Assault Weapons: Evil Black Rifles (or perhaps not)

If you want to help support the 2nd Amendment please share this hub by tweeting it or liking it on Facebook

"Assault rifles" are being demonized by many politicians, media-types, and other 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.

Actually, many of the national leaders in the gun banning community know they are lying to the public. Josh Sugarmann, author of the 1988 book "Assault Weapons and Accessories in America" laid out the strategy for all to see.

"Assault weapons-just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms-are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons-anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

True automatic 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 eventual version, the M16/M4, wasn't too bad either but certainly wasn't universally loved by soldiers.

Source

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, or even completely collapsible. 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. 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.

When you hear or read someone railing against "high powered assault weapons" you now know that they don't really know much about firearms. The standard deer rifle in Uncle Bob's closet is much more powerful than the .223 cartridge. The AR platform can be manufactured with the capability of using a larger, more powerful cartridge which is used in hunting, but those are still the exception and not the norm for the rifle.

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 by a switch between shooting either one shot, three shots, or full automatic with just one pull of the trigger. Full auto meant the gun would continue to fire all the rounds until the trigger was let up.. 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.

Only in the movies, or in news stories about celebrating Third World soldiers do you see automatic fire. It's just not a productive way to fight a war or kill people.

Aside from that the disadvantages of machine guns are considerable. Not least among them is the weight and space of the ammunition they consume. This is something that isn't obvious to the casual viewer of action films, since most on-screen firearms feature tardis-like ammunition capacities, capable of firing indefinitely with no magazine changes.

In fact, an M16 has a firing rate of 750 rounds per minute, so that if one were to be used as typically shown in movies (constant spray of bullets), one would go through a 30-round magazine every two and a half seconds. And a full magazine weighs a pound. So for a single minute's use in full auto, a movie-watching criminal would need to carry at least 25 pounds of magazines around (and that's about $1,000 worth of ammunition, which will seriously dent their bank heist operational budget).

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. There is little record of any licensed fully automatic weapon being used in the commission of a crime since 1934. Some accounts say one may have been used, some say even up to TWO times in the past almost 80 years has a registered fully auto be used in a crime.

"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, a harmless little plinking rifle that wouldn't do any great damage to an 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.

Many people complain that the semi-autos sold today are easily converted to full automatic weapons. They have no understanding of either the mechanics of firearms or the laws prohibiting even the whiff of a full auto.

Federal law declares that any gun that is easily converted to an automatic weapon IS an automatic weapon for the purposes of the law, even if not actually converted -- (National Firearms Act as amended by the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986). That NON-automatic pistols or carbines that fire from an open bolt are Title 2/Class III restricted under Federal law, because they can be converted by filing the sear.

It is a crime to even ATTEMPT to convert a legal semi-auto to fully automatic fire even in the absence of a conversion kit. The attempt is the same thing as possessing an illegal, unregistered machine gun. If you possess even a single PART from a full auto gun and attempt to fit it to a semi-auto, you've just tried to assemble an illegal machine gun. That is a 10 year prison sentence and/or a $250,000 dollar fine.

The semi-auto versions of any military-type rifle have to be specifically designed so that CANNOT accept parts from their full auto cousins without requiring major alteration to the gun itself. As a result, the presence of the alteration is prima facie evidence that you were, in fact, intending to manufacture an illegal machine gun.

This is difficult to explain to someone who isn't familiar with the internals of firearms. I can tell you it is not easy to convert any semi-auto rifle to full-auto. It requires a machine shop in many cases and a machinist used to working to very precise specs. And manufacture of a conversion kit would be considered manufacture of a machine gun under the law. Hence why you don't see the kits.

Books do exist on how to build machine guns or make the necessary conversions. That's legal. It's protected under the 1st Amendment. You can even buy the book and own the corresponding gun. Questionable judgement but still legal. You become a criminal the moment you attempt to go from the abstract words on a page and turn them into steel reality. Then you're breaking the law. Not until.

