Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of an Assault Rifle
In today's Oregonian, outdoor writer Bill Monroe alerts us to a major event that has torn apart the hunting world and which has certain implications for the metrosexual, Prius-driving set. The incident was sparked by a blog post from a four-decade veteran outdoor writer named Jim Zumbo, who suggested that assault rifles shouldn't be used for hunting. The entire blog has been pulled by Outdoor Life, the host, but here's part of the text:
Sorry, folks, in my humble opinion, these things have no place in hunting. We don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern. I've always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don't use assault rifles. We've always been proud of our "sporting firearms."
This really has me concerned. As hunters, we don't need the image of walking around the woods carrying one of these weapons. To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let's divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the praries and woods.
For his apostasy, Zumbo lost corporate endorsements, his 30-year editing job at Outdoor Life, and a TV show on the Outdoor Channel; the NRA has severed all connections with him.
All for taking what appears, on the surface anyway, to be a fairly innocuous position. Zumbo wasn't careful about making a distinction between automatic and semi-automatic guns (the former are what terrorists emply), but his larger point is surely something that many hunters (at least in the West), would admit to in a quiet corner of a bar.
The coordination and vehemence of the pro-gun lobby to Zumbo's comments is instructive. It is an extremely powerful and well-organized coalition (the NRA has 4.3 million members) and this incident illustrates how the slightest deviation from orthodox dogma becomes an act of heresy--even when it's a minor infraction committed by one of the high priests. And even when the infraction are merely comments on a blog.
Guns have long been a touchy subject for Democrats. Their numbers are divided by rural members who are oriented toward hunters and urban members who are oriented toward crime victims. In the past, the gun-control faction tended to hold sway, but in a time when Democrats are routinely called cowards and traitors by members of the administration, no one is willing to risk looking "soft" on anything. Moreover, crime rates fell for two decades and are still low, removing some heat from gun control activists. Since Kerry's catastrophic goose-hunting photo op, Dems are more interested in finding candidates who can look credible with a gun on their shoulder--like Montana's governor, Brian Schweitzer.
However, for Democrats who are happy to make concessions to step away from the gun-related culture wars, the Zumbo incident brings into sharp focus what's at stake. If a respected, life-long pro-gun writer can see his career collapse in a week because of offhand comments (for which he later apologized), there's obviously no wiggle room. Guns will resurface as an issue at some point. When they do, Democrats will have to decide if they can live with the radical politics of the NRA, and the votes of rural Americans they influence. Because, if they're merely pro-hunter, it won't be enough; the gun nuts will be gunning for them.
[Update: Jim Zumbo's name was misspelled in the initial version of this post. It has been corrected.]
|
February 25, 2007 |
Jeff Alworth | Comments (149 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Zak J. | Feb 25, 2007 3:16:44 PM
Because, if they're merely pro-hunter, it won't be enough; the gun nuts will be gunning for them.
"Gun nuts." Nice. Nothing quite as effective as labeling people who disagree with you, is there? And it's easier than learning something about their point of view.
Posted by: Chuck Butcher | Feb 25, 2007 3:17:10 PM
Zombo was particularly stupid in what he wrote about "assault weapons". He also managed to throw in another piece of stupidity about the 2nd Amendment - hunting.
If you can manage to be that stupid on structure in my business, buildings fall down and doctors kill people. This wasn't just a slip it was massively stupid.
First an assault weapon is capable of full automatic fire and has been subject to restriction of ownership in the US since the 1930's.
Second, what most people call assault weapons are such simply out of cosmetic concerns, they function like any other semi-automatic rifle. They are not machine guns.
Third, most states have magazine capacity regulations for hunting, making in most cases an "assault weapon" no different than any other semi-auto. Except they're too low power and too small caliber.
Fourth, hunting has not squat to do with the 2nd Amendment, the literature of the time only tangentially notes firearms' utility in hunting.
So, we have a "respected life long pro-gun writer" making the stupidest assertions that directly bolster the people who'd stomp on a right that they have absolutely no control over and you wonder why a sh** storm erupts? Banning guns because of what they look like? Guns that feature in a vanishingly small number of crimes? Fear of nothing? CA banned them and took them, that's not irrational fear, it's a demonstated fact of who and what these people are.
Yes, the NRA has gotten stupidly Right when all they should have been concerned with was the 2nd & shooting safety & other concerns. Jeff, it's only a small stupid slip if you don't know how the "game" is being played, what the stakes are, and who the players are. There is not one single piece of the BOR that you'd allow to be played with in this manner without holy hell erupting.
Posted by: THartill | Feb 25, 2007 3:44:02 PM
Zak
I agree with every post you make, but I don't think there is any reason to attack Jeff. I would encourage more BlueOregon main pagers to post on issues that spawn a discussion among Democrats.
These Gun posts always turn into excellent discussions, keep them coming. But I'm still waiting for someone to post something about all these tax-increases and Nanny-State bills that the Oregon D's are trying to push through.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Feb 25, 2007 4:15:38 PM
A first for me here, but I'll (gently) attack Jeff on this one.
Assault Rifle like Old Growth, Liberal and Pro-Life is a term that is fundamentally defined by its rhetorical usefulness rather than providing clarity to debate. It is, rather specifically designed to cloud the issue and incite a specific response.
So for the sake of clarity, a semi-automatic weapon is one in which every time you squeeze the trigger, another round is chambered and fired on the next squeeze of the trigger until the magazine is empty.
Many hunting weapons are semi-automatic and are distinguished from their military counterparts only by magazine capacity.
An automatic weapon is capable of emptying the entire magazine with a single trigger squeeze, and such weapons have been heavily regulated since the '30s. These are the weapons that used to be referred to as "machine guns".
Posted by: pedro | Feb 25, 2007 4:20:13 PM
"I'm still waiting for someone to post something about all these tax-increases and Nanny-State bills that the Oregon D's are trying to push through"
why not write a guest column?
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Feb 25, 2007 4:22:00 PM
Oh, and if there are only two choices in this post, between gun nut and hunter, well, I own several guns, and I haven't hunted since 1973 which was the last year that I was in a situation to actually need to hunt for food.
I would never consider joining the NRA, and there are plenty of others who think like me.
Find a different place to drive the wedge.......
Pat Ryan--Gun Nut
Posted by: THartill | Feb 25, 2007 4:32:06 PM
Well I am neither a gun nut (I own zero) or a hunter, but I don't agree with Zombo....I think we need another category.
Posted by: Chuck Butcher | Feb 25, 2007 4:32:46 PM
Jeff's a big boy, and he knows he has my respect, even when we disagree. He's one of the better writers around blogging. Ordinarily, even when I disagree, I can follow how he got where he went, not this time. Jeff is not a Foe to guns, but sometimes a little more "reasonable" than maybe is merited.
You see TH the problem with "reasonable" is things like the CA ban and then confiscation of guns, the NYNY & DC gun laws, and the expired assault weapon ban.
There are those who have absolutely no idea what the "assault weapon" uproar is about. Cosmetic bans are beyond stupid, but there's a more insidious element, the function that makes an "assault weapon" work is auto-loading, firing it loads another round in firing position. That is exactly what a revolver does, and a large percentage of all firearms. Nobody that pays any attention to this issue is exactly trusting of the gun-control faction.
