PDA

View Full Version : Jimmy Carter on gun control - I am ashamed...


Tucker 1371
April 28, 2009, 11:31 PM
... that the only president to ever come from my state is Jimmy Goodfornothin Carter.

Watching the news tonight and apparently the former president (who lost by the largest margin any incumbent has ever lost by) now endorses an AWB thinks that anyone who owns or wants to own an "assault weapon" is planning on killing cops or shooting up schools.

Here are Mr. Carter's exact words

But none of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives. That’s why the White House and Congress must not give up on trying to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, even if it may be politically difficult.

Shadi Khalil
April 28, 2009, 11:40 PM
IBTL.....

Jimmy Carter should stick to the Peanut farming, habitat stuff and the middle east.

Tucker 1371
April 29, 2009, 12:20 AM
I know it's going to get locked, I needed to vent. Very frustrated with all these AWB'ers

stilettosixshooter
April 29, 2009, 12:31 AM
I'm not for banning them, but I am curious what most people use them for (it comes up frequently in discussions about guns with my friends). Target? Hunting? Presumably extremely intricate cleaning practice? :)

I like handguns and don't plan to own an assault rifle - but want to educate myself about their general purpose for others.

Again, I repeat, I am not for banning them!

Tucker 1371
April 29, 2009, 12:40 AM
Honestly they don't serve a purpose except for people who don't feel comfortable with either a shotgun or handgun for home defense. But neither do alcohol or cars that do over 75mph. They're just more fun to shoot for some people.

EDIT: You can hunt with them but in general they are for plinking and target shooting.

Bud Helms
April 29, 2009, 01:04 AM
IBTL.....

What? 'Got a crystal ball or somethin'?

Moving to L&CR ...

Tom Servo
April 29, 2009, 02:20 AM
Fortunately Mr. Carter, whom I once respected for his humanitarian work, does not have any sway over national policy.

For the time being, the Left can crow about renewing the ban all they want. I remember 1993, and this isn't it. A new AWB won't pass muster in the legislature, and it won't stand up to a post-Heller legal challenge. More to the point, the general public no longer supports the idea.

There are sneakier, more subtle things they may try, but an outright ban isn't in the cards.

freakintoguns
April 29, 2009, 02:27 AM
i like them. plain and simple. they are fun to shoot. and most all you can hunt with.


BTW anything you use to assualt someoen isa assualt weapon. punch or kick someone, and your fists and/or feet/shins are "assault weapons". also look up the University of Texas shootings and look at the gun Lee Harvey Oswald used, both bolt actions. so ANYTHING can be a "assault" weapon.

maestro pistolero
April 29, 2009, 03:58 AM
I'm not for banning them, but I am curious what most people use them for (it comes up frequently in discussions about guns with my friends). Target? Hunting? Presumably extremely intricate cleaning practice?

I understand you have an open mind, and are not saying you wish to ban so-called assault weapons. Let me try to answer:

People use semi-automatic rifles for all of the same lawful purposes that they use any other firearm. Target shooting, hunting, self-defense, and competition. The rounds used by many military style semi-automatics are actually considered to be too under-powered for humane deer hunting practices, in some states. Most rifles use considerably more powerful ammunition than, say an AR15 (the one that looks like an M16). So the ammo isn't more dangerous than a common hunting rifle, in fact, it's often quite a bit less powerful.

Semi-automatic firearms ALL shoot one round per trigger pull. It's the same for any revolver, or semi-automatic pistol, shotgun and rifle. The ONLY variable is magazine capacity, but since an empty magazine can be easily changed in less than a second, even magazine capacity is a mute point in terms of enhanced performance. So, all guns available to civilians have exactly the same rate of fire. (the speed of your trigger finger)

You seem to have no bias against military style rifles, so the fact that your question quietly assumes there is a performance difference between what some people call an assault weapon, and any other semi-automatic firearm, is an indication of how deeply ingrained the so-called assault weapon myth is in the culture. And it IS a myth.

The real differences are purely cosmetic, as evidenced by the focus on cosmetic features by states that have laws banning them.

Ask yourself, besides cosmetics, i.e. scary looks, what do YOU think is the difference between a so-called assault weapon, and any other semi automatic firearm that makes you think that it more dangerous than other firearm?

If you can not definitively answer that, you're not alone, no one can. But you will hear politicians and activists characterizing the guns with phrases like "spray bullets from the hip", or, "these weapons of war belong on the battlefield, not on our streets", "What would anyone need an assault weapon for?"

And my favorite, "These guns are designed for only one thing, to kill people." This is a false argument. All guns are potentially lethal and dangerous in the wrong hands.

That last question begs another: What primary purpose should a gun have that was designed to defend your life against a murderer, rapist or terrorist? (remember the second amendment is still, in part, about our security as a free state)

And what primary purpose should a gun have that was designed to protect the security of a free state?

USAFNoDak
April 29, 2009, 09:07 AM
I like handguns and don't plan to own an assault rifle - but want to educate myself about their general purpose for others.


Already we can see some confusion by the person who posted the above quote. I'm not trying to denigrate that poster, but it's important to point out some errors or potential errors in his above statement. He did mention that he wants to be educated, so here goes.

1. Assault rifle: Select fire, or capable of full auto or three round burst. This has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the "assault weapons" ban that was in place from 1994-2004, or that some people would like to put back in place. "Assault Weapons" is a made up term, but in general refers only to semiautomatic firearms. Please note the difference in the terms "assault rifles" and "assault weapons". The uninformed and the political agenda drivers will use the terms interchangeably, but it is improper to do so.

An M16 is an assault rifle, an AR-15 is now called an "assault weapon". But only if it has more than two cosmetic features, such as a detachable magazine, an extended pistol grip, a bayonette lug, a grenade launcher, a folding stock, a muzzle flash suppressor, a barrel shroud, a collapsable stock, etc. Look up the AWB94 and you can find the cosmetic features which magically turn a semiautomatic rifle into an "Assault Weapon".
A Ruger Mini-14, even though it is functionally the same as a Colt AR-15, was not considered to be an "assault weapon" under the old ban because it only had one feature, that being a detachable magazine. It just didn't look scary enough to make the grade. One of my firearms is a Colt Sporter, which is nothing more than a Colt AR-15 with a shorter barrel (16") and without enough cosmetic features to make it an "assault weapon". Go figure.


2. Assault weapons can also include handguns if they have certain features, including the detachable magazine. So, just because you are limiting yourself to handguns, don't necessarily believe you don't own an "assaut weapon" under the definition used to describe them.

3. Assault weapons can also include shotguns. See point #2 above.


With the above information in mind, assault weapons can make excellent hunting guns. Guys use AR-15's and clones of those to hunt prairie dogs and other small varmints. Some states allow the use of center fire, .22 caliber rifles for hunting deer. Minnesota recently went that route. I wouldn't personally do it, but hey, to each his own if it's legal. There are some riflles such as an AR-10 which fire .308. That's an excellent caliber for some big game, such as Muley's or Whitetails. One of my hunting buddies took a moose with a .308. He's also taken elk with it.