The AR, the AK and similar rifles make perfectly fine hunting guns 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, small feral hogs, and other destructive pests, 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. Since almost all states limit the number of rounds that can be carried in a long gun while hunting to only three the issue of someone shooting a deer thirty times is simply not even reasonable. The hunter merely uses a smaller magazine, or a large one with a plug that prevents over-loading it.

Would they be used to take elk or mule deer out west where the animals are much bigger and the shooting distance is measured by hundreds of yards? No, that takes a much bigger gun and caliber bullet. But just because you don't use a hammer in place of a screwdriver doesn't mean that both hammers and screwdrivers have their proper uses.

The October 2009 issue of Outdoor Life, the premier magazine of hunting and fishing, prominently featured an AR style rifle on it's front cover, and declared it one of the top ten hunting rifles of the year.

The North American Whitetail association considers the AR platform ideal.

11 Best ARs for Deer Hunting in 2014

Field and Stream magazine, the acknowledged dean of hunting information wrote...

Finally, 4 AR-Style Rifles Chambered for Big Game Hunting

And Peterson's Hunting published...

How to Choose the Perfect Hunting AR

And the National Shooting Sports Foundation has launched a national media campaign designed to correct widespread mis-perceptions among gun owners and non-gun owners about AR-15-style rifles, also known as modern sporting rifles, by enlisting the help of widely respected outdoors writer/author Doug Painter to do a video explaining how this type of rifle is perfect for certain types of hunting.

The Modern Sporting Rifle

These types of rifles 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. They shoot a common and inexpensive cartridge. They're customizable, with only a few moving parts, easy to find spare parts for, and don't have a lot of recoil.

You can drop it in a swamp, pull it out and it will still shoot. Not a lot of expensive hunting rifles could take the abuse a typical sports uitility rifle could shrug off.

Many police departments in both big and little cities across the nation are converting to these guns for these 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-16, 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. At Camp Perry, where the National Shooting championships have been held each year for decades, the AR-15 (or M16) has owned the short to medium length accuracy competition for many years.

Chuck Hawks, a noted gun writer and scholar, says:

Camp Perry service rifle competitions are dominated by M16 type rifles, and the use of the M1A or the M1 is extremely limited. While I will probably never move to shooting a M16 type for competition, the individual who wants to be competitive should consider such a proposition. The M16 type has lower recoil, more inherent accuracy potential, and better ergonomics. Additionally the advent of 1/7 twist rate barrels for the M16 type allow the use of heavier bullets thereby allowing shooters to shoot very accurately out to 600 yards.

Go to most outdoor ranges and you'll see all kinds of guys with their AR-15s, AK-47s, and other look-alikes 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.

Are these guns being used to specifically target police officers for death? No, of course not. David Kopel examined the evidence stretching over years and years and found that they are far from any major cause of harm to our police officers:

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.

Here's an excellent ten minute video about this subject

You'll get to see a normal, everyday hunting rifle change to an "evil black rifle" right before your very eyes. And when you realize that it is fundamentally no different from you going from suit and tie with combed hair to bluejeans and a tee shirt with unkempt hair then you'll understand the lies the gun banners have been trying to foist off on the public.

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. America is a land of choice, and you can choose to calibrate your self defense from something as simple as pepper spray or a stun gun, or all the way up to an AK style rifle.

I invite you to browse around here and enjoy some of the other hubs that I have written. I am sure you will find something of interest.

To help this info reach the greatest number of people please feel free to post a link to it on any gun-related forums that you participate in.

More by this Author


Comments 39 comments

farmerkd 8 years ago

This is one of the best explanations I've read. Been trying to explain this concept to friends and relatives for years.