Look at it this way folks, the Democrats are back up (some) after quite awhile in the woods, Parties can come back, Rights do not. People know this, they'll vote that narrow interest of Rights before their own economic and social good. Look at the Religious Right for an example of people voting against their own economic interests, hugely against.
You bet I'm scared spitless that the Democrats are going to sacrifice the economic and social good of this country over something stupid and blatantly un-Constitutional. I'm going to get little of the left that I want from the Democrats, but I'd get squat from the Repubs.
Posted by: jrw | Feb 25, 2007 4:34:06 PM
I'm in the same place as Chuck and Pat. Chuck can testify that I'm into guns--I particularly like his gun posts on his blog. I do hunt, and have done so regularly, especially since the son has decided that he misses our old hunting days when he was a kid and wants to go back out there.
I'm not as obsessed about guns as some of those "gun nut" sorts are who firmly believe that they've gotta do concealed carry under all circumstances and have their homes set up to be mini armed fortresses (against what? In some cases I think those folks have a tenuous grip on reality).
However. I don't endorse gun control; never have. When I was a young teen at home alone because my father worked swing shift and my mother was taking education classes to keep her teaching certification, I had a dog and a gun to protect me (I lived in a rough semi-rural area). The parts of the gun were kept apart, but I knew where everything was and had been explicitly taught where they were and how to put them together and used them. Never needed to do that.
I also enjoy plinking and testing out the feel of a nice new weapon.
But I'm not about to join the NRA, and I'm a raging liberal populist progressive Dem.
So what does that make me? Certainly not a "gun nut;" but I'm not about gun control either. And I'm a lifetime, currently urban, blue Democrat.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Feb 25, 2007 4:43:37 PM
I was considering including a comment about my own politics on this issue, but I decided to go with Zombo's own words and see what happened. In a minute, those, but first:
Jeff, guns are going to be an issue only if anti-2nd Amendment Democrats make them an issue.
I think the Zombo case proves that dead wrong, even allowing for the carelessness of your comment about "anti-2nd Amendment D's." There was no one more "pro 2nd Amendment" than Zombo; that he would suggest legislation limit forests and prairies hardly touches the constitutional debate. Still, he was run out of town on a rail. This issue always comes up, it always comes up when the fanatics in the gun lobby bring it up, and they always demand the kind of fanatical fealty we saw in this case.
Many hunting weapons are semi-automatic and are distinguished from their military counterparts only by magazine capacity.
I am, of course, aware of all this, which is why I called Zombo uncareful when he said semi-automatics are the guns terrorists use; they use automatics, cheap, easy-to-use and ubiquitous, like the AK-47. Again, I used the word "assault" because that's the word Zombo used.
Now, to my own politics. I am a Buddhist and a pacifist and a (bad) vegetarian, but I grew up in the Idaho forests with a fishing pole or rifle in my hand. In my experience as a young hunter, I never encountered a gun nut. In fact, in the 70s, there weren't really any. Everyone had a rifle in the rack in their truck, but this wasn't a political statement--it was just life.
The rise of the pro-gun lobby in the 80s created the gun nuts. These are people who foreswear ALL legislation, including armor-piercing ammo and unregulated gun shows. Owning a gun is legal and constitutionally protected; there is no constitutional protection against regulation, however. What distinguishes gun nuts from everyone else is that gun nuts oppose all regulation and use a scorched-earth policy to achieve that end. Witness the Zombo incident.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Feb 25, 2007 4:52:35 PM
Oh, one more thing. My politics are mostly in concert with Pat's and Chuck's, but I do find much more about the gun lobby's tactics that are very dark. I wouldn't pick this fight (and one blogger isn't likely to be driving the Democratic agenda--I wish!), but that's really my point--I think it's one that's going to get picked for us. Not in '08, but maybe as early as '10.
Posted by: 45superman | Feb 25, 2007 5:21:01 PM
If you're going to defend the man, could you at least have the decency to spell his name correctly? It's Zumbo, not "Zombo."
"The Second Amendment does not state that we have the right to keep and bear sporting goods." Lt. Col. Jeff Cooper
"It's the right to bear arms--not the right to bare hands." 45superman
Posted by: Syd | Feb 25, 2007 5:34:09 PM
Guys, the man's name is "Zumbo" not "Zombo." You're about a foggy on the rest of your facts too. Don't make a paper tiger out of the NRA. They were actually very slow to pick up on this. This lynching was pure Internet. The NRA had next to nothing to do with with it except for piling on once his other sponsors dumped him. And contrary to your paranoid fantasies, there is no "NRA orthodoxy" that is being beamed into the heads of "gun nuts" while they sleep. You give the NRA so much power with your fantasies about them.
Posted by: Jesse B. | Feb 25, 2007 5:39:17 PM
For so many people who claim to be gun enthusiasts I'm surprised by the lack of knowledge that has been demonstrated in the comments.
After reading Jim Zombo's article, it is clear to see he is writing about assault rifles, not assault weapons. There is no real definition for assault weapons, a term that is often used to meet political ends. So let's stick to what's relevant. Assault rifles, on the other hand, have an actual definition. Even Mr. Zombo himself seems to be confused when he talks about assault rifles:
"The guides on our hunt tell me that the use of AR and AK rifles have a rapidly growing following among hunters, especially prairie dog hunters. I had no clue."
Commercial AR-15s lack selective firing, meaning they do not fall under the category of an assault rifle. To qualify as an assault rifle a weapon must meet all of the five conditions:
1. Carbine sized individual weapon, intended to be fired from the shoulder.
2. Selective fire.
3. Locked breech fire.
4. Uses intermediate powered cartridge.
5. Ammunition is supplied through a large-capacity box (ex. magazine).
Personally, for someone who has hunted and comes from a family of sporting hunters, I would happen to agree with Mr. Zombo that assault rifles have no place in hunting.
More on assault rifles.
Posted by: Chuck Butcher | Feb 25, 2007 5:48:35 PM
Jeff, there's a little historical inaccuracy in your statement about gun nuts, the fight was picked by the other side. They used manipulated statistics, fear, and etc(all the BushCo tools), to get where they wanted to go. Now in the face of successful lying, cheating, and propagandizing the folks affected go their backs up.
Lemme play those games with the First and tell me how many Firstie Nuts will come out of the woodwork. It's not nuts. I'll agree that turning your house into a fort is pretty silly, but this stuff about ammo is crap. Most hunting rounds (not "assault rifle"-usually not) will zip police body armour. I have and shoot guns that will make kindling out of advanced body armour, no special rounds, just velocity and weight. Hunting rounds. Unregulated gun shows?? The trunk of that car right down the street ain't regulated.
There's no need for this fight to occur, it's on the other side to STFU. Nobody is trying to make you buy a gun.
Posted by: Zak J. | Feb 25, 2007 5:55:49 PM
I wouldn't pick this fight (and one blogger isn't likely to be driving the Democratic agenda--I wish!), but that's really my point--I think it's one that's going to get picked for us.