Assault weapons are used for competition target shooting matches. They are used for just plain old target shooting and plinking. They are fun to shoot. Some folks like the design aspects of certain guns and assault weapons are no different in that regard. Some tend to have less recoil so you can shoot many more rounds without getting a sore shoulder or recoil fatigue.

For some handicapped shooters, assault weapons may be more advantageous to their handicap when it comes to shooting or hunting.

I could go on, but hopefully you get the picture. I like the idea that even though you don't plan to own an "assault weapon", you are not for banning them. Check with the original ban however. One of your handguns may already fall under the silly label of "an assault weapon". That label is and was a political tool invented to ban a whole new class of guns. Charles Krauthammer publicly stated that this was the case.

Also, one of the virulent anti gun group leaders stated that the confusion over semiautomatic vs. machine guns could only help to ban a whole new class of firearms. Remember this if you remember just one thing regarding "assault weapons": It was a term that was invented to further gun control and to eliminate as many firearms from the hands of citizens as was politically possible at the time. They would love to do it again, but the political winds are not blowing with enough force to have the "gun- ban" windmills generate the political energy required to do it.

Glenn E. Meyer
April 29, 2009, 09:27 AM
There is really no difference in efficacy between sporting appearance brown guns (like a Mini-14) and an AR. One might argue about mag capacity but Minis can have higher cap mags also.

It's basically a psychological debate over appearance and a way to ban all guns except for limited sporting use weapons like O/U shotguns and limited mag bolt guns - which would have to be extensively licensed.

As far as handguns - one might argue there is no need for semi auto handguns. The average joe can defend his house from most threats with a SW Model 10.

So let's cut to the chase and have only Model 10s and some duck gun or 3 shot bolt action rifle as acceptable to the public. Now, that's been proposed several times from the sporting gun culture.

Also, limit cars to 55 mph and have governmental radio controlled chastity belts.

USAFNoDak
April 29, 2009, 09:28 AM
I like handguns and don't plan to own an assault rifle - but want to educate myself about their general purpose for others.

One more point on this quote:

Handguns are the firearm of choice for most criminals. Handguns are the predominant firearm used in crimes. So called "assault weapons" are way down the list when it comes to firearms that are used in the commission of a crime.

The reason I point this out is that I've heard some holier than thou folks make the claim that "no one needs an assault weapon and that assault weapons are the guns most often used to shoot cops and commit crimes". I looks like Jimmah Cahtah falls into that category of losers. Handguns are the gun most often used to shoot cops and kill humans. Why don't the anti's go after those first? Because there are too many gun owners who would raise a stink because they own handguns. But when they want to ban assault weapons, those same handgun owners say, "Fine. Go ahead. I don't own any. No one needs one." This is commonly referred to as "divide and conquer". They'll eventually come after the handguns too. Then the shotgun owners and bird hunters will scoff at the notion that anyone needs a handgun in the first place. I've heard it with my own ears. And don't forget the pure sporting arms owners, like Jim Zumbo, who also scoff at the idea that anyone would need an "assault weapon". He got himself fired from a magazine he wrote for by wriiting an article stating that assault weapons are not useful for hunting. I forget if he said he was OK with banning them. But his problem was that many gun owners understand that assault weapons can be used for hunting, and even if they weren't that useful for hunting, the 2nd A. is not about hunting and target shooting. That's where the rubber really meets the road in the political arena.

zxcvbob
April 29, 2009, 09:39 AM
So let's cut to the chase and have only Model 10s and some duck gun or 3 shot bolt action rifle as acceptable to the public. Now, that's been proposed several times from the sporting gun culture.

You mean Saturday Night Specials, baby-killing shotguns, and high-powered sniper rifles? :rolleyes:

(Someone wanna come up with a better pejorative for the duck guns for me?)

Make no mistake, Bloomberg and Schumer and Feinstein and Brady (et al) won't be happy until *all* guns are banned from private hands. (not that I think they'll ever be successful) They never rest, so we have to always be vigilant.

Glenn E. Meyer
April 29, 2009, 09:39 AM
Psych hat on from studies:

1. There are two gun cultures, with some overlap:
a. Sporting, hunting, rural - guns may have an auxiliary use in self-defense but not a prime focus.
b. Urban, suburban self-defense (little or no interest in hunting or sporting clay types of things)

There can be folks who overlap but that's not the main groups.

2. The sporting culture folks have been tested as to their views of assault rifle vs. hunting or brown rifles. On average they are negative to the the EBRs. Supposedly because they are designed primarily to kill. My secret Ouiji link to some sports guns organizations indicate they lack sympathy for the 1b. culture but folks are trying to educate them on the need to stand together.

buzz_knox
April 29, 2009, 09:42 AM
Honestly they don't serve a purpose except for people who don't feel comfortable with either a shotgun or handgun for home defense.

Do you not consider hunting or sports as a purpose, along with self-defense? "Assault rifles" are frequently used for hunting activities, including varmint hunting were the .223 shines. They are also used in service rifle competitions as well as three-gun competitions. These weapons are the type most consistent with the 2nd Amendment itself, which is purpose enough.

We really need to start educating the gun owning community about the facts surrounding so-called assault weapons.

USAFNoDak
April 29, 2009, 09:45 AM
Let me also provide some antecdotal evidence of how successful the antis and the media have been in demonizing "assault weapons" and confusing the general public on the issue of semiautomatic vs. machine guns.

I have a step daughter who was not raised around firearms, until I came into the picture. Heh, heh, heh. I bought my first AR-15 when she was about a Jr. in high school. She's a good kid, so don't take this the wrong way.

I had just purchased that gun and was at home unboxing it when she came home from school. I held it up and said, "How do you like my new toy".

She got this "I just pooped my pants" look on her face and said, "Oh my God! That's a machine gun! Isn't that illegal?". She seemed very scared, and was frozen in her tracks.

I immediately saw the "teachable moment", got her calmed down and explained the differences to her. After that she's been very accepting of firearms. She is now armed with the truth and the proper data, where before, she was filled with the alarmist information that the media and the antis have purposefully pushed into the public realm.


By her intitial reaction, this must have been her thought process, fueled by faulty information:

1. That looks like a machine gun, therefore, it must be a machine gun.

2. Machine guns can go off at any time spraying bullets everywhere and killing anyone within close proximity.

3. Machine guns are illegal and anyone who would own one is a criminal or is at least very dangerous.

That thought process is exactly what the anti gun folks and the anti gun media want to take place. This is why NBC, when reporting on the potential passage of the assault weapons ban prior to 1994, showed video on the nightly news of govt. officials shooting full auto M16's and Uzi's. That was not an accident on their part, nor was it merely misinformed reporting. It had a purpose.

buzz_knox
April 29, 2009, 09:48 AM
The sporting culture folks have been tested as to their views of assault rifle vs. hunting or brown rifles. On average they are negative to the the EBRs

It's too bad that the sporting culture folks don't pay attention to the debates. They would have heard their duck hunting shotgun referred to as an assault weapon, and their scoped rifle as a "sniper rifle" that needs regulation if not prohibition.

KingEdward
April 29, 2009, 09:55 AM
Jimmy Carter considers Hamas among his friends, so I'm not sure how state of the art his thinking is at the moment.