As far as the "little ol' .22," I remember many years ago watching Diane Feinstein holding a mean looking rifle over her head and shouting that "We (Californians) must get these assault weapons off our streets!" The black rifle in question? Marlin 60, (Most popular .22 ever made) with some "evil-looking" attachments.


perry 8 years ago

do you rember taggants? little plastic pellets in gunpowder so they can track it .just in case if it was used in a terrorist attack thet pushed it for years ,, ended up being a totlay false and was debunked ,, maybe liberals should stop lying to the american people


Benjamin9 8 years ago

Resist all entities that fear armed free men.


troylaplante profile image

troylaplante 8 years ago from Selma, NC

I love my evil black rifle.


rivrsurfrr 8 years ago


Tim 8 years ago

this was an excellent explanation of why we shouldn't fear law abiding citizens and their assault weapon style rifles. However, it isn't really the law abiding citizens we should be worried about is it?

By the way, any long gun like the Marlin Model 60 that is converted to, say, a bullpup style rifle is a gun whose fundamental pupose has changed. The reason bullpups, and other rifle configurations such as the ar-15, were created was to solve particular problems. Take the bullpup. It was created to give both accuracy (by retaining a longer barrel) and close range freedom of movement by shortening the overall length. Now, what uses would someone have for such a rifle? Well, close quarter combat, or maybe dense forest hunting. Certainly not the original purpose of that little marlin, which was to put holes in paper, or critters like squirrels.

I enjoy my firearms, and I have a ccw permit, but honestly, there are some weapons that really have no other purpose than to kill people. Do we really need legal rights to own these types of guns? Do you really think it will make a difference when it comes to protecting yourself? I guarantee you that my Marlin 60 with it's 18 round tube magazine would be just as effective on a rooftop, if not more so, than any AR-15.

Very nicely written article, but obviously biased. You'll never convince anyone on the fence by presenting a one sided argument. All you've done here is garner feedback from people who already support your position.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 8 years ago from The Midwest Author

Tim… I’ll warn you in advance you’re thoughts are going to get a public spanking. It won’t be pretty, and it will be somewhat painful, but hopefully at the end you’ll come out a better thinker if you pay attention.

Tim sez:

this was an excellent explanation of why we shouldn't fear law abiding citizens and their assault weapon style rifles.

Jack replies:

Actually, it wasn’t. It was an excellent explanation of why we shouldn’t fear an inanimate object that is really not much different from many other inanimate objects with better public relations.

Tim sez:

However, it isn't really the law abiding citizens we should be worried about is it?

Jack replies:

The type of "weapon" a non-law abiding citizen chooses to use is not what makes society "worried" about him. It is the concern that he will turn that weapon, no matter what it is, on us.

Tim Sez:

By the way, any long gun like the Marlin Model 60 that is converted to, say, a bullpup style rifle is a gun whose fundamental pupose has changed.

Jack replies:

Really? And just what is that ONE "fundamental purpose" of a Marlin Model 60? Please give detail. And specifics. I am really curious since a Marlin 60 was the first gun I bought decades ago.

And just what is "wrong" with changing it, if there is one?

If I have a Corvette I can pretty much guess the "fundamental purpose" of it is not to haul firewood home from the neighbors but if I choose to use it for that purpose who’s to say that I am "wrong."

Tim Sez:

The reason bullpups, and other rifle configurations such as the ar-15, were created was to solve particular problems. Take the bullpup. It was created to give both accuracy (by retaining a longer barrel) and close range freedom of movement by shortening the overall length.

Jack replies:

Yes, I believe I read something similar in the article.

Tim Sez:

Now, what uses would someone have for such a rifle? Well, close quarter combat, or maybe dense forest hunting.

Jack replies:

And what is wrong with me having a rifle designed for CQC, or maybe dense forest hunting? Be specific. Give detail.

Did you even read the article where it was noted (and listed) that there are many reasons to have such a gun? Surely if you did you would not have asked such a question. Creates a real strong impression of extreme short term memory problems for you.