Jeff,
I wish it were true that Democrats weren't picking this fight. But it's not. Witness H.B. 1022, "To Reauthorize the Assault Weapons Ban, and For Other Purposs." This bill was introduced to Congress on Feb 13, 2007 by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy [D-NY]. The main effect of the bill so far has been to crank up the fund-raising activities of the right wing (just check the listservs and mailing lists.)
So, there are some Democrats actively pursuing an anti-gun agenda, which is a real shame when you think of all they could be doing if they would pick their battles more carefully. I wish they would just let this go--nothing will be gained by pissing off or scaring off (yes, many are scared of the left) potential allies.
Thank you Jesse B for the clarification. Personally, I like prairie dogs, but that's probably just my urban bias talking.
Posted by: 45superman | Feb 25, 2007 6:00:11 PM
In my first comment, I messed up entering my URL.
Also, Syd is absolutely right about the NRA having little, if anything, to do with the tsunami of outrage over Zumbo's demonization of so-called "assault weapons." That was us--the "gun nuts" you refer to so disparagingly (I prefer "Bill of Rights nuts," myself)--the NRA belatedly dragged itself into action because they didn't want to be left too far behind by the true activists in the fight for gun rights.
Chuck Butcher is absolutely correct about all of his points, as well.
Posted by: Gun-Moderate | Feb 25, 2007 8:00:39 PM
Thanks, Chuck, for pointing out what our fellow progressives fail to remember time and again:
The Second Amendment is not about hunting rights. It is not about the right to defend yourself against a foreign army. It is not about the right to defend yourself against criminals. These are by-products.
However... Even though most gun owners are of sound mind, there are certifiable "gun-nuts" out there. And they would do well to remember that the Second Amendment applies to Congress limiting the bearing of arms... not state legislatures.
Posted by: sjp | Feb 25, 2007 8:10:34 PM
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.
Here's a few questions for folks who have studied this issue more than I have: What exactly do you believe that the framers meant when they predicated the right to keep and bear arms on the need for a well-regulated militia? Is that antecedent clause still relevent today? If not, why not?
Have the courts generally upheld or struck down efforts by the legislature to limit access to certain types of firearms? If so, on what grounds?
Posted by: Chuck Butcher | Feb 25, 2007 8:50:50 PM
I'm not going to re-hash this here, go look at Blue Steel Democrats or Chuck for ... (click 2nd Ammendment in Labels), it's a dependent clause - see a grammar handbook.
One note, EVERYBODY wants to forget the 14th Amendment - yep, civil rights, yep, all rights to everybody everywhere in US.
Sawed off shotguns are a no-no, but only at Fed Appeal level, no Supreme on it, so it's a law...but. It went to Supreme, petitioner deceased, sent back - moot. Machine guns require a Federal Tax Stamp - to get the stamp, background check, essentially an FFL, & govt free to inspect weapon at anytime anywhere (bye bye 4th A protections), oh yeah, bunch o' money. I don't want one that bad.
Essentially everybody is afraid of court fights, nobody wants their head stepped on and the Supremes are scared spitless of taking one - they don't want to rule on it and they won't if there's a weasle out.
Here's the sticky part, if they were to rule against the 2nd they risk it being put into operation, if they rule for it there'll be whiney backlash (anti-s aren't armed - so whine is all they get)
For all the big outfits crying - Brady, NRA, ad nauseum, they're happier at status quo, big money raiser, lots of directorships etc salaries, advertising $s, hell, they're each other's best friends. You could take them all out and drown them for all of me, I'd still be armed... No, I'm not kidding about the "still armed" part.
If you think I'm kidding about status quo, this could be taken to the Supremes at damn near anytime, there are plenty of grounds for both sides, but it doesn't.
Posted by: Ross Williams | Feb 25, 2007 9:05:49 PM
the NRA had next to nothing to do with with it except for piling on
So the NRA is just an opportunistic, right-wing political organization? That sounds about right. Sort of a Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson for gun fanatics rolled into one.
I never encountered a gun nut. In fact, in the 70s, there weren't really any. Everyone had a rifle in the rack in their truck, but this wasn't a political statement--it was just life.
My gun safety course, taught by the NRA, said we should keep guns locked up separately from their ammunition to prevent anyone (i.e. kids) from using them without permission. That was before they were taken over by right wing ideologues who saw the opportunity to use the organization for political purposes.
Most hunting rounds (not "assault rifle"-usually not) will zip police body armour. I have and shoot guns that will make kindling out of advanced body armour, no special rounds, just velocity and weight. Hunting rounds.
For hunting what? This is where the gun fanatic part starts. Is there any reasonable need for anyone to have a weapon that will penetrate body armour? I think the answer is obviously no. Are there people who want such weapons? Sure. But they don't need them to go hunting.
Except they're too low power and too small caliber.
You have serious problems if you think they are "too low power and too small caliber" to shoot prairie dogs - which is what he was talking about them being used for. I guess anything that leaves the animal recognizable must be under-powered in your estimation.
Lets be clear there are hundreds of thousands of hunters out there who have absolutely nothing to fear from reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. But their numbers are declining as owning a gun becomes more and more an extremist political statement.
The NRA and the fanatics it panders to eventually are going to find themselves politically irrelevant. And they know it. They are now trying to remove requirements that kids get gun safety education in order to get a hunting license. That's irresponsible, but they are fanatics.
I don't know anyone who really supports the "right to bear arms". It certainly has nothing to do with whether you should be allowed to hunt prairie dogs with assault rifles. Which is what this debate is about.
Posted by: Gun-Moderate | Feb 25, 2007 10:04:11 PM
I think that modern punctuation would place #2 like this:
Neither a well regulated militia (being necessary to the security of a free state) nor the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be infringed.
Lynn Truss would be proud. (I hope!)
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Feb 25, 2007 10:10:44 PM
Chuck you wrote: "...an assault weapon is capable of full automatic fire and has been subject to restriction of ownership in the US since the 1930's."
Do you consider that a violation of the 2nd Amendment? Do other gun rights advocates?
Posted by: Harry | Feb 25, 2007 10:22:32 PM
A couple of angles that haven't yet been discussed...
"Lets be clear there are hundreds of thousands of hunters out there who have absolutely nothing to fear from reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. But their numbers are declining as owning a gun becomes more and more an extremist political statement."
One major slam against Mr Zumbo was the 'united we stand, divided we fall arguement'. A big part of the backlash was that Zumbo played into the hands of the "reasonable restrictions" arguement. Especially when the "reasonable" is legislated by some pretty ignorant people (maybe not Ross, but others commenting have shown their true ignorance). Do responsible hunters and gun owners want people who are pretty ignorant defining "reasonable" restrictions?
Also, not quoted was Mr. Zumbo's 'terrorist' word useage. (I don't have the exact quote handy, put I did read Mr Zumbo's entire post, as well as the first couple hundred comments, before it was taken down. If anybody has access to the actual quote, it might be worth reposting here.)He slandered many law abiding gun owners (not gun nuts) who happen to use rifles that look like (but don't function the same as) rifles that terrorists use. Equating lawful people with terrorists was not a smart thing for a gun advocate to do. (Hint: It would also be a pretty foolish thing to do for somebody who was not a gun advocate.) Just 'cause the girl next door dresses like Paris Hilton does not make her Paris Hilton; same for guns.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Feb 25, 2007 10:46:11 PM
If anybody has access to the actual quote, it might be worth reposting here.)He slandered many law abiding gun owners (not gun nuts) who happen to use rifles that look like (but don't function the same as) rifles that terrorists use.