Assault weaspons are very useful IMO.

Without them, we would be at the mosque praying and facing mecca,
or speaking German.

Thank goodness our military has them.

I have no issues what so ever with citizens owning them. I know one individual who owns over 3 dozen of these weapons and he bought most of them just for spite towards Bill and Hilary.

We target shoot with them at a rifle range. That along with some chicken and cole slaw make a real nice saturday afternoon.

USAFNoDak
April 29, 2009, 09:56 AM
You mean Saturday Night Specials, baby-killing shotguns, and high-powered sniper rifles?

(Someone wanna come up with a better pejorative for the duck guns for me?)



OK, how about "street sweeping shotguns". Now, "The Street Sweeper" is a specific model of shotgun and I believe it was banned under the original AWB94. I could be mistaken about that. However, the antis never let any facts get in their way. Calling all shotguns "street sweeping shotguns" can serve to misinform the ingnorant public yet again and help to gain tighter control, if not outright bans, on all guns.

They'd like to get us to the UK model where you can typically only own double barrel scatterguns which are kept at a licensed gun club for which you must be a current member and be licensed as well. You must also have any and all guns you own registered with the govt.

44capnball
April 29, 2009, 09:59 AM
The sporting culture folks ought to take a look at what's happened in other countries. By the time the antis have got done, it is a hassle to even own a BB gun or a .22 single shot.

In England they are even trying to discourage airsoft, because they want to quash any vestige of the gun culture.

buzz_knox
April 29, 2009, 10:02 AM
OK, how about "street sweeping shotguns". Now, "The Street Sweeper" is a specific model of shotgun and I believe it was banned under the original AWB94.

Rotary drum shotguns were banned, and the Street Sweeper itself was declared a Destructive Device under the NFA by ATF.

Remember folks that 12 gauge shotguns are one "not suitable for sporting purposes" declaration away from being treated the same as grenade and rocket launchers. So, in answer to this question

(Someone wanna come up with a better pejorative for the duck guns for me?)


how about the following?

Abnormally large bore weapons that can be bought over the counter only because of the "sporting purpose loophole"

People that think their right to own any kind of firearm is safe are just not paying attention to what the antis want or what is going on. If you support banning any weapon, you are ultimately supporting a ban on your own.

USAFNoDak
April 29, 2009, 10:03 AM
44 capnball posted:In England they are even trying to discourage airsoft, because they want to quash any vestige of the gun culture.


I'd go a little further and say that in England, they are trying to quash any vestige of the "self defense is acceptable" culture. My god, you can't even carry a small knife on you out in public because it can be used as a weapon. What will their military look like when all of their wussified youth get to be of military age. They'll ride rocking horses and have cork guns. Sheesh.

levrluvr
April 29, 2009, 10:24 AM
Psych hat on from studies:

1. There are two gun cultures, with some overlap:
a. Sporting, hunting, rural - guns may have an auxiliary use in self-defense but not a prime focus.
b. Urban, suburban self-defense (little or no interest in hunting or sporting clay types of things)

The perception of the anti-gun/non-shooting public is also split between those two gun cultures.
To those people, a person living in a rural setting with a revolver, a lever action, and a nice over-under shotgun with wood furniture is not seen anywhere near the threat as an urban/suburban dweller with an M&P and an AR, and a short-barreled black stocked shotgun.
We as gun owners and enthusiasts know this to be completely false. We must remember that many of those anti's have received their entire firearm education from exposure to fictional television or video games, biased media, or another anti in the public education/college system.

Dingoboyx
April 29, 2009, 10:36 AM
Guns..... The general, responsible shooting public only use them to punch holes in paper, for sport, to knock clays out of the sky, to recreate the old west (CAS),to put food on the table, basically, to have fun with :D

Apart from the military, LE and when folks are forced to protect their lives and those of their loved ones....... they generally only become weapons in the wrong hands, criminals :eek:

Here in Oz, & in some states in the US, a 10 round mag in a SA HG is perfectly ok..... more than 10 it is an assault weapon??? 1 extra bullet makes all that difference? What if you have 10 + 1 in the spout? Does this change the gun all together instantly? I know in Kalifornja, the same gun with a threaded barrel, instantly becomes illegal?? How stoopid? My Walther P22 has a barrel nut.... so what? In California, the nut has to be glued on so it is no longer an Assault weapon?!

How fast can you change a mag? I can do it pretty quick? So BG can only get 10 round mags? He will just carry a few more mags.... it makes no difference, does it? He might carry 2 or 3 guns each with 10 rounds, as well as spare mags.....

The problem lies in the person who commits the crime.... the gun didn't do it? Perhaps rather than trying to ban certain guns or types of gun, they should put REAL sentences (jail time) on criminals who use guns in crime, so others might not choose guns for the fear of going to jail for a long, long time?

As for the loonies who go berzerk and commit mass shootings, nothing will deter them, if they are trying to commit suicide by cop, or intend to shoot themselves anyway? Whether they choose a SA and lots of mags, or a revolver and lots of speedloaders/moon clips, a bolt action rifle, or whatever, it doesnt really make any difference......

Loonies are just loonies anyway, if they cant get a gun, they might well use a car or truck to run down crowds.... maybe we should ban automatic cars?

People are the problem..... not guns, they just, unfortunately, are the tools the loonies tend to use & the media are too happy to sensationalise this fact.

Guns dont kill people.... PEOPLE kill people..... yes, an old saying, but true

If ALL guns were somehow taken away, PEOPLE would still kill PEOPLE....

I dont know what the answer is, but all this BS about banning a few different types of guns makes no sense at all :confused:

Brian Pfleuger
April 29, 2009, 10:46 AM
Jimmy Carter should stick to the Peanut farming, habitat stuff and the middle east.

Jimmy Carter should practice keeping his mouth shut. He knows nothing of the concept, like most everything else, and really needs to learn it.

Shadi Khalil
April 29, 2009, 11:02 AM
What? 'Got a crystal ball or somethin'?

My crystal ball is in the shop this week, my bad.


Jimmy Carter should practice keeping his mouth shut. He knows nothing of the concept, like most everything else, and really needs to learn it.

I agree, dont talk about things you dont understand. I think there are alot of things he does understand. The thing with Jimmy Carter is, whether he says something good or bad, no ones going to listen.

buzz_knox
April 29, 2009, 11:45 AM
I think there are alot of things he does understand.

A more accurate statement is that there were a lot of things he understood at one point. I believe he's lost the capability for true understanding over the years, due to age and outrage at the way history has treated him.

maestro pistolero
April 29, 2009, 11:49 AM
I think 'ole Jimmeh needs his diaper changed. He's gotten a little grouchy.

P5 Guy
April 29, 2009, 11:55 AM
Maybe Jimmy can move to the Middle East and try taking their assault rifles.

Brian Pfleuger
April 29, 2009, 11:57 AM
delete

zxcvbob
April 29, 2009, 12:02 PM
Carter did one good thing while in office; he started a comprehensive national energy policy. IIRC, even had solar collectors on the White House.

Reagan dismantled it as soon as he got in office.