Tim sez:

Certainly not the original purpose of that little marlin, which was to put holes in paper, or critters like squirrels.

Jack replies:

When you can explain to people just why a long gun such as this is not good for "putting holes in paper" then you can get away with such a statement. But you’re going to have to climb over the bodies of tens of thousands of people out at the ranges every weekend who are doing just that with their identical guns. Not to mention the thousands that participate in the Camp Perry shooting competition each year (which was ALSO noted in the article.)

And while you’re at it… explain to us why, if you merely change the cosmetics on the Marlin to a bullpup configuration it somehow isn’t any good for squirrel hunting anymore.

Tim sez:

I enjoy my firearms, and I have a ccw permit, but honestly, there are some weapons that really have no other purpose than to kill people.

Jack replies:

Really? Because THAT is the same identical argument that the gun-banners use to fight against the concept of handguns and CCW. Which leads me to suspect just what you "claim" for yourself.

And please tell us about ANY gun, hand or long, that won’t "kill people"? Is there some magic juju in them that prevents it? Some special technology that no one knows about?

If you’re not reeling too much from the body blows yet, then you can also tell us just why MY guns which I have had for decades have not yet "killed anybody" if that is their "sole purpose" even though they have tens of thousands of rounds through them. Do you think it’s too late to get my money back for such obviously defective guns?

Tim sez:

Do we really need legal rights to own these types of guns?

Jack replies:

Last I looked it was the "Bill of Rights", not the "Bill of What Tim Thinks People Need."

Tim sez:

Do you really think it will make a difference when it comes to protecting yourself?

Jack replies:

Why do you think YOU have ANY input on what I think is best for MY family’s protection? My family – not yours. You do what you think is best for yours and let me do what I think is best for mine.

Tim sez:

I guarantee you that my Marlin 60 with it's 18 round tube magazine would be just as effective on a rooftop, if not more so, than any AR-15.

Jack replies:

You just showed the gun-knowledgable folk here that you really don’t know much about guns, eh. And since you reduced the entire ability of Americans to own guns based upon what others "feel" about them, what makes you think you are going to keep that Marlin when someone else "feels" that it is a "bad gun."

You’ve already given away your ability to make any kind of logical argument against their "feelings".

Tim sez:

Very nicely written article, but obviously biased. You'll never convince anyone on the fence by presenting a one sided argument. All you've done here is garner feedback from people who already support your position.

Jack replies:

Since I’ve made the bulk of my living the past 35 years by persuasive writing which changes people’s minds then I am more than willing to let the readers decide on their own how good of job I did with the article.


GunRights4US 8 years ago

Jack I really love what you're doing! Your arguments are cogent and factual and I have every intention of referring to your work in future debates I will have with the Anti-gun crowd.

Keep up the excellent work! Semper Fi


Andrew 8 years ago

ok that argument thing was weird and did not make sense at all, and probably broke some laws on its own.

here's all you need to know when arguing with anti gun fags. owning a tactical stock 10/22 with 25round clip as opposed to a stock 10/22, is not like owning a dragster compaired to a honda, its like owning a honda with a wing, body kit and aftermarket air intake/exhaust and mean looking paint job. mostly to make you feel good about it, make it 'yours', and a couple extra things to improve the general performance. speaking of that, they should have laws against customizing cars because it leads to the deflamation of young women who are attracted to/impressed by such things as big chrome wheels on your run of the mill car


allshookup profile image

allshookup 7 years ago from The South, United States

It shocks me to see so many people being so nevative about guns. Do they not realize how they have gained their freedoms? But, then again, I was raised with a gun in my hand. And I'm thankful for it. The media and politicians want to make people fear them, seems to me. I think one of the biggest reasons that this new administration is doing this is because he eventually wants to outlaw them (of course he'll have them, just we wont) When a politican does something, more times that not, they have their own agenda for it. And I think this is to cause public fear and to make the public see things his way. Therefore, when he wants guns outlawed, he would have enough of the public in his pocket to where he can do just that. How so many educated people drink this coolaid is beyond me.