Harry, follow the link in the post that reads "part of the text"--it takes you to a copy of the whole post. I think you misread his point slightly (though I'll admit that anyone who calls someone "terrorist" is just plain boneheaded). He didn't call the users of semi-autos terrorists; I think he was trying to make the point that certain guns are only used for killing humans, and it's this that is a terrorist activity. That's why he said "We don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern."
(The truly bizarre part is that he conflated semi-autos and autos the terrorists actually use. I'm willing to buy his excuse, issued later in his apology, that he was exhausted. This just seems like foggy thinking.)
Posted by: Stupified | Feb 26, 2007 12:56:50 AM
The thing that always bothers me about this debate is how it reveals that there are two disturbing large groups of people in this country who really shouldn't be trusted with guns or a vote: The gun fetishists who really believe the 2nd amendment is the only thing that matters in our Constitution, and the anti-gun closeted authoritarians who actually believe the three-pronged mission of the A-T-F makes sense. I have a funny feeling these are also the kinds of folks the founders never thought should be trusted with a gun or a vote either.
Posted by: Chuck Butcher | Feb 26, 2007 2:00:11 AM
Kari,
Since you're not prohibited from owning a full auto, just serious hoops, I'd put it in the catagory of "FIRE!." The pray and spray nature makes them very problematic.
As for Ross, if I want to shoot a Kodiak I don't want to have to argue with him afterward. And yes, 45-70 govt, 500gr at 2150 fps will blast advanced body armour and it's not too much gun for a Kodiak. So, now you know what it's for and what it can actually do and so what? A 30-06 will go right through a cop vest and I use that for deer. I'd like to have a 50 Barret, just 'cause. Just because it's immaculate at what it does, but I also don't want to pay that much for one or for the 50 machine gun rounds it shoots - single shot. I also might like a Ferrari, even though it can go 200mph and I have no rational reason except it's so good at what it does. None of your business is a nice way to put it.
The AR15 has become the rifle of choice for National Match Highpower shooting. It is very good at long range shooting, Nat Match last position is 600yd open sights. That's also varmiting range. Other varmit guns tend to be 22-250, 25-06 and these things are screamers but generally bolt action. Which means exactly what to the prairie dog? It gets splashed, pretty much the same result an AR15 produces or a 45-70 (except 600yd ain't happening). You don't skin 'em and eat 'em or make jackets out of them, you make them dead. I don't think an AR15 is a good deer gun, hunter's choice.
OK, hunting & the 2nd. This seems to keep coming up, the 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting, it's NOT about the badguy in the living room, it IS about your relationship with your government. They will not be the only ones armed. The literature of the time was clear that the benefit to hunting was entirely tangential and simply a by-product of the 2nd. Don't hang your 2nd hat on hunting. That's the most disposable of the arguments, thanks anyhow. Don't miss the 14th A, it's important.
I'd say extremist is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose you think you ought to have freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religion? Pretty extremist views, BushCo says so. I'll bet you figure you ought to be secure in your home from unreasonable search and seizure also. Nah. Extremist nonsense - BushCo says so. I know you don't think you have a right to appear in court and face your accusers. That's certainly extremism, AJ Gonzales has spoken, it's all about security. Apparently you're an extremist, also - you just don't like my rights, so when I yell I'm an extremist. Believe me, I yell about the rest as well. Loudly. I call them traitors in public, very public. Damn, just did it again.
Mr Zumbo knows how to write, he's paid to write, and he wrote for a publication which owes its existence to the 2nd A and he made a gift to opponents of the 2nd in a particularly stupid fashion about issues he knows. His audience didn't like it, the people who pay him didn't like it, he lost his job. That happens when people pay you for a product, they don't want something else. If I pay you $300 to build me a pair of logging boots and I get sandals I'm going to be pissed, particularly when I can't get my money back.
Thanks for your time and attention,
Chuck - gun nut, drag racer, Lefty, EVERY DAMN BODIES' civil liberties count sorta guy. (and extremist about it)
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Feb 26, 2007 2:12:49 AM
Chuck, you wrote - Since you're not prohibited from owning a full auto, just serious hoops, I'd put it in the catagory of "FIRE!." The pray and spray nature makes them very problematic.
I'm not sure I understand... In your view, are the regulations on owning fully-automatic weapons a violation of the 2nd Amendment - or not? And do you think that your view is shared by most gun-rights advocates?
Having been smacked down repeatedly, I'm wanting to fill in the gaps in my knowledge - and understand the positions that people are taking.
Help me out here.
Posted by: Robb Allen | Feb 26, 2007 5:43:26 AM
Kari,
If you truly want to learn the answers to your question, go read Kim DuToit, You will not find a more articulate pro-gun writer anywhere. The linked article will explain the difference between owning a firearm and a true WMD.
Posted by: Ross Williams | Feb 26, 2007 5:44:02 AM
I also might like a Ferrari, even though it can go 200mph and I have no rational reason except it's so good at what it does. None of your business is a nice way to put it.
And your daughter can collect beanie babies if she wants, that's none of my business either.
it IS about your relationship with your government. They will not be the only ones armed.
Right. If you want defend your freedom against the government you need rpg's, high explosives, heavy artillery and anti-aircraft missiles.
You have about as much chance of defending your freedom against the government with your hunting rifle as you would "armed" with a bb gun or beanie babies. You are defending your right to have toys.
he made a gift to opponents of the 2nd in a particularly stupid fashion about issues he knows.
What does banning a weapon for shooting prairie dogs have to do with the second amendment? The answer is nothing at all.
And yes, 45-70 govt, 500gr at 2150 fps will blast advanced body armour and it's not too much gun for a Kodiak.
Ammunition designed to be most effective at killing a bear by spreading out in soft tissue is not going to penetrate body armor. Cop-killer bullets do the job with a standard .38 revolver (I don't know what the smallest weapon you would need), not a 50 caliber rifle.
If there are gun fanatics who think its cool to have ammunition that will penetrate police body armor, maybe they should take up a different hobby. Because the idea that the constitution was written to protect hobbyists is absurd.
Posted by: Robb Allen | Feb 26, 2007 6:06:44 AM
Right. If you want defend your freedom against the government you need rpg's, high explosives, heavy artillery and anti-aircraft missiles.
This is a myth.
Ever hear of Waco? Had the occupants not had small arms, the government would have snuck in, killed a bunch of people, and left and you'd have not heard about a thing.
Small arms increase the economic considerations of the government's actions. Any action taken runs the risk of Americans shooting back. Shots fired make the news. The news allows you and me to see what's happening. Would you vote for someone who ordered tanks and F-18's on a neighborhood?
Resisting the government doesn't mean fighting the military. As a former Marine, we were always instructed never to use our force on Americans. I doubt that's changed since I got out in the 90's.
And even if it did, so what? The Soviets had one hell of a time in Afghanistan because the Afghans had small arms and lots of them.