Oh, and one other thing I almost forgot about. Carter signed the law that legalized home brewing of beer. (Wine was already legal, but beer technically was not)

Playboypenguin
April 29, 2009, 12:04 PM
I once volunteered on a Habitat for Humanity program outside of Atlanta where I got to meet former Pres. Carter and even work along side him for a day. In my opinion Jimmy Carter is an amazing man, he is an impressive intellectual, he is an exemplary human being, he is an outstanding motivator, and he is an example of compassion and humanity that most men and women could only dream of comparing to....but he is a horrible politician and just too far left to be setting public policy.

Markbb
April 29, 2009, 01:58 PM
I guess I had to jump in on this one since I own the dreaded black rifle...remember the 2A is not about hunting period...but I use my ARs for hunting especially the 458 SoCom knocks wild ferrel pigs down like the hand of God reached down and smacked it...and yes we here in Oklahoma and Texas have a real big problem with these critters...Carter has nothing to lose by making those outragous comments he surly not going to hold another elected postion if he can get elected...I took an oath when I was 18yrs old to support and defend the constitution against enemys foriegn and domestic...just my 2centavos

USAFNoDak
April 29, 2009, 02:47 PM
I once volunteered on a Habitat for Humanity program outside of Atlanta where I got to meet former Pres. Carter and even work along side him for a day. In my opinion Jimmy Carter is an amazing man, he is an impressive intellectual, he is an exemplary human being, he is an outstanding motivator, and he is an example of compassion and humanity that most men and women could only dream of comparing to....but he is a horrible politician and just too far left to be setting public policy.


Those are some of the same sentiments I have about GHW Bush, except he's not too far left or too far right. I thought he was a mediocre politician at best, but I suspect he is a pretty good human being, and an amazing man in real life. He did some good things, but he failed at others. I think he tried to be too nice at times and was a go along to get along Prez. That often doesn't translate into good leadership. I almost felt like he didn't want to be the Prez anymore in his campaign battle against Clinton. Maybe he found it too hard to be nice and be a leader, all at the same time. That's just my opinion. I never met him as you had met Carter.

Note: Back to the topic at hand, my younger brother just joined ranks with us EBR owners. That's Evil Black Rifle owners for those of you in Rio Linda, CA. He bought a DPMS with a 20" barrel. Looks nice in the picture. I'll have to visit him in a couple of weeks to help him break it in. Aim small, miss small.

oldcspsarge
April 29, 2009, 03:46 PM
By JIMMY CARTER
Published: April 26, 2009
Atlanta


Times Topics: Gun Control
THE evolution in public policy concerning the manufacture, sale and possession of semiautomatic assault weapons like AK-47s, AR-15s and Uzis has been very disturbing. Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and I all supported a ban on these formidable firearms, and one was finally passed in 1994.

When the 10-year ban was set to expire, many police organizations — including 1,100 police chiefs and sheriffs from around the nation — called on Congress and President George W. Bush to renew and strengthen it. But with a wink from the White House, the gun lobby prevailed and the ban expired.

I have used weapons since I was big enough to carry one, and now own two handguns, four shotguns and three rifles, two with scopes. I use them carefully, for hunting game from our family woods and fields, and occasionally for hunting with my family and friends in other places. We cherish the right to own a gun and some of my hunting companions like to collect rare weapons. One of them is a superb craftsman who makes muzzle-loading rifles, one of which I displayed for four years in my private White House office.

But none of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives. That’s why the White House and Congress must not give up on trying to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, even if it may be politically difficult.

An overwhelming majority of Americans, including me and my hunting companions, believe in the right to own weapons, but surveys show that they also support modest restraints like background checks, mandatory registration and brief waiting periods before purchase.

A majority of Americans also support banning assault weapons. Many of us who hunt are dismayed by some of the more extreme policies of the National Rifle Association, the most prominent voice in opposition to a ban, and by the timidity of public officials who yield to the group’s unreasonable demands.

Heavily influenced and supported by the firearms industry, N.R.A. leaders have misled many gullible people into believing that our weapons are going to be taken away from us, and that homeowners will be deprived of the right to protect ourselves and our families. The N.R.A. would be justified in its efforts if there was a real threat to our constitutional right to bear arms. But that is not the case.

Instead, the N.R.A. is defending criminals’ access to assault weapons and use of ammunition that can penetrate protective clothing worn by police officers on duty. In addition, while the N.R.A. seems to have reluctantly accepted current law restricting sales by licensed gun dealers to convicted felons, it claims that only “law-abiding people” obey such restrictions — and it opposes applying them to private gun dealers or those who sell all kinds of weapons from the back of a van or pickup truck at gun shows.

What are the results of this profligate ownership and use of guns designed to kill people? In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported more than 30,000 people died from firearms, accounting for nearly 20 percent of all injury deaths. In 2005, every nine hours a child or teenager in the United States was killed in a firearm-related accident or suicide.

Across our border, Mexican drug cartels are being armed with advanced weaponry imported from the United States — a reality only the N.R.A. seems to dispute.

The gun lobby and the firearms industry should reassess their policies concerning safety and accountability — at least on assault weapons — and ease their pressure on acquiescent politicians who fear N.R.A. disapproval at election time. We can’t let the N.R.A.’s political blackmail prevent the banning of assault weapons — designed only to kill police officers and the people they defend.

Jimmy Carter, the 39th president, is the winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize.

USAFNoDak
April 29, 2009, 04:31 PM
Let's address some of President Carter's points:

have used weapons since I was big enough to carry one, and now own two handguns, four shotguns and three rifles, two with scopes. I use them carefully, for hunting game from our family woods and fields, and occasionally for hunting with my family and friends in other places. We cherish the right to own a gun and some of my hunting companions like to collect rare weapons.

This guy is a certifiable nut case. His age is affecting his thinking, it would seem. So, he owns sniper rifles, eh? He also owns handguns which are the weapon of choice for criminals who kill cops, innocent people, and other criminals. I use all of my guns carefully as well, including my "assault weapons". I too like to collect rare weapons. So, I'm just as much of a good guy as he is.

But none of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives. That’s why the White House and Congress must not give up on trying to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, even if it may be politically difficult.

I have no desire to kill a policeman or anyone else for that matter, be it at a school or workplace. I could kill with a sniper rifle, or with a handgun as the guy did at V-Tech. So why does Carter own handguns then? He's tilted so far left that he fell off his park bench. I don't want to take my own life with a gun or any other weapon. Does he? I don't want to be shot by cops. Yet, I still want to own my assault weapons. Am I just weird or is he just crazy?

A majority of Americans also support banning assault weapons. Many of us who hunt are dismayed by some of the more extreme policies of the National Rifle Association, the most prominent voice in opposition to a ban, and by the timidity of public officials who yield to the group’s unreasonable demands.

Proof please Mr. Prez. I've not seen a poll lately on how many people want to ban assault weapons. 65 of his own party members in Congress sent a letter to the current AG and told the AG to lay off pushing for an AWB. Are they just stooges of the NRA? Are they scared of the NRA? Why would they be scared? Because NRA members might vote them out? Too bad. That's our political system at work Mr. Prez.

