 year old being expelled for having a 1 inch square charm that sort of looked like a gun, and a Law that if a handgun was in her hubby's car and the wife drove the kid to school unaware of the gun, just by driving on to school property with the kid she has now committed a Felony liable for punishment of up to X years and X dollars etc.

Dennis responds "Don't you see that by that hesitation to immediately agree to these sensible ideas, that you are allowing the opposition to negatively paint you guys as opposed to sensible solutions to our gun problems?

Congressman reiterates his point and that it is his responsibility to do so as a Congressman, and he and Dennis choose to disagree.

I'm with the Congressman. Screw what looks good cosmetically and however the Press paints it or us. Capitulating to that is the problem. It's certainly not the way to "keep the Republic" as Ben Franklin cautioned.

Example 1 today: Cuomo's legislation making current Olympic Biathelon weapons illegal.

[Bill in AZ sez it's time for Obama/Holder murder trial in Mexico]

Same here - a kayak in my case.

suffice to say I still think the responses claiming that we need 30 rounds to fight the tyrannical Fed Gov't is nutz

Seems like it would be more nutz to do nothing.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

--how many of the resisting houses would have to be cluster bombed to suppress resistance sufficiently to allow the Federal tyrant to operate as they please? 1%, .5%. .0005%?

Posted by: NK | January 17, 2013 at 04:18 PM--

You see a nation of 99.5% sheep.
I see one of 52% sheep and 48% pissed off patriots.
The founders were a minority. The Bolsheviks were a small minority. Every successful revolution starts out with a small minority of hardheads.

And a good many of those hardheads are in the military.
How many cluster bombed neighborhoods before the Capitol and the WH were cluster bombed?

[NK]

I don't see 99.5% as sheep-- I just believe that in 21st century society, because of the need for citizens to access electrical power, IT and other collective infrastructure, a tyrant could control enough wealth for themselves and necessary cronies, and BUYOFF the vast majority of citizens without bloodshed or even harsh coercion. There would be opposition, no doubt, but if the military and law enforcement willingly went along with the Tyrant as as cronies, I don't see how the opposition could withstand the firepower (military and IT). Sorry, I take human nature as it comes, not as I like it. Our defense against tyranny is the strength of the American Constitutional institutions and the overwhelming good faith of citizens supporting those institutions. if the tyrant, deceives, or bribes enough of the RIGHT people to undermine the Constitutional institutions, I have very grave concerns about liberty surviving based on .223/5.56mm rifles. The ChiComs do it pretty efficiently-- yes I know there aren't any rifles in China.... but what's decisive in the 21st century, the 300M firearms or the 300M people supporting the institutions?

[Danube of Thought iPad]

If things were ever to come to the point where an armed citizenry was resisting the Tyrant, I have very serious doubts that the Tyrant would be able to use the U.S. armed forces on its behalf.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

Perhaps living in the sheep pen amongst the sheep distorts your view of things.
Out here in the hinterlands I see millions of people a lot closer to George Mason than Georgio Armani.
And I see people just as stout and even more freedom loving than the whacko Afghanis and Syrians.
If we are ever faced with a tyrannical government in this country I think the Barry's of the world are going to find out just how tightly decent people really do cling to God and guns and they will find out to their misfortune the ferocity of a ward heeler is pretty mild compared to the average freedom loving American.

But maybe they'll successfully boil the frog. We'll see.

[Bruce]

If things were ever to come to the point where an armed citizenry was resisting the Tyrant, I have very serious doubts that the Tyrant would be able to use the U.S. armed forces on its behalf.

I would add a lot of the police too. The problem for any potential tyrant here is that the military comes predominantly, as does the police, from the same demographics as tend to own guns. Throw in a lot of the armed government workers.

While they are away serving, their family members back home are much more often than average Americans keeping and bearing arms, etc. And, when they leave the military, they will more likely tend to keep using guns.

So, what I expect would happen is that much of the military, and, esp. in the enlisted ranks, would be more sympathetic to the gun owners than to the gun grabbers. And, orders to shoot resisting family members, or people who could be family members if in the right part of the country, would not go down very well.

[Manuel Transmission]

I am intrigued by the several county sheriffs that have voiced their intention to uphold the Constitution. There was even an incident from a year or so ago where a NorCal Sheriff was intending to chase off any feds that showed up to infringe on the local farmers practicing their craft. Wouldn't it be interesting to see a 10th Amendment tipping point come about even before any shots are fired.

[Bruce]

Let me add that another problem that the feds would face trying to disarm the populace is the numbers involved. There may be close to a hundred gun owners in this country for every person in the military, and the military itself has legal constraints on how it can operate within the United States. If they can't use the military, the National Guard requires state approval, esp. in this sort of thing, and the armed civilian government employees are probably outnumbered thousands to one. If even one percent of gun owners resist, that means that they are still out numbered 10-1, and, as someone above pointed out, there is strength in numbers, and enough Ruby Ridges, and the country goes up in flames.

[lyle]

if the tyrant, deceives, or bribes enough of the RIGHT people to undermine the Constitutional institutions, I have very grave concerns about liberty surviving based on .223/5.56mm rifles.

Considering that the police/NG have basically the same arms, where do the concerns come from? As Ig, Bruce, Dot, and others have pointed out, in this scenario, the putative LE guys would be outnumbered thousands to one?

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

Let's stop for just a second and ask a couple of questions.

Do leftists give a flying f*** about crime or its victims? Have they ever?
Since the answer to both questions is "hell no!" we are led to another question.

Why then do they want to ban guns?
Since the only sensible answer is "because they are an impediment to state power" which ultimate power is the raison d'etre of being a leftist can't we presume that because the ones most threatened by an armed citizenry, totalitarian leftists, actually are that guns probably are an effective deterrent to unfettered state power?

WeeDavey can be seen as funny but he only speaks what the more typical leftists actually believe but are too cynical to admit openly. Thank goodness for Irish drinking proclivities.

[Fen]

is there anyway you can document the scenario you described with an actual event? For example, a police/FBI report that home defenders were killed by intruders because they exhausted their magazine and could not reload fast enough. Personally, I've never heard of such a case

Thats about the dumbest thing I've heard this week. Yes, after the homeowner was killed, the police raised him from the dead and he testified that he was killed because he couldn't reload fast enough...

btw, how many rounds do you think is needed to put 1 perp down?

[Early Childhood Education Mumbai]

I am fascinated by the several nation sheriffs that have talked their objective to maintain the Structure. There was even an occurrence from a season or so ago where a NorCal Police was planning to pursuit off any feds that revealed up to infringe on the regional farm owners exercising their art.

[Have Blue]

She did not die, but the woman in Georgia that shot a perp in her house five times (out of six shots fired) had the guy run to his vehicle and drive away. So that's at least one honest American who could have used a larger magazine to protect her and hers.

[Manuel Transmission]

OK, this is really weird, the post that is just above and was posted by Early Childhood... was mine from last night and it "disappeared." It must have gone to purgatory and returned from spam hell. WTH?