Ammunition designed to be most effective at killing a bear by spreading out in soft tissue is not going to penetrate body armor.
This is also incorrect. Ammunition is designed to withstand the initial impact and then spread out. It's why I have semi-jacketed bullets. I want it to hit something, go in a little, then mushroom out causing the most amount of damage. FMJ's help in this regard with the jacket absorbing the initial brunt, hence why a 30.06 will poke holes in standard armor.
And can you find me a link to the .38 "Cop Killer" bullets actually piercing a vest? I'm assuming you're talking about teflon coated bullets which assist in lubricating the barrel of the gun and have nothing to do with piercing ability (another common myth). So far, I've yet to hear of a cop getting killed by a .38 special (which have a hard enough time penetrating thick leather) through a BPV.
Posted by: Ross Williams | Feb 26, 2007 7:52:55 AM
Ever hear of Waco?
Yes, and I don't recall that turning out so well for the "freedom fighters." Its a very good example of not defending your freedom with small arms. I think the Whiskey Rebellion killed the founders' fascination with citizen's defending their own freedom.
Resisting the government doesn't mean fighting the military.
Yes, it does. Who do you think you are going to be shooting at with your pop-guns? Soldiers take orders and they are trained to shoot back. US troops have, in fact, fired on Americans even when they weren't shot at first.
And can you find me a link to the .38 "Cop Killer" bullets actually piercing a vest?
The argument that one needs special body armor piercing bullets to go deer hunting is absurd. I have yet to see a deer in body armor.
"They don't really do that" argument seems to be that there is no such thing as a body armor piercing ammunition. So which is it, necessary for killing deer and bears or it doesn't really exist?
Frankly the details of this argument bore me so I am perfectly willing to believe that legislators might mistakenly ban ammunition based on bad or incomplete information. I doubt that would do great harm to anyone.
When someone tells me they can't hunt deer because they can't buy ammo that will kill one, I'll start to consider this a real issue. Until then, its a bunch of gun fanatics and hobbyists hiding behind the constitution.
And I am not sure how it is relevant to the issue of banning some weapons when killing prairie dogs.
Posted by: Jack Black | Feb 26, 2007 8:20:25 AM
Nothing like a good debate over guns or aborton to get people all worked up. Nothing ever gets solved and everyone goes away angry.
Posted by: Rick Schwartz | Feb 26, 2007 8:38:07 AM
“Assault rifles” are being demonized by many politicians, media-types, and anti-gun folk who actually have no idea what it is they are demonizing. Most people who hear the truth are quite surprised to find out just how off-base and factually wrong these nay-sayers are.
Assault rifles such as the Sturmgewehr 44 were first developed by the Germans in WWII, and further refined by the Russians immediately post-war as defined by the AK-47. America’s version, the M-4, wasn’t too bad either.
They tried to meet the needs of the soldiers who were actually fighting so the weapons tended to be:
--lightweight
--of a smaller caliber
--easy to maintain
--rugged
--Shot from the hip if necessary
--fairly accurate out to a reasonable distance.
--Could be fired in three different modes, single, 3-shot, and full automatic.
Any extra metal or wood was left off the gun, and if the part wasn’t needed it wasn’t on the gun. This meant that often the stock (the part that goes against the shooter’s cheek) was just a bare outline of metal. This “look” is often consider bizarre by those who never thought about the “why” of it.
Now, being lightweight created it’s own set of problems.
The foremost problem is that the barrel was a skinny, short little thing, which meant that it got pretty hot quickly. This is not good. Even a little .22 rabbit-rifle heats up with enough shots fired just at the firing range, and a soldier didn’t want to be worrying about a hot barrel. That can cause many bad things to happen including ammo accidentally firing at random. To minimize that a “shroud” was used over the barrel, with ventilating holes to carry away the heat and protect the soldiers hands. It didn’t add anything to the gun except to keep the barrel cooler when firing multiple rounds in a short time.
Often a flash-suppressor was added, not to keep the enemy from knowing where the fire is coming from, but to keep the soldier’s nighttime eyesight protected. The enemy would have plenty of notice about where the fire is coming from since the bullets would be coming directly towards him.
Soldiers don’t like humping heavy things; they have enough to carry anyway so the smaller the rounds (bullets) the more the soldier could pack. One can never have too much ammo, but it doesn’t do any good if you’ve left it all back at the barracks.
This meant the majority of the assault riffles were chambered for the .223 round. That means the width of the bullet is only .223 of a full inch. The significance of this?
Well, the most popular round in the world, and the one that is used to take more rabbits and squirrels than any other (because that’s about all it’s powerful enough for) is the .22 Long Rifle.
The .22 LR bullet is a little thing. Itty bitty. Imagine something less than a quarter inch in diameter. And the dreaded assault riffle bullet is three one thousandth of an inch bigger in diameter. Think of it like this – you have to drive 220 miles to get to your friends house. But he’s moving three miles further away in a month. Will now driving 223 miles make much of a difference overall?
The actual .223 bullet really isn’t that much larger than a fat grain of rice.
So how does such a small bullet help the soldier? Because the .223 is put into a larger cartridge with more powder it comes out of the barrel much faster than a normal .22. That creates more energy when it hits someone, but the small size of the bullet has always kept it from being considered a sure mankiller. In Vietnam a Marine coined the term “poodle killer” for the .223 and that name has stuck even to today. That was okay with the soldiers because in reality a wounded soldier on the other side was better than a dead soldier. A dead soldier was forgotten about but a wounded one needed on average four other soldiers to take care of him.
Because of the way the gun was normally carried on patrol it was good to have a way to immediately bring it into play… thus the stock and grip were designed to fire, if necessary, from the hip. Couldn’t hit a darn thing with it that way but when in combat the enemy doesn’t necessarily stick their head up to check your accuracy. So it worked in a fashion. Kept the enemies heads down until a soldier could get into a better position behind cover.
The rifle didn’t have to be super accurate and it wasn’t. Especially at a distance. Combat between individual soldiers is just not that far apart. If you can barely see the guy it’s a job for artillery, not rifles.
The main distinguishing feature, though, was it’s ability to “select” fire. The shooter could choose between, with one pull of the trigger, to shoot one shot, three shots, or full automatic which meant the gun would fire all the rounds attached to it. Some magazines held five rounds, some ten, twenty, thirty, and even a hundred.
The truth is though, very few of the assault rifles are ever fired full auto by trained troops. The reason is because they just can’t hit anything. Inside a barn they would have trouble hitting the sides of the barn. The barrel wants to rise with every bullet fired, and unless one is a super-sized Rambo the barrel WILL rise into the air while it’s firing.
Virtually every company commander in Vietnam had a standing rule: an automatic $50.00 fine for any troop who shot his gun at full auto without an express order from the commander. This was the days when $50 was almost a months pay for these guys.
There were some extremely limited times when full auto was helpful, and then one was glad they had it.
Our guys in Iraq are under similar orders about firing full auto. It’s just not a productive way to fight a war or kill people.
Why is the full auto bit stressed. Because these guns are NOT what is being sold today, but yet it is what every one screams about when they say “assault weapons.”