Heavily influenced and supported by the firearms industry, N.R.A. leaders have misled many gullible people into believing that our weapons are going to be taken away from us, and that homeowners will be deprived of the right to protect ourselves and our families. The N.R.A. would be justified in its efforts if there was a real threat to our constitutional right to bear arms. But that is not the case.

He says that the NRA is misleading gullble people into believing that our weapons will be taken away from us in an article he wrote proposing that we have our assault weapons taken away from us. Who's gullible again, here, Mr. Prez.? Who's gone off the deep end?

Instead, the N.R.A. is defending criminals’ access to assault weapons and use of ammunition that can penetrate protective clothing worn by police officers on duty. In addition, while the N.R.A. seems to have reluctantly accepted current law restricting sales by licensed gun dealers to convicted felons, it claims that only “law-abiding people” obey such restrictions — and it opposes applying them to private gun dealers or those who sell all kinds of weapons from the back of a van or pickup truck at gun shows.


I have yet to hear the NRA say that criminals should have access to ANY guns. I've heard them say that criminals should be locked up so they can't get guns and commit more crimes.

There is no such thing as "private dealers". You can sell a gun without a license from your private collection, but you can't be engaged in the business of selling guns for profit without being licensed. Again, he seems confused. Alzheimiers? No joke, but I think he may be there. His scoped rifles could also penetrate cops protective vests, depending upon what caliber they are. He's either looney, misinformed, or disingenous. Boy, he really hates the NRA, doesn't he. Too much hate is probably stressful on his heart and nerves at his age. He should let go of the hate and relax a little.

What are the results of this profligate ownership and use of guns designed to kill people? In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported more than 30,000 people died from firearms, accounting for nearly 20 percent of all injury deaths. In 2005, every nine hours a child or teenager in the United States was killed in a firearm-related accident or suicide.


Um, don't many liberals say that all guns are designed for one thing, to kill? Don't many liberals say that handguns are only designed for killing? Why does he own any handguns. Why does he own any guns? Do I hear Rod Serling talking in the background?

The CDC numbers include all guns, not just assault weapons. Why does he own any guns then? Has he entered "The Twighlight Zone"? He's in the twighlight of his life and it's obviously taking a toll on his ability to think rationally and with logic. Again, most of those deaths and injuries are associated with handguns which he owns. He should be feeling really guilty, but he can't think straight anymore.

Across our border, Mexican drug cartels are being armed with advanced weaponry imported from the United States — a reality only the N.R.A. seems to dispute.


They don't dispute it. They dispute that the majority of the guns are coming from licensed gun dealers in the US because most of these guns are coming from the US govt. and other countries such as China and Venezuela. Much of the weaponry is full auto, hand grenades, RPG's, frag grenades, rocket launchers, etc. You can't buy that crap at a dealer or a gun show in the US Mr. Prez. Is he confused by the media and Obama or is he just lying to support Obama and a new AWB?

The gun lobby and the firearms industry should reassess their policies concerning safety and accountability — at least on assault weapons — and ease their pressure on acquiescent politicians who fear N.R.A. disapproval at election time. We can’t let the N.R.A.’s political blackmail prevent the banning of assault weapons — designed only to kill police officers and the people they defend.


More irrational hatred of the NRA. There is a reason that politicians fear the NRA. How often do we hear that the SAF or the GOA need to be held up for public scrutiny for their policies on gun rights? They are not publicly and politically powerful enough for the pols to worry about. But the NRA, with 4 million plus members who cherish their right to vote as much as their right to keep and bear arms, they must be paid attention to. So what? That's how politics works.

Now you can see why he was only a one term failure as a leader. Sheesh. He's daffy.

Creature
April 29, 2009, 04:42 PM
Published in the NY Times...

Al Norris
April 29, 2009, 04:51 PM
I feel a merge coming on....

Hkmp5sd
April 29, 2009, 05:09 PM
"The Real Jimmy Carter: How Our Worst Ex-President Undermines American Foreign Policy, Coddles Dictators and Created the Party of Clinton and Kerry" by Steven F. Hayward
(http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Real-Jimmy-Carter/Steven-F-Hayward/e/9780895260901/?itm=5)

Webleymkv
April 29, 2009, 05:29 PM
I see no reason to get worked up over this. Jimmy Carter has about as much sway in this matter as the Queen of England: not much.

Vanya
April 29, 2009, 07:08 PM
And the Queen is better-looking.

She's probably a better hunter than Mr. Carter, as well; does anyone else remember the time, a few years back, when she got into all sorts of trouble with the animal-rights crowd for dispatching a wounded pheasant?

USAFNoDak
April 29, 2009, 07:33 PM
And the Queen is better-looking.

And smarter. :)

freakintoguns
April 29, 2009, 08:04 PM
30K people died in 2006 form gunshot wounds???? OMG what about all the other people that died from oh i dunno, heart attacks strokes cancer AIDS drug over doses ETC ETC? 30K is minor in a country with 300M people ( give our takea few). also, how many of those deaths were people shot by polie officers? i hate when people try to skew numbers for to gain favor amongst the sheep. we really need more sheep dogs. i think the media and the government truly fears smart people

stilettosixshooter
April 29, 2009, 08:27 PM
#1 - Thank you for taking me at my word that I am anti-ban. :)

#2 - Thank you for taking the time to explain things to me calmly and patiently.

I am a total gun novice, saw one of the "scary guns" in person for the first time a week or two ago at the gun shop. Was actually the first time I'd even been in a gun shop. But since joining the gun community (with the assistance and guidance of my family and a few friends who shoot regularly) I have been anxious to discuss the gun-related things I am learning with others. :rolleyes: The "assault weapon" issue invariably comes up, and although my instinct is to shy away from any gun ban, my inexperience keeps me from saying much for-or-against. Thus, my question :)

Maestro:
You seem to have no bias against military style rifles, so the fact that your question quietly assumes there is a performance difference between what some people call an assault weapon, and any other semi-automatic firearm, is an indication of how deeply ingrained the so-called assault weapon myth is in the culture. And it IS a myth.

I did assume there was a performance difference - and am pleasantly surprised to find otherwise. That lends support to my anti-ban instinct. :p

I think the myth is VERY deeply ingrained - mostly because of image association. Terrorists always hoist the "scary guns" in their pictures, soldiers use them in violent war movies, crazy renegade military forces abroad fire them into the sky off rickety truck beds. Semi-automatic or otherwise, the "look" has negative associations for folks.

Is there a way to increase visibility of a semi-automatic rifle as owned by responsible, trustworthy citizens? How do we educate people who, like me, don't even realize there was a question I wasn't asking about the "assault weapon" category?

USA:
Already we can see some confusion by the person who posted the above quote. I'm not trying to denigrate that poster, but it's important to point out some errors or potential errors in his above statement. He did mention that he wants to be educated, so here goes.

She, she! :) And yes, I am glad you took the time to educate. Thank you.



Not to sound disbelieving, but am I understanding correctly that the rifles shoot the same calibers as the semi-automatic handguns? Is there any meaningful difference between the velocity of a same-caliber bullet shot out of a different gun?

