Of course it was stupid. An assault rifle is an automatic weapon. The civilian versions of those weapons are nothing more than semi-automatic rifles. Some advantages of being based on the same design carry over, such as in terms of reliability and ease of maintenance, but they are still not the same weapon. More so, in terms of lethality vs. unarmed civilians there’s not a huge difference between an AR-15 and a Ruger 10/22, despite the fact that no one would ever characterize the 2nd one as an “assault weapon”. It’s a silly term that ultimately means “civilian guns that gun-haters are the most scared of” and nothing more.
” there’s not a huge difference between an AR-15 and a Ruger 10/22, despite the fact that no one would ever characterize the 2nd one as an “assault weapon”.”
Hah. Until they manage to ban the former, that is. Then the latter becomes a “high-powered sniper rifle.”
Have you seen the new Ruger SR-22? There are several 22LR models sold in Canada as “restricted” (permit to own, permit to travel, shoot at approved ranges only) just because they look like an AR-15. Wait until the Lieberal party takes over again in Canada and you’ll see more bans here.
Perfect case in point. According to the specs the SR-22 rifle is functionally identical to the 10/22. But it looks “scary” so people who know nothing of guns are more afraid of it.
Powerlineblog has a posting indicating that the President and the Senate Majority Leader “don’t want to rush into new gun laws” in response to the emotions of the moment.
Something tells me that the Senate Majority Leader derives a good measure of his home-state political support from being pro-2nd Amendment.
Maybe we should rhetorically keep a lower profile in response to the calls for new gun laws in the wake of the recent tragedy.
Which I’ve had the feeling that the consternation about gun laws is much ado about nothing. What exactly has the President done besides give a speech only to never see any action taken. Axelrod even forwarded a link to his speech about the shooting and put a big ‘donate’ button at the bottom. In as so much that the speech was great for raising money for the DNC he’s got no interested in doing anything remotely meaningful beyond that.
The law was written by people who were clueless about guns. No wonder they got pummeled politically.
That was then, this is now. We have a POTUS who is clueless about everything and he just won re-election. I fear for my country because it seems her citizens have lost all common sense.
The President has “a clue” — he is talking about a “Blue Ribbon Commission”, which is the standard DC tactic for not-rushing-into-things-and-maybe-not-doing-anything-drastic-if-ever.
I think people should give President Obama “some space” on this one.
We also have a POTUS who learned that he can get away with endless illegal Executive Orders when his agenda is blocked by Congress.
Fear not, gun-nut liberty-addicted wingnuts! Look who “Il Dufe” has delegated the task of spearheading the anti-gun movement to:
Oh and put me in the camp that thinks the insane level of news coverage of these events is more dangerous the type of firearm used. Hell, we’ve had a couple of movie theater copy cats already. And schools all over the country getting threats of violence. Probably from kids at the school taking advantage of the exposure of this topic to get a couple free days off school.
Stop giving these lunatics cool names that fit their crime. Stop interrupting prime time television to have in depth exposes on the motivations of the killer. Stop reminding us of the body counts every 30 seconds. It just encourages those sickos out there that get off on this kind of stuff and maybe even tips them over the edge to getting their day of infamy.
Yes, this is a local issue that the local adults should be held responsible for. Making it national theatre just allow the demagogues their day.
Children get killed. Where is the adult responsibility? Instead they babble about restricting weapons.
Adult responsibility. That means defending those children from any potential assault. It does not mean hand wringing about the evil that exists and always has existed and until god intervenes always will exist.
Teachers tried to defend themselves and their children with the only thing they had, their bodies. They should have had effective weapons instead.
Responsibility certainly doesn’t mean restricting the weapons decent people can use to defend themselves.
How to disarm a population:
1. Produce study after study that shows “availability” is tied to gun violence. Ignore or bury any study that doesn’t.
2. Wait for a disaster.
3. Decry “knee jerk” solutions and call for a measured, reasonable response. Use aforementioned studies as a guide.
If anyone objects to having their guns taken away from them, simply ask “why do you need it?” It doesn’t really matter what answer they give, so long as you get them to give you an answer. As soon as they do, you’ve successfully established that you have the moral authority to decide on the acceptable reasons for gun ownership.
Written by an Australian who had his guns taken away from him.
Another example that springs to mind: “dangerous” dog ownership.
We had some laws passed a few years ago that banned the ownership of certain breeds of dogs. It occurred after a child was mauled, etc. How did they do it? They simply asked why anyone “needs” to own a dog of this breed. No-one could give a reason, so the dogs were banned.
Of course, no-one actually needs to own any breed of dog.. really.. but that’s irrelevant. As soon as you get people justifying their rights, you can take them away. It’s easy.
One does wonder why a certain portion of the population “needs” to act like a one dimensional villain from an Ayn Rand novel.
It’s a good analogy but there’s no DOG Amendment in the Bill of Rights, while there is, a firearms Amendment.
“Why do you need it?”
Having heard that question posed numerous times in the last week my answer is and will remain to be “I’m an American, I don’t need a reason.”
I tend to answer, “It’s none of your business to decide what I do and don’t need.”
Bottom Line: If you’ve been planning to buy any “assault weapons” or pistols with high-capacity magazines in the near or semi-near future, stock-up now, while you can, and before prices skyrocket in anticipation of restrictions. God only knows what Biden will propose and what POTUS will implement through Executive Order or with enough House Republicans caving-in to media pressure. I was set for long-guns before Newtown, but two days ago ordered another 10 Magpul 30-round PMAGs, just in case. I plan to shop for several high-capacity semi-auto pistols at a local gun show Saturday. I remember the 1994-2004 Assault Weapons “ban,” and am going to try my best in advance to avoid a second round of paying 2 to 5 times more than current prices, in the near-future, for grandfathered firearms and high-cap magazines.
Lest you think I’m a nut-job, I am sickened by the Newtown shootings. I have many firearms, and have seen all the violent movies like Reservoir Dogs, but have never had a desire to shoot anyone, let alone 6 year-old children. My hobby is to shoot holes in paper targets in as small a group as I can. Like golf, it’s a hobby where you can continually work on improving your performance, through use of different implements, improving or changing your technique, and practice. I have AR-15s and AR-10s because they’re easy to tinker with and modify in search of better accuracy, they’re modular (separate upper and lower assemblies, allowing a wide variety of uppers to be used with one lower, saving me money), and also for home defense and possible SHTF scenarios.
Given that legit government is a collective exercise of God given individual rights (a premise rejected by the left), what business does government have telling us that We the People may not possess and use the same type of implements employed by police?
Comments are closed.