The guns sold to the civilian market that “look like” the military weapons all fire ONE SHOT at a time, just like virtually every other gun on the market. It’s nothing special, and it’s the way civilian rifles have been made for almost 140 years.
Buying a newly-manufactured full-fledged automatic assault weapon has been illegal since 1986, and unless one has jumped through sufficient federal government hoops it is also highly illegal to buy one that was made before 1986.
The process to obtain an older automatic weapon is complicated and expensive, and includes fingerprints by the Feds and an exorbitant federal transfer tax on each full auto weapon.
“Machine guns” and “automatic weapons” are simply not bought down at Walmart. Complaining about someone waking into a store and legally buying fully automatic weapons is akin to complaining about how circuses mistreat unicorns.
Those who talk about “machine guns” blasting away at rabbits or deer are either highly ignorant of the subject or just doing it to demagogue the discussion.
What the anti-gunners mean when they say "assault weapons" are guns that are made to “look like” the real ones. And that’s it. There are a number of variations in manufacturers, and model names, but not a single one of them would be found on a battlefield. The real soldiers would laugh at them.
One can take a little .22 rifle which looks like a harmless little plinking rifle that wouldn’t do any great damage to a armadillo and for a couple of hundred dollars buy all kinds of replacement parts and add-ons such as the barrel-shroud and flash-suppressor that would make it indistinguishable (from the outside) to an “assault rifle.” Yet, internally it would be the same little ol’ .22.
What many in the anti-gun movement are trying to do is to get one to believe that if you put racing stripes and decals on your dad’s Oldsmobile you can take it out to the NASCAR track and compete equally.
Yes, many of the look-alikes fire the same .223 round as the military ones do, but this is considered an underpowered round by the civilian world. It’s certainly less powerful than what Uncle Bob’s deer hunting rifle fires. And, by the way, it does make a perfectly fine hunting gun if used on the right game. Many people think rifles chambered for the .223 cartridge are the absolute best for hunting varmints such as coyotes, and it’s even popular for some small types of deer in parts of the country where the forest is thick and sight is only fifty yards or so.
They are lightweight, rugged, and easy to maintain because many people, including tens of thousands of ranchers, farmers, and backpackers need this type of rifle while out in the fields. Many police departments in both big and little cities across the nation are converting to these guns for the same reasons.
A farmer friend of mine in northwest Arkansas carries one on the back of his tractor out in the fields. His bane is armadillos, which tear up his crops faster than anything else. When he sees one he shoots it. He needs something that can stand up to the abuse of being shaken for hours on the tractor, is lightweight and short enough not to get in his way, and is powerful enough to pierce the ‘dillo hide. His AR-15, the semi-auto civilian model of the M-4, is perfect for his use.
These rifles can use magazines that hold up to 30 rounds, but if one can shoot three 10 round mags in 30 seconds or one 30 round mag in 24 seconds it is not really any more dangerous. When the King riots were happening in L.A. there were many Koreans on their rooftops with their AR-15s and multiple round mags. They kept their neighborhood from burning down. That’s a pretty impressive reason for wanting any weapon.
The civilian models have been made more accurate than the military models because the majority of the guns sold are simply used as target rifles. It’s a huge sport and tens of thousands compete across the country to see who can maintain the most accurate rifle. Go to most outdoor ranges and you’ll see all kinds of guys with their AR-15s and others at the line. These guys are just average, everyday guys (and some women) who like to put little holes in paper with things that go bang.
Many of these folk are former military who hold fond memories of those days. Others just want to look cool, and there’s certainly nothing wrong with that. A lot of them consider the military as "heroes" and want to emulate them.
Again, these guns may “look” like a military weapon but they are the farthest thing from one… they fire just one bullet at a time the way every other civilian rifle is sold. There is fundamentally no difference between them and Uncle Bob’s hunting rifle except in they way they look, and a smaller type bullet.
Now that you know the truth of the matter you can spot when someone is ignorant about assault weapons and yet are still willing to give their opinion about something they know nothing about.
Posted by: Frank Silbermann | Feb 26, 2007 9:19:36 AM
About the vest-piercing bullets: One sheet of Kevlar won't stop anything. It takes a dozen or so to stop a pistol bullet. To stop a hunting rifle bullet, the vest would have to be too thick and stiff to be wearable on a daily basis.
If you give a pistol bullet a sharp steel core, it too will penetrate a cop's vest. Twenty years ago few perps even knew that those vests existed, but the gun controllers made a big deal about it, demanding to ban "any ammo" that would penetrate the vest -- that would include all hunting-rifle ammo. The NRA objected, and wrote their own bill to ban pistol ammo whose steel-core construction was designed to penetrate the vests, but allowed conventional hunting rifle ammo that the vests were never designed to stop.
The NRA's compromise was reasonable and passed, but every few years the gun control movement brings out the original, impractical bill so that, with the help of cooperative anti-gun newspapers, they can slander the NRA by leading people to think that the NRA was protecting some special form of anti-cop ammo.
I bought my first gun and became an pro-NRA "gun nut" in part from outrage at such unethical tactics by gun control advocates. I won't vote for any candidate who associates with such people.
Posted by: R.J. | Feb 26, 2007 9:19:59 AM
Many of the commentors said that they agree with Jim Zumbo on the "assault weapons" not being desirable for hunting. If that's your preference, then fine. I prefer non-semiauto rifles with beautiful wood stocks, and when it comes to handguns, I prefer revolvers. (Guess I grew up on too many westerns.) But there are a lot of people, some of them hunters, who like these "eeeeviiil guns", and will never do anything criminal with them. They are actually useful to ranchers who need a reasonably accurate varmint rifle that is durable enough to not be bothered by rattling around in a pick-up truck all day.
But Zumbo called the guns "terrorist guns" and in doing so, he maligned a lot of gun owners, inferring that they were terrorists! That's where he really screwed up. That statement alone gave the Shady Bradys and their ilk a whole CASE of political ammo! And underlying all of this is the simple fact that the Second Amendment ISN'T ABOUT HUNTING! It is about defense aginst criminals, or a tyrannical gov't. (And don't think that it can't happen here!)
Posted by: Ross Williams | Feb 26, 2007 9:28:54 AM
There is fundamentally no difference between them and Uncle Bob’s hunting rifle except in they way they look, and a smaller type bullet.
That depends on what Uncle Bob hunts with doesn't it?
but if one can shoot three 10 round mags in 30 seconds or one 30 round mag in 24 seconds it is not really any more dangerous. When the King riots were happening in L.A. there were many Koreans on their rooftops with their AR-15s and multiple round mags.
How many hunting rifles have 30 rounds in them? How many hunters need 30 rounds? Who were those Koreans shooting at that they needed to shoot 30 times, whether in 24 seconds or in 30 seconds?
These guys are just average, everyday guys (and some women) who like to put little holes in paper with things that go bang.
And why is it important public policy that they be allowed to do so with a particular gun of their choice?
I think there needs to be a rational argument for why a particular firearm or ammunition should not be generally available to the public. But this debate isn't really about what is good public policy on that level or rational arguments. Its not about whether a farmer needs a fancy .22 to shoot varmints. Or whether you need armor piercing bullets to hunt bear. And it certainly isn't about having weapons to defend ourselves against a repressive government. Its not even about people defending themselves.