I am trying to wrap my head around my own misinformed-ness. I feel duped! 'Cause I have been! :mad: Kindof want one for HD now. Might as well put the negative image associate to good use - against the BGs!

buzz_knox
April 29, 2009, 08:50 PM
Not to sound disbelieving, but am I understanding correctly that the rifles shoot the same calibers as the semi-automatic handguns? Is there any meaningful difference between the velocity of a same-caliber bullet shot out of a different gun?

There are many pistol caliber carbines, just as there are more than a few rifle caliber pistols. The increased barrel length typically found on the carbines provides some increased velocity but not as much as you'd expect because the powder has ceased burning (having been designed to be consumed within a pistol barrel's length). You do get increased accuracy over a pistol, ease of shooting, and cheap cross training.

Tom Servo
April 29, 2009, 08:54 PM
30K people died in 2006 form gunshot wounds???? OMG what about all the other people that died from oh i dunno, heart attacks strokes cancer AIDS drug over doses

More people die of bedsores (http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/b/bedsores/deaths.htm) in this country every year than from firearms. In fact, more people die from unnecessary medical procedures (http://www.ourcivilisation.com/medicine/usamed/deaths.htm).

The WISQARS (http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html) database can be very useful for this stuff. The VPC has been caught trying to massage statistics for awhile, and this was a way I once tripped them up.

Bear in mind, that ~30,000 figure includes all causes. That means homicide, suicide, and "accidents," a catch-all which often includes suicide. Actual gun violence hovers ~11,000.

It's not a pretty number, but I can produce statistics against which gun violence pales in comparison. A high-school age child is 9 times as likely to die playing football than from a bullet.

Oh, and one other thing I almost forgot about. Carter signed the law that legalized home brewing of beer.
Billy Beer! I still have a six-pack in the garage somewhere.

He's a good human being and a great humanitarian. I'm not happy with his views, but as I said earlier, they hold no weight.

Glenn E. Meyer
April 30, 2009, 10:44 AM
There is a problem in using other causes of death in arguments. Now, students - here's the point. The intent in the causality of the death affects people more than the actual numbers.

More people die in accidents or from bedsores or doctors, etc. Your emotional mind may not care. Why - they view the firearm as an instrument designed to do harm (yes, it's just a tool - sings the choir unconvincingly to the nongun world). Thus, a death from an intentional instrument of harm is more reprehensible than a side effect of medical care or a mode of transportation.

EBRs clearly descending from a line of killing instruments and arouse negative feelings in some - INCLUDING many of the sports shooting inclination.

So if you do argue the point about EBRs - you need to know the processes that are active in their evaluation outside of the views of our choir. And you need to know that some of these arguments are not very effective if they are being viewed by fast, emotional based affective evaluation processes.

Simply saying they are not that dangerous, doctors kill more or it's the 2nd Amend. may not carry the debate.

carguychris
April 30, 2009, 11:16 AM
Thus, a death from an intentional instrument of harm is more reprehensible than a side effect of medical care or a mode of transportation.

EBRs clearly descending from a line of killing instruments and arouse negative feelings in some - INCLUDING many of the sports shooting inclination.

So if you do argue the point about EBRs - you need to know the processes that are active in their evaluation outside of the views of our choir. And you need to know that some of these arguments are not very effective if they are being viewed by fast, emotional based affective evaluation processes.
+1. IMHO the arguments in support of legal EBR ownership should emphasize the fact that thay have plenty of use in legitimate shooting sports, that they're useful for legal self-defense, that they lack full-auto capability like the guns you see on TV in the hands of BGs and terrorists, and that plenty of law-abiding citizens own them and never use them to commit any kind of crime.

It should also be emphasized that most criminals don't use EBRs, criminalizing them would merely prop up the black market and support the mafia, and that the Mexican drug cartels have plenty of sources of illegal weapons other than U.S. straw buyers who are already breaking multiple U.S. federal laws to supply them.

Most people lack the attention span to listen to us explain the difference between an "intermediate-power" and "full-power" cartridge, and may not care anyway. Most U.S. citizens do not have a strong and tangible fear of federal government tyranny, and trying to convince them otherwise will just cause them to tune us out, or worse yet, to write off all gun-rights supporters as potentially violent revolutionary nutcases. :(

To get back to the original topic, I deeply admire Jimmy Carter for his outspokenness and his human-rights work, but he's wrong on this one.

I also think that the gun-rights lobby needs to think of ways to generate positive PR on the EBR issue.

All IMHO of course. :)

maestro pistolero
April 30, 2009, 01:27 PM
Not to sound disbelieving, but am I understanding correctly that the rifles shoot the same calibers as the semi-automatic handguns?


Generally, no. Some 'long guns' shoot pistol ammo like 9mm and 45, and are often referred to as carbines. Although a carbine may also be somewhat diminutive rifle that, in fact uses rifle ammo.

Few pistols shoot rifle ammo, but there are exceptions, AR pistols, for example. Pistols that use rifle ammo have limited usefulness in my opinion.

Is there any meaningful difference between the velocity of a same-caliber bullet shot out of a different gun?

Not so much with pistols that use pistol ammo, There is a difference, but since pistols all have relatively short barrels, it is not much.

With pistols that use rifle ammo, there is a significant loss in velocity that the round depends upon for its effectiveness, also a loss in sight radius (the distance between the front and rear sight that helps to place accurate fire), and the inability to 'shoulder' the gun (no buttstock), which is the integral part of rifle technique that enables accurate fire at distance.

Pistol ammo is usually short and fat, and is most useful for up close use, say, under 50 feet. Actual defensive situations are usually much closer than that, often just a few feet away.

Rifle ammo is also useful up close, but, depending on the caliber, may pose a safety hazard if used in, say, an apartment complex, where any stray rounds could penetrate walls and endanger innocents.

5.56 nato, aka .223 Remington (the AR15/M16 round) may be the most powerful rifle round that would be prudent in such confined living quarters, because it's a light round whose effectiveness is greatly diminished by walls, etc. Choosing an even lighter, hollow point round for home defense in this caliber can reduce overpenetration issues even further. (hollow points tend to stop in their targets better rather than punch right through, also true for handgun ammo)

Is there a way to increase visibility of a semi-automatic rifle as owned by responsible, trustworthy citizens? How do we educate people who, like me, don't even realize there was a question I wasn't asking about the "assault weapon" category?


If you can figure that one out, the NRA will host a parade for you. It is difficult, if not impossible at times, to get any fair play from the mainstream media outlets. There are a few exceptions, CNN's Lou Dobbs being one of them.

Hope this helps, Stilletto.

carguychris
April 30, 2009, 02:03 PM
Not to sound disbelieving, but am I understanding correctly that the rifles shoot the same calibers as the semi-automatic handguns? Is there any meaningful difference between the velocity of a same-caliber bullet shot out of a different gun?
Yes and no. It depends on several variables. This is a slight sidetrack, but I'll try to keep this brief.

As powder burns, it creates a column of expanding hot gas that pushes the bullet down the barrel. Think of it as an expanding cylinder; as the bullet moves down the barrel, the cylinder gets taller.