If guns kill people then

Cars make people drive drunk

Pencils misspell words

Forks and spoons make people fat

We have to keep our eyes open to the real agenda here and what is best for us. We were given the right to bear arms. We (I use that term loosely) have elected a man who doesn't support this right. We have to make our voices heard and stand strong. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

To quote Charlton Heston, "They can have it when they pry it from my cold dead hands."


Nordic pride 7 years ago

I come from a household that does not hunt. My mother's side never owned guns, and my father who owns an AK-74m and M1 Garand is a liberal along with the rest of his family. However, I also live in eastern NC where 9 out of every 10 houses has at least 1 gun in it. Last time I checked, the argument that guns kill people, I look and see that the only occasional (once every 1-4 years) murders are done by people already associated with crime. No one kills with AR's, just like no one kills with a 6 foot 30lb .50 BMG. The "tools" used are more often than not a small concealable pistol.

That might offer the gun control nazis a viable argument, however just last year I heard of a friend being offered a "Hot" Tec 9 full auto for $50. denying a convicted felon or drug addict a "legal" gun might deny him an easy path. However in my limited experience, criminals have money, and if they want something bad enough, they WILL get it, just like they do drugs.

I will not disbute that millitary assault rifles were designed to inflict wounds or kill. I also will not disbute that the civilian versions hold many of the same or similar qualities that are useful for perfectly legal and wholesome activites. However... If a man broke into my house intending to steal my possessions I worked hard for, or to rape my wife, or to kill me, I would have no qualm about putting him down with excessive force.

To those who think the 2nd gives citizens the tools to kill people, What if I bought a gallon of gasoline, two rags, two wine bottles, and a bic lighter from my local BP station? A molotov if used correctly in a building can kill dozens.

Ultimately though, the 2nd was created not to allow hunting and target shooting, but to give citizens the power to KILL people and TOPPLE governments that supress our freedom. Plain and simple, the constitution PROTECTS our right to have DEADLY weapons intended to KILL people.

If good ole Obama was to come to my very doorstep and demand me to surrender my firearm, I've got the constitution to back me in putting some lead in his inexperienced head. Of course I don't think he is that stupid.


John 7 years ago

Very nicely done and a good take down of, Tim.


allshookup profile image

allshookup 7 years ago from The South, United States

Nordic, I do hope Obama is not that stupid. I figure when/if that time does come, Obama wont be the one on your doorstep, it'll be his henchmen that we have to deal with. Obama wont get his hands dirty. (well, that can be seen) Have y'all noticed the people he is appointing? They are for strict gun control. We may be in for a fight. I don't think they are ready for the bunch of religion-clinging, gun-toting rednecks down here. But, I guess they can try. Good post.


tom 7 years ago

The .223/5.56 can be used to take big game under ideal circumstances. I culled a zebra at over 300 yards with a brain shot with one. If it shoots flat enough to hit a prarie dog at 300+, it shoots flat enough to hit a large 4 legged animal brain if one understands the trajectory of the loading being used and doping the wind. At that range the little two two three soft point was still carrying more energy than if I'd put a .45ACP with standard government hardball to the animals head at the same point of bullet impact. Result was a shattered brain stem and first two vertebrae and an animal that dropped as if it was struck by lightning.

I'm not suggesting that it's an ideal big game round, norwould I advocate it for the average shooter, but depending on circumstances, it can kill things much bigger than humans. I shoot 1000+ rounds a week. If a person is the sort that sights in their deer rifle with three or five rounds and then saves the rest for going hunting because they are "expensive" I wouldn't suggest using .223 for anything but varmints and plinking.


goldentoad profile image

goldentoad 7 years ago from Free and running....

I don't need a gun. Call me out if you like. But be ready to step to the plate.