Its really about gun fanatics and their hobby. Most of the restrictions proposed on gun ownership don't have any meaningful impact on anyone else's need for a firearm. Anyone who wants to protect their home, hunt deer, kill varmints or shoot targets will be able to get a gun suitable for that purpose. They just might not look like that AK-47 they saw on TV.
Posted by: Ross Williams | Feb 26, 2007 9:47:39 AM
Second Amendment ISN'T ABOUT HUNTING!
Its not about the gun collecting hobby either.
It is about defense aginst criminals,
Where does the second amendment say anything about defense against criminals? I think it is a perfectly appropriate argument to say we are safer if we have a loaded gun in the nightstand. That wasn't what the NRA taught me when I took a gun safety course, but you can make the argument. But you can also make the argument that having a loaded weapon in the house is far more likely to create the opportunity for a crime than to prevent one. That argument has nothing to do with the right to bear arms.
or a tyrannical gov't. (And don't think that it can't happen here!)
And that is going to be prevented by a .22 caliber Saturday night special? Or a AK-47 semi-automatic knock-off? If you really want to defend against a tyrannical government you need real weapons, not target pistols. In fact, it wouldn't be hard to argue most civilian firearms aren't "arms" at all in military terms.
Posted by: Jack Burton | Feb 26, 2007 9:55:00 AM
That depends on what Uncle Bob hunts with doesn't it?
Unless Uncle Bob hunts with a non-firearm, then no. His firearm fires one bullet with each pull of the trigger along with every other rifle out there, including the ones that look "evil."
How many hunting rifles have 30 rounds in them? How many hunters need 30 rounds? Who were those Koreans shooting at that they needed to shoot 30 times, whether in 24 seconds or in 30 seconds?
If you're varmit hunting prarrie dogs with several thousand out there in the target range then 30 rounds hardly seems enough, eh? Should have the 100 round mags to keep from reloading every minute or so.
And how do YOU get to determine how many rounds hunters need?
And, as far as I know, the Koreans didn't shoot anyone. But when you're on the edge of a riot that quite possibly may be coming your direction with the intent of burning your businesses down I'll let you carry the single shot bolt action rifle. For myself, I'll take as many rounds as I can possibly stuff into the gun.
And why is it important public policy that they be allowed to do so with a particular gun of their choice?
Well, I don't hear the paper complaining that one particular bullet hurts more than another. And they are the only one with a dog in the fight. Unless you're competing against the shooters in a competition then I don't see where you have a dog in this fight either.
Its really about gun fanatics and their hobby. Most of the restrictions proposed on gun ownership don't have any meaningful impact on anyone else's need for a firearm. Anyone who wants to protect their home, hunt deer, kill varmints or shoot targets will be able to get a gun suitable for that purpose. They just might not look like that AK-47 they saw on TV.
The Second Amendment doesn't have a "What does Ron Williams like" clause in it. And yes, you just gave away the whole game by using the word "look." You judge off from looks, whatever that means.
Nothing else matters as long as the gun looks evil.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Feb 26, 2007 9:58:12 AM
Robb, I read that linked article from Kim DuToit, but I still didn't find the answer to my question. She was talking about nuclear weapons and fully-automatic weapons "which cannot be carried by an individual as a personal weapon" -- not what we're talking about.
I'm not trying to be cute or clever, so why won't anybody answer my simple question?
In your view, are the regulations on owning fully-automatic weapons a violation of the 2nd Amendment - or not? And do you think that your view is shared by most gun-rights advocates?
Folks around here keep saying, and I believe them, that fully-automatic weapons have been regulated since the 1930s. Do those rules violate the 2nd Amendment or not?
Or does a rule, once in place for decades, become part of the firmament and thus not considered a violation of the Constitution?
Posted by: CTD | Feb 26, 2007 10:07:27 AM
They just might not look like that AK-47 they saw on TV.
Here, Ross also confirms that everything hoplophobes know about guns comes from action movies and television. Which is one of the principal reasons they sound like fools whenever they talk about them.
Posted by: Jack Burton | Feb 26, 2007 10:09:35 AM
Do those rules violate the 2nd Amendment or not?
I, and many other 2nd Amendment supporters believe it does violate the spirit and words of the Second.
Many others do also but have learned to tolerate it.
Some others don't believe it violates it.
Gun enthusiasts are not a monolithic crowd about much of anything. That's one of our weaknesses when it comes to political matters.
Posted by: DirtCrashr | Feb 26, 2007 10:12:40 AM
Welcome to California! Come here and hunt where those nasty-ugly black-rifles are outlawed, and so are Saturday-night specials! You have nothing to fear, really, it's ok! After we ban lead-ammo you can still shoot stuff with those fancy copper-solids, and the microstamping on the bullets will help to identify which deer is really yours. And you won't need to handload since factory ammo is so precise nowdays - as long as you like the one or two calibers we let you shoot. Really, it's gonna be fine! You'll love your new hobby when it all goes digital too - it'll be just like being there!!
Thank you for your support.
Posted by: CTD | Feb 26, 2007 10:12:49 AM
Kari,
Folks around here keep saying, and I believe them, that fully-automatic weapons have been regulated since the 1930s. Do those rules violate the 2nd Amendment or not?
In my opinion? Yes they do. There is no "except for machine guns and short-barreled rifles" clause in the 2nd amendment, at least not that I can see. IMHO, the 2nd amendment pertains almost exclusively to military arms. What other kind of arms should a militia have?
Of course, the Supreme Court disagrees with me, and believes that strict regulation of automatic weapons is permitted by the Constitution.
Posted by: Robb Allen | Feb 26, 2007 10:33:20 AM
Ahh, the old "who NEEDS X?" argument.
Who needs a car with 300 HP? Cars kill a hell of a lot more people than guns.
Who needs a swimming pool? 'Cuz more children are killed in pools than by firearms here in the Sunshine state.
Who needs a precision honed, hollow edged chef's knife in their home?
You need to stop getting all your gun information from CSI-Miami. The term armor piercing does not mean it was developed to do just that. 30.06 rounds will pierce armor but are required for adequate hunting of medium / medium-large animals.
But you can also make the argument that having a loaded weapon in the house is far more likely to create the opportunity for a crime than to prevent oneNo, you can't. That's the most illogical, ill-informed comment to date. Does the gun itself broadcast messages to criminals that forces them to break into a house? Does the firearm sprout legs, find a hand, and cause the trigger to pull? How does an inanimate object create an opportunity for a crime? If someone breaks into my house, the crime is already committed, the gun has nothing to do with it.
But that's the problem with hoplophobes. You assign your fears to an inanimate object that has no free will of its own and then proceed to make asinine observations based on it. You might fear that you'd turn into some sort of homicidal maniac if you hold a gun, but I carry one every day and I've yet to muster much more than slight irritation at anyone.
Then you take your fear and try to pass laws that have no effect on those who should be the true cause of your concern. Seriously. If "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED" signs were actually effective, why did that kid shoot up the mall in Utah the other week? If gun laws actually would reduce the usage of guns, then why hasn't the War On Some Drugs reduced the amount of drugs on the street?