When the powder is completely burned, the pressure of the column of hot gas drops off sharply. From that point, the bullet is slowed down by friction between the surface of the bullet and the inside of the barrel. Therefore, there is an optimal barrel length for each cartridge, one that gives the gas enough room to expand, but no extra room to cause the bullet velocity to decline due to friction. This optimal length is determined by the type of powder, the shape of the bullet, and the capacity and shape of the cartridge case.

Pistol cartridges typically have small cases filled with fast-burning powder pushing a relatively large-diameter bullet. The diameter is important because greater diameter equals more surface area rubbing against the barrel, and therefore more friction. The small case and fast-burning powder will accelerate the bullet quickly, but the gas will be expended quickly, and velocity will drop off if the barrel is too long.

Conversely, most modern rifles use a large case filled with slow-burning powder and a relatively small-diameter bullet. This type of cartridge needs a longer barrel to give the gas enough room to expand, but yields a much higher ultimate velocity. If the barrel is too short, the excess hot gas will wastefully blow out the end of the barrel, creating lots of muzzle flash and contributing little to the velocity of the bullet. (Ask anyone who has ever fired a lightweight short-barreled carbine in a high-powered rifle caliber. Think "fireball". :eek: )

Most pistol-caliber carbines will fire bullets at somewhat higher velocities than the same load in a handgun, but the difference can be small, and such carbines are usually offered only in relatively high-powered, high-velocity pistol calibers (like .44 Magnum) with relatively short barrels by rifle standards (16"-18"). This minimizes the theoretical performance disadvantages.

OK, back on topic now. ;)

maestro pistolero
April 30, 2009, 02:12 PM
This is a slight sidetrack

I just realized that myself. Hey Stilleto, if you still have questions, may I suggest starting another thread in the general discussion area. I will be happy to try to answer there.

Cheers

USAFNoDak
April 30, 2009, 02:28 PM
She, she! And yes, I am glad you took the time to educate. Thank you.


Oops, my mistake. I should have paid more attention to your moniker. The hints of gender are flowing from it like bullets from an AR-15 (just to keep it gun related).

I hope my post helped. Because "assault weapons" is a political term, made up to fool people who are not well versed in firearms and firearms technology, it can become very confusing as to what an assault weapon is. Is it a handgun? It could be. Is it a rifle? Possibly. It all depends upon the cosmetic features which it has.

As a previous poster mentioned, most handguns use bullets and cases designed for handguns, such as 9mm, .40 S&W, .357 magnum, .38 special, .45 ACP (auto colt pistol, which is really semiautomatic). Most rifles use bullets and cases which were designed for rifles, such as .223, 30-30, 30-06, .270, .308, etc. There are exceptions however. You can get some rifles chambered for handgun cartridges and vice versa, again, as a previous poster pointed out.

When it comes to "assault weapons", don't focus on the caliber, until you get a little further down the line on your education.

The main things to remember are, they must be semiautomics, not machine guns. Machine guns are formally called "assault rifles", not "assault weapons". They must have detachable magazine. And they cannot have more than two other cosmetic features. A folding stock, a collapsable stock, a pistol grip, a flash suppressor, a barrel shroud would be some examples of cosmetic features. They are called cosmetic features because they don't change the performance of the gun.

Here's a good example. A Colt AR-15 was labeled an assault weapon under the now expired ban. It shot the .223 round, is a semiautomatic, has a pistol grip, a flash suppressor, a bayonet lug and can have a folding stock or collapsable stock but not necessarily. It can also have a fixed stock. But, it looks "evil" to anti gunners. It looks just like the M-16, which is a full auto capable firearm. The M-16 is an "assault rifle".

The Ruger Mini-14, is also a semiautomatic rifle which has a detachable magazine and uses the .223 round. So, it should be an "assault weapon", shouldn't it? Its functionally the same as the AR-15, but it "looks" different. It has a traditional looking stock, not the pistol grip and barrel shroud stock style of the AR-15. It doesn't have a bayonet lug. It doesn't have flash suppressor.

When the assault weapons ban was put in place, companies who made AR-15's removed some cosmetic features such as the flash suppressor and bayonet mount, and they were then legal to sell. Even though these companies followed the law to a "tee", they were then accused of exploiting a "loophole" in the law which allowed them to continue to sell "assault weapons".

Are you getting the idea how crazy this ban was? Are you getting the gist of the situtation that this is about banning more guns, not about making anyone safer or reducing crime? It's politics, pure and simple.

I hope this too helps to get you educated so that you can start to dismiss some of the people who push for an assault weapons ban. The very first thing to do is play "dumb" and ask them, "what, specifically, defines an assault weapon?". Watch them go into contortions trying to define the term accurately. For some of them it's like pornography. They can't describe it but they know it when they see it.

Some of the folks who came up with the list of which firearms were banned sat down with a book of pictures of various firearms and picked out the ones they thought should be banned because those firearms "looked" too military in nature. Dianne Feinstein was amongst those lugnuts who did that.

Isn't it great when we are passing federal legislation which infringes on law abiding gun owners rights because some Senators selected some EBR's (evil black rifles) from pictures, which looked too dangerous, and banned them for sale. Great! Just friggen great!

I just thought I might also add this. Some of the guns which were banned were banned by their name, such as AR-15. Thus, when Colt removed the flash suppressor and bayonet lug, they called it a HBAR-15 so that it was not banned due to its name alone. This is one of the "loopholes" the gun banners complained about, when it was their own stupidity which banned guns by name alone, rather than certain functions.

carguychris
April 30, 2009, 03:50 PM
I greatly enjoyed USAFNoDak's post, but I'd like to add one more little example of absurdity. :)

One of the primary items banned was magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Not necessarily the firearms that used them... the magazines themselves. This essentially swept up a bunch of firearms into the ban that most average non-gun-owners wouldn't identify as an "assault weapon"- namely many semi-automatic pistols.

Here's where the absurdity comes in. Manfacturers were required to make magazines that couldn't possibly accept more than 10 rounds, but they didn't have to change the firearm itself. Hence, semi-auto pistol makers started making magazines with a couple of large bumps stamped into the sides to prevent the remaining 1-7 "evil" rounds from being able to fit. (These magazines are actually still made for states that extended the AWB by state law.) However, most of these pistols could still accept higher-capacity magazines made before the ban. Some of these pistols had been sold for decades with higher-capacity magazines, so they were readily available on the street. New high-cap magazines were also available to law enforcement personnel to replace those that they "lost".

So, were the pistols "assault weapons"... or not? This exercise in lawmaking accomplished... what, exactly?

USAFNoDak
April 30, 2009, 04:23 PM
CarguyChris, that's an excellent point and I am embarrassed that I forgot about the goofy 10 round magazine ban which was encapsulated in the now expired AWB94. I've kicked myself in the rear, solidy, one time.

As you have pointed out, this was another confusing piece of the AWB94. I own a Browining Hi Power which is a 9mm and has a 13 round magazine. I have several magazines that I've purchased over the years. After the AWB, you could only buy 10 round magazines, although there were still 13 rounders available. The 13 rounders just went up in price is all. But the pistol itself still fired and worked the same, whether you had 13 rounds or 10 rounds. With 13 rounds my pistol is considered an "assault weapon". With 10 rounds it's not an "assault weapon", it's just an ordinary handgun, I guess.

