The Gun Thing

I just can't seem to get past this subject. Maybe it is me looking for it more these days, but everywhere I turn, it seems that some Congresscritter or SoccerMom has got it in for the guns.

Funny thing is, they can't seem to stand on any kind of philosophically clean position.  Some seem to be OK with the idea of "hunting guns" but not with "assault weapons".  The trouble is, they wouldn't know the real difference between the two, even if they can identify one from the other.

I mean, what really turns a rifle into an assault weapon?  I must admit, and I have a lifetime's worth of firearms experience to back it up, that I can't really sort this out.

The typical "assault rifle" is a military pattern rifle, in a semi-automatic only fire control configuration (trigger), with a large capacity magazine, shooting an intermediate caliber cartridge.  Now it is easy for the uninformed to look at that definition and say, "See, YOU even defined what it is."  The trouble is, that doesn't really get very far, as far as the VPC, HCI and the rest of the usual dreggs are concerned.

You see, a typical AR-15 (a civilianized version of the military M-16), may look ominous, and it certainly can kill something, but its cartridge is NOT very powerful.

The military 5.56x45 SS109 type ammunition that is currently used by all NATO forces uses a projectile that is quite small and is not very heavy.  It is, however, quite fast, at about 3100 feet/second of velocity at the muzzle.

The cartridge that it replaced, by comparison, is, by most experts accounts, the BEST military cartridge ever devised.  The 7.62x51, used in the excellent M-14 from 1957 to the late 60's, IS a very serious cartridge.  It has a substantially heavier projectile and almost as much velocity and delivers 2.5 times the energy of the 5.56.

Now the civilianized version of the 7.62, slightly modified chambering dimensions, courtesy of Winchester in about 1955 - before the armed forces adopted it even, has become a standard for target shooters and hunters.  It is perfectly suited for everything from varmints to deer and even larger game with good bullet selection.

So, again, what really constitutes an assault rifle; a high capacity sporter rifle in semi auto, shooting a weak cartridge, or a 5 shot semi auto Remington 7400 in .308?

No way to put any kind of quantitative analysis on this.  Period.  They are just different.  Either could be used for hunting, although any ethical hunter would probably limit the 5.56 to varmints and small game.

The  "hunting gun" was designed for killing.  Somehow this offends some.  No amount of counting features or magazine limitations will make a difference.  It will still kill.  The "assault weapon" will kill as well.  That is what is was designed to do also.

That is why I will never give in to the stupid mentality that the "we must do something" brigade keeps shouting about.  They actually believe that by doing this or that, futzing with the law, passing bans, caliber restrictions and such will make the "gun problem" go away.  NO IT WON'T!!!

Here lies the root of the problem.  There is no such thing as "Gun Crime", just Crime.  It is a disease of society, not of an artifact.  Attempting to control the artifact has historical precedent.  Laws forbidding the ownership and use of personal weapons is ANCIENT.  It has always been used as a suppressive and coercive device, and every time, the attempt has failed to produce the desired result.  GO READ YOUR HISTORY.  CHECK IT OUT FOR YOURSELF IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME.

Molon Labe!

 

They're at it again

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ny--convention-mccart0721jul21,0,4525698.story

It seems that Rep. McCarthy, Donk - People's Republik of New Yawk deems it fit to trample on people's rights, yet again.

I can feel some empathy for her, her husband was killed by a rather disturbed individual on a commuter train about a dozen years ago.  No doubt that event played heavily on her gun position and the subsequent drafting of the so called "Crime Bill."  The sad fact is that that law is, and always was, an ineffectual, feel-good piece of legislation that was long on rhetoric and short on producing the desired results.  So many politicians like McCarthy have said in the past that the bill banned so many types of rifles that were meant for nothing but killing people.  She figured that all these "assault weapons", rifles, would be turned in and destroyed, but that is not what the law required.  The EXISTING rifles, built prior to September 13, 1994, were exempt, or grandfathered in the law and were therefore not effected. 

The bill simply expanded on some earlier precedents (Thanks GW#1) regarding cosmetic features, notably pistol grips, flash hiders, bayonet lugs and in the case of import rifles, magazine capacity.  To make a long story shorter, the ATF is responsible for enforcement of that section of the U.S. code, section 922(r) which outlines what is, and is not allowed.  Suffice it to say that it is not something that is interesting reading, something like plowing through concrete.  The ATF interprets these laws and has allowed rifles that are essentially the same, less the aforementioned features, to be produced in this country from a combination foreign and domestic parts which, when assembled, comply with the law in every way.  This is not a loophole folks, just following the manual, nothing else.