A fully automatic .577 Tyrannasaur in my hands is of no more danger to you than a flyswatter. A .22 in the hands of a criminal is much more lethal.
Posted by: Sebastian | Feb 26, 2007 12:00:55 PM
I think there needs to be a rational argument for why a particular firearm or ammunition should not be generally available to the public. But this debate isn't really about what is good public policy on that level or rational arguments. Its not about whether a farmer needs a fancy .22 to shoot varmints.
Because part of living in a free society as a free citizen means I don't have a justify a damned thing to you, Mr. Williams. Think about where that kind of attitude leads for a minute. Who gets to decide what's justified?
Posted by: Chuck Butcher | Feb 26, 2007 12:46:36 PM
Kari,
Automatic weapons featured in a few very high profile crimes as well as sawed off shot guns. So Uncle Fed decided to do something about it.
No case on this law has ever been decided by the Supremes, a sawed off got there but was sent back down as moot because the petitioner was deceased. Does it infringe, obviously it places a limit.
The old saw, the first amendment doesn't allow you to cry "FIRE" in a crowded theater is probably the best explanation why this just gets left alone. It's not as simple as the statement appears, what we are talking about is an inevitable, universal, catastrophic outcome of the exercise of the right with no countervailing individual or collective benefit to such exercise. That's a mouthful, but think on it.
Fully automatic weapons, as noted above, are hard to control in regard to aim point. This virtually guarantees that unintended targets will be hit. Spray and pray is short for it. The work around in this instance is that they are not banned but controled (also read strongly discouraged).
A sawed off shot gun is virtually ideal for close range self-defense, after a short distance the fast shot pattern spread puts the stuff all over the place. The Fed Appeal in Miller found that they had no military application (HEY ROSS). Contrary to Ross' assertion most 2nd A supporters aren't loons and aren't too hot on the idea of general availability of machine guns for the reasons noted.
Ross has proved himself to be a troll on this issue, like the bradys he takes whatever little pieces suit him and dismisses the rest. The military application of small arms is huge, what Ross wants to forget in his "you'd get squashed like a bug" is that it is surely true that an Appache or Abrahms trumps a 30-06, the problem is that all the infrastruture around that 30-06 also goes away. Now how damn difficult is it to work up scenarios where that is not in the elite's interests? A handful of good marksmen and spotters would absolutely paralyze a large area, gee, how about Wall Street, the Capital Mall, San Francisco's Financial Dist, etc etc, or a couple big GE or Dow plants. You betcha, send tanks right on in.
So we have an understanding, 600yds is over 1/4 mi, I use a 30-06 M1 Garrande and shoot with open sights (peep sights) at a target with an aiming black roughly shoulder wide, just getting into the black doesn't get a good score. This is a WWII battle rifle, holds a clip of 8 and is semiautomatic. These rounds exit the barrel at 2600fps, they arrive on target before the sound of the gun, the sound you hear is a snap as they break the soundbarrier passing over the target pullers. Ross, if it's so damn easy why haven't they cleaned out Iraq? they're not too worried about breaking things either (maybe you noticed on the tv news?).
First Ross says the 2nd is about hunting and you don't need any highpower stuff (and ludicrously tells me I want a soft bullet for a Kodiac bear, really now, I'd want to kill him not just piss him off) then he turns around and says your target pistol is militarily useless, mixes up about three arguments re:ammo, then tells you the 2nd isn't about self-defense, if you watch closely the 2nd isn't about anything in Ross' world. He can't keep a straight argument, dissembles his actual point, cherry picks a word or two and then calls people who don't like it "nuts" What he is not doing is engaging in persuasion or discussion, what he is doing is acting as the perfect exemplar of the Brady Bunch and other banners.
look, if you want to come to the table of gun-control, you'd better come well armed with history, facts, and a good understanding of the articles involved. Stupid little word games aren't going to cut it, we get this crap all the time, the answer is, tell the truth, use facts, know your subject - leave the little girl tantrums to the other side. You want to bring junk, you're going to get scoffed at, and knowing which end of a gun the bullet comes out of ain't enough, you're talking about attempting to undo the Constitution and the folks who don't like it know something about it.
I'll answer an intelligent question like Kari's but I'm tired of being trolled.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Feb 26, 2007 1:04:46 PM
Thanks for the discussion, Chuck. The Supremes haven't ruled - that's interesting. I can see why they'd avoid the question.
But that still leaves the question for you: Do you believe that regulations on fully-automatic weapons is a violation of the 2nd Amendment?
I appreciate the answers from some others above.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Feb 26, 2007 1:13:16 PM
When I initially posted on this, I pointed the finger at the gun lobby, which, as this case demonstrates is in fact the monolith Jack Burton denies. So monolithic, in fact, that an apparently coordinated effort blackballed Jim Zumbo in less than a week. I have no way of knowing the extent to which the effort was coordinated, but the question's moot--the various players acted in such lockstep that the effect was back-room politics, with or without the back room.
Kari hits on the key question that scares the gun lobby because it is the thing with divisive force. No constitutional right is absolute, but as we've seen on this thread, many gun-"rights" activists hold an absolute opinion (which is no doubt a minority view nationally). To the extent that some Americans want absolute, unregulated access to any weapon manufactured, the entire gun lobby is in danger of fighting it's own inner battles. Thus does it quickly act to stamp out consideration of any question that may lead, as inevitably as this thread (on a liberal website, no less), to a consideration of where that line should be drawn.
I'm freaked out by political players who use their might to stifle discussion, whether it's environmentalists who spike trees or gun advocates who want to own AK-47s. So why is no one talking about that?
Kari's right--unless and until people admit that, even with Constitutional protection, guns can be regulated, we're going to perpetually have a fake discussion about anti-gun hysteria trying to infringe on Americans' rights. (I've even heard those charges on this thread, made obviously out of reflex, since no one has taken anything approaching that position here.)
Post a comment
Posted by: Zak J. | Feb 25, 2007 3:07:26 PM
Is this the same Jeff Alworth who a few weeks back wrote the "Dems, go for low-hanging fruit" post, urging Democats to table our personal pet projects in the interest of tackling the larger social agenda?
I guess that attitude didn't last long. Pity.
Jeff, guns are going to be an issue only if anti-2nd Amendment Democrats make them an issue. By making it an issue, Democrats will lose popular support and the votes that allow them push the progressive agenda.
One thing in your post is very telling: Zombo wasn't careful about making a distinction between automatic and semi-automatic guns... One very good reason Zombo might not have mentioned fully-automatic weapons is that those have been effectively banned for 70 years. Did you know that? It doesn't sound like you did; which is one of the reasons the pro-2nd Amendment people (and don't call yourself one, please--the Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to own hunting gear) get nervous around people pushing for gun control--the pro-control people are often ignorant or unclear about what types of weapons they are talking about banning (what IS an assault weapon anyway?) and about which gun-owners they intend to turn into overnight felons.
Please educate yourself on this issue (and the actual connections between gun ownership and crime--which are not as cut and dry as you imply) before you feel compelled to write more about it. Better yet, leave your pet issues on the shelf and GO FOR LOW-HANGING FRUIT (as a wise man once said in these very pages.)