Jeff 7 years ago

I would just like to mount a brief defense of myself and other gun-toting liberals.

First, I would like to say that I am a Democrat, and voted for Obama. I agree with him on many issues (flaming not needed: With politics and religion no two people think the same thing and everyone think's they're right--arguing is completely non-productive) but I have HUGE problems with his stance on gun control. So, when I discovered (from actual, legitimate sources which many on either side don't seek) that Obama was a supporter of the AWB and was for renewing it (which Holder recently confirmed), I went and bought me a gun.

And not just any gun. I bought a DPMS LR-308 AP4, then slapped a Nikon 4.5-14 scope on it. It is an evil black rifle (EBR), complete with flash suppressor, barrel shroud (actually a float tube, but people who don't know guns don't know the difference), a pistol grip, and a collapsible stock. I love my EBR. I took it hunting for the first time in the fall. I took a buck at around 350 yds or so--I'm still not good with ranging with mil-dots--and the first shot hit it, hurt it, but didn't drop it. Because it was a semi-auto I was able to take a follow up shot very quickly without losing sight picture and kill it humanely with a second shot through the heart.

I also have a CCW, and regularly carry a Glock 19 loaded with 16 rounds of +P hollowpoint. When I'm feeling randy I have a Kimber TLE that rides open. I have never had to draw either against anything scarier than paper or fruit, and I pray every day that I never have to. I would never use the EBR for home defense--someone breaks in, they get #4 buck from the 870.

The reason for this tirade is to show that nearly every firearm has a legitimate (non-revolutionary) use, and someone who actually reads and thinks knows that. Don't blame us liberals--statistics on firearms usage, corrolated with numbers that are anti-gun republicans, show that many, many liberals feel the same as I, if maybe a little less well armed.

The assault weapons ban is not bad because of intention. I honestly believe that those who support such measures are ignorant, not seeking to illegitimately disarm law abiding citizens. Accordingly, the correct action would be to educate them. This article is a good way, despite the bombastic language. I've sent it to many. I've also taken a good many people shooting who swore that they would never touch a gun. One just bought a brand new Glock. Another calls and asks when she can come with me again, saying that she's "ready to try the big scary gun." Why? Because shooting is fun as hell, and a gun is no more evil than the person behind the trigger.

Finally, to goldentoad: I'm not calling you out. I don't NEED a gun, either. I want one (several), and have a right to own them. I also don't need running water, money, or delivery pizza, but I'm happy that I have them. Having only what you need is not living, it's mere existence. I plan to live.

Also, who's house will you run to when the zombies come? Thought so.


goldentoad profile image

goldentoad 7 years ago from Free and running....

right, the zombies. I'm shaking.


Jeff 7 years ago

Well, goldentoad, the zombies were mostly tongue and cheek. However, my primary point remains unrefuted: That being, that guns have many legitimate uses.

If you don't want one, cool. Saying you don't "need" one is kind of silly; need is a function of necessity and survival. Those who have ever needed a gun fall into two catagories: they had one, and can now post on blogs, or they didn't have one, and they're a statistic. I hope I never need a gun. I've never been shot at or shot at anyone in civilian life, and hope I never have to. But I'd rather have a legal firearm properly maintained and secured that is there in case of need than to be left with nothing but my wits and charm to keep me alive.

Of course, as Volatire said, "I don't agree with what you say, but I would die for your right to say it."


goldentoad profile image

goldentoad 7 years ago from Free and running....

I would get into a long debate about this, but I'm feelin' Friday night and would rather crack a beer and not think. Can we resume this on Monday?


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 7 years ago from The Midwest Author

Toad sez:

I don't need a gun. Call me out if you like. But be ready to step to the plate.

Jack replies:

Perhaps you can explain to this woman about "needs"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkS8mdbml0A


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 7 years ago from The Midwest Author

Jeff sez:

I bought a DPMS LR-308 AP4, then slapped a Nikon 4.5-14 scope on it. It is an evil black rifle (EBR), complete with flash suppressor, barrel shroud (actually a float tube, but people who don't know guns don't know the difference), a pistol grip, and a collapsible stock. I love my EBR.