Some politicians, the usual dregs from the Donk party, complain to no end about how the law is just being "ignored" and that it needs to be written into the permanent code instead of being allowed to sunset come September.  That is simply not what has happened and they are just sore about their shit not being in the middle of everyone's radar screen.

The truth has always been that criminals will acquire guns whenever they need them.  No law can dissuade someone from the wrongdoing.  If the desire to do the wrong is there, they will find a way, and it won't even provide the slightest bit of impediment.  How soon people forget how 19 cracks commandeered 4 planes and several hundred passengers and used them as a weapon.  A plane folks.  A plane.

Kerry and the DNC stepping on their dicks.

After stepping on their schwaenze yesterday, I expected this to happen at some point. 
  
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125875,00.html
 
I have to admit though, I am a little puzzled.  What would That Senator From New York, or Nancy Pelosi for that matter, know about "American values"?  I thought the only thing they knew was A) Selling our asses to Kofi and the Bluehatted Assclowns and B) Arbitrary Monetary Redistribution to the underprivileged.  You know, it is for our own good.
 
I really liked the part about how, " the absence of the former first lady drew criticism from Democrats, particularly women."  Why should it matter to women, in general, that she be on the docket for the evening?  Am I sensing a tiny bit of reverse sexism here?  Feeling underrepresented?

Dipshits!

The Dims, alienating their own.

I always knew the Dims were a stupid bunch of collectivists, but after just reading a short bit on Yahoo! about Hillary getting snubbed as a major speaker at the Dim Convention, all I can do is laugh.

I can rest assured that Dubya will have another term.

How stupid must one be to leave off one of the most politcally influential people in the country? I must admit that I was shocked a few days ago, when the whole John-John thing broke. I was just sure that Kerry would pick Billary as his running mate. What a way to shoot himself in the foot, TWICE!

Senator Clinton, the ambitious bitc..uh..person that she is, would have been an easy way to garner most of the female vote in this country, just by being on the Dim's ticket. I believe that she could have, and would have, swung a bunch of the fence-straddling or slightly-right-of-the-middle female Pachs if the Dims would have just been AWAKE for the last couple of months. What does it take to make these folks see that they do indeed have an ace in their hand? As much as I HATE that woman, she is an exceptional politician, and I don't mean that in a good way.

Miracles will never cease.

Our Government - Creating criminals, at the swipe of a pen.

I was eating my lunch today when I ran across this piece in the KC Star.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/9139625.htm (pesky registration req'd for access to link)

After I stopped laughing about a lawyer, a public servant no less, being accosted by the cops under some backhanded, snowball, bureaucratic scheme, all I could say was, "Huh?!!!" What in the world is the state doing? It is bad enough to have to wade through the bureaucratic stiffs at the DMV to get a driver's license, but to institute a new "program" in an effort to do...what?, make it easier for the state to keep track of who does and does not own what car and if it still has insurance coverage? I am sure that is the official answer, but I can't believe it to be true. I am convinced that the only real reason is to give yet another person another (meaningless) job (John Kerry's job creation plan).

Give me a break! The law was written back in the 80's, I think, to make sure that all motorists were insured. Even though the law doesn't get the intended goal accomplished, the idea was that it would decrease the number of uninsured motorists and keep everyone "protected," much to the Nanny-Stater's delight. Fine. Whatever. It is now the responsibility of every motorist to be insured. Do you get it now you over-zealous morons?!!!

It is redundant to have this "program" that "just checks up" on the status of a vehicle and/or its owners, new or former. I am sure that it was some scheme dreamt up by some do-gooder in the executive arm of the state government. Meaning, of course, that it is their turf and their rules that they can make up as they go, good sense or logic be damned. Therefore it is little use in attempting to fix the situation through lawmaking.

I especially enjoyed the "First Glance" comments in the article. "The Jackson County prosecutor was ticketed for driving with a suspended license, and he didn't know it had been suspended." Troubling thought indeed when the local prosecutor does not understand or know the laws he is sworn to enforce.

This kind of behavior must be reined in folks, or we will all die the pathetic death of big government.