See how silly this became. Plus, I could just carry three 10 round magazines instead of two 13 round magazines and actually have 4 extra rounds. It doesn't take much time to change a magazine. I can do it in less than 2 seconds and closer to 1 second.

Think about this from a criminal perspective. If I want to go shoot up a school, I probably know at least two things for sure. There will be no one armed at the school, or if there is, it may be only one security guard. I will target him first. Once he's down, I can shoot people like fish in a barrel. Oh sure, they'll call 911. But when the cops show up, they'll take their time setting up a perimeter while trying to figure out just what the heck is going on inside. Are there multiple shooters, bombs, etc.? Meanwhile, I can casually walk around shooting whomever I feel like, and change magazines when I need to. When I have one round of ammo left, I take myself out. So tell me, how does limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds really do anything as far as preventing crime?

Also, keep in mind that the sniper in Washington, D.C. had Bushmaster variant of the AR-15 which can hold magazines of 5, 10, 20, 30, or even 40 rounds. He never fired more than twice, IIRC. So a 10 round limit would have done nothing to change his MO.

It was all a bunch of political horse hockey and it died like it should have. There are folks who want it back, but they know the political winds aren't blowing in the right direction right now. That's because many of the american people are smart enough to learn the facts and can see what a worthless attempt at banning guns the AWB94 really was.

maestro pistolero
April 30, 2009, 04:30 PM
Also, keep in mind that the sniper in Washington, D.C. had Bushmaster variant of the AR-15 . . . He never fired more than twice, IIRC.

Never thought of that, all we heard about was AR15!, AR15! He could have done as much damage with a good musket.

USAFNoDak
April 30, 2009, 04:39 PM
Never thought of that, all we heard about was AR15!, AR15! He could have done as much damage with a good musket.


You are right Maestro. It's all about marketing and spin when it comes to the anti gunners and their friends in the media. I think they wish and pray that criminals would use "assault weapons" so that they can write more exciting stories about it. Using the term "assault weapons" in a crime report sends a tingle up their legs. They think it will help them move the ball down the field in the game of gun bans.

Tennessee Gentleman
April 30, 2009, 05:25 PM
There is a problem in using other causes of death in arguments. Now, students - here's the point.

Thanks Glenn. Good point to make and this one:

Why - they view the firearm as an instrument designed to do harm (yes, it's just a tool - sings the choir unconvincingly to the nongun world).

And that singing is inane. When I here those on our side trying to argue that a gun is no more dangerous than a baseball bat I just sadly shake my head. I really think we lose a lot of credibility in the public forum of ideas when we try those silly comparisons. Firearms are dangerous and they are designed to kill. We should acknowledge that up front and get to the real part of the debate, which is crime. Guns aren't evil but they aren't noble either.

Simply saying they are not that dangerous, doctors kill more or it's the 2nd Amend. may not carry the debate.

But will make us look silly.

BTW, you had said earlier I think that an AR-15 did not have as much efficacy as other hunting rifles and I was wondering what you based that on. Just curious since the military uses them I figured they were pretty good at killing lots of people.

maestro pistolero
April 30, 2009, 06:49 PM
BTW, you had said earlier I think that an AR-15 did not have as much efficacy as other hunting rifles and I was wondering what you based that on. Just curious since the military uses them I figured they were pretty good at killing lots of people.

Of course all guns are potentially lethal. You may be referring to a comment of mine. I was merely pointing out that, contrary to popular belief, the 5.56 rounds fired by an M16/AR15 are not more powerful than many, if not most common hunting cartridges.

Tennessee Gentleman
April 30, 2009, 08:52 PM
maestro pistolero,

No it was Glenn in post #11

There is really no difference in efficacy between sporting appearance brown guns (like a Mini-14) and an AR. One might argue about mag capacity but Minis can have higher cap mags also.

He is right but I think the next AWB attempt will include the Mini-14 and will be pointed more at capability and not looks. I have heard Carolyn McCarthy say that as well.

Even though I would be opposed to a AWB I think the antis will have a good emotional point with banning them. However, 2009 is not 1994 and the EBR is much more widespread than before so that might make a difference. I hope.

USAFNoDak
April 30, 2009, 09:20 PM
He is right but I think the next AWB attempt will include the Mini-14 and will be pointed more at capability and not looks. I have heard Carolyn McCarthy say that as well.

Then they will have to ban any semiautomatic rifle that takes a detachable magazine. That's all the mini-14 really is. It's a .223 rifle which accepts a detachable magazine. It has no other "cosmetic features" which would make it an assault weapon.

I agree with you that they will try to include the mini-14 to take away the arguement that banning AR-15's while not banning the mini-14 is pointless. But then they start trampling on the rights of the "sporting arms" gun owners. This could help to unify more gun owners.

I also think that they will eventually run up against some opposition at the USSC if they try to ban the mini-14, as it is no different from other semi automatic rifles out there. It has no flash suppressor, bayonet lug, pistol grip, etc. It's a common "sporting" rifle, at least in my opinion, whatever that's worth.

We will have to fight hard against a new assault weapons ban when they get ready to try and ram it through. They are biding their time for now, but they are also planning. The Mexican Drug cartel issue is just one piece of that plan. They will continue to lump any crime where a semiautomatic firearm is used into a call for a new assault weapons ban. The media will carry their water for them. They hope to eventually have the political winds blowing in the right direction to enable them to strike. I have no doubts as to if, but I don't know just when.

skydiver3346
April 30, 2009, 10:04 PM
First of all, I don't use the term "assault Rifle" anymore. It seems to have a negative effect when talking to folks that don't really understand our reasoning or desire to own and/or shoot them. They are not fully automatic as most of these dummies think.
Also, the reason there is so much debate and discussion about these type of guns can be blamed on liberals who are trying to get rid of them. This usually makes other folks go out and buy them, (if they think they will no longer be able to purchase these weapons). Same for ammo, etc.
It is my right to own a semi automatic rifle and sure as hell isn't anyone else's business if I do (in my opinion). I am a law abiding citizen and have never been arrested, etc. I just like to own different guns and my AR15 just happens to be one of my "new" favorites. I do believe that (as we speak) our present Congress is trying to get rid of these type of guns.
What's next after the elimination of semi automatic rifles? Automatic pistols?

Tennessee Gentleman
April 30, 2009, 11:26 PM
Then they will have to ban any semiautomatic rifle that takes a detachable magazine. That's all the mini-14 really is. It's a .223 rifle which accepts a detachable magazine.

Either that or ban the higher capacity magazines but I think that any rifle that can fire a whole lot (more than 10) rounds in a real fast (semi-automatic )fashion will be in danger. I think they can make a case with the public that nobody "needs" to have that type of firearm.

My hope is that since so many own them now that will be harder to do; that is to paint them as a "fringe" weapon.

Al Norris
April 30, 2009, 11:31 PM
I'm afraid that the lock comes now. We have strayed very far from the OP.

Anyone is more than welcome to discuss the legal steps towards another AWB, or the legal steps to thwart another AWB.

For now, this one is closed for going off topic.