Jack Replies:

Hug it often 'cause when your boy obama takes it from you it will give you a much better understanding of schandenfreud.

Jeff sez:

This article is a good way, despite the bombastic language. I've sent it to many.

Jack Responds:

Bombastic? BOMBASTIC!!!

Seriouisly, feel free to use it as often and quote from it as much as you feel you need. it is freely available to use.


Jeff 7 years ago

Thanks, Jack. I will continue to send it around. As far as the language goes, it's far less bombastic than many. That's why I'm so happy to send it to liberals who haven't fallen prey to the utterly satisfying money trap that we call gun collecting.

The issue of gun confiscation is a hard one, and a valid concern. It has never been done en masse in the US, and I hope it never will. However, it is a possibility that you, I, and all other law abiding gun owners should consider. I find it quite difficult because I have never been a one issue voter, and when one party espouses views diametrically opposed to many of mine except on some issues, and the other resonates compatibly except for a few things which I think are completely wrong, I am torn and have only learned to go with the lesser of two evils. I fear that a two party system will necessitate this compromise for many for the foreseeable future.

I bought the AP4 based on what I believe is the best estimate of what may happen, considering the makeup of the US congress, recent supreme court decisions, and Obama's stated stance on gun control. Remember, it is not enough for a president to want legislation: A president cannot make laws, only enforce them in his executive capacity. When the '94 AWB was passed it was by a tremendous majority, at least in the Senate - 96 votes for, 1 against, and 3 abstentions if I remember correctly. This was with a congress with slim Democratic majorities.

Shortly after the AWB was passed Democrats lost both houses, and you would be a fool to believe that the AWB wasn't part of that. There are a surprising number of informed, educated individuals in this country, and a ban as silly as that definitely stirred up some ire. There were other factors, of course, but it was likely a contributor. However, in 10 years of Republican control the ban was not repealed, but allowed to sunset.

My point here is that the motivation is less about idealogy than politics. Americans, in general, hold their guns on a semi-sacred level unequaled in any other nation, and only analagous to how the sword is revered in Japan and some European countries. Our nation was founded by a violent revolution fought mostly be armed citizens, and that is a fact not soon forgotten. For those reasons, only mild gun control measures will generally be tolerated.

A ban that included confiscation would be political suicide. Those in congress know it, which account for Nancy Pelosi's recent statement that we should not renew the assault weapons ban but enforce the gun laws already in place. Obama, for whatever you think of him, is a very smart man, and is not ready to commit political suicide. This is especially true when he needs that cache to push through policies to help the economy (though many of those are arguably ambiguous and likely to be ineffective, I'll admit. That's for another forum, however).

To conclude this pseudo-intelectual rant, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto once stated, when referencing plans that the Japanese made to invade the US, that "you could never invade the mainland United States--there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." This shows the sacrosanct position in which guns are held in America, and why the individual right to gun ownership hold a unique position in our history, constitution, laws, and jurisprudence. This does not mean we can be complacent, and we should make our views known by membership in the NRA, letters to our representatives, protest if necessary, and, of course, our votes.

In the meantime, however, I'm going shooting tomorrow in the delightfully vacant high desert that surrounds my city. Beats the hell out of golf.


Ranger Ryan 7 years ago

All I Have To Say Is HOOAH Sir! *salutes* One Of The Best Articles EVER Written That I Have Read So Far!I Just Bought a Colt M4 Tactical .22 Rimfire Series and The FIRST Thing I Heard Over and Over From Un-Knowing Friends Was "Is That Thing Even Legal?" Ignorance. I Plan On Using mine for Target Shooting, As A Fun Little Practical Plinker and Small Game Hunter, That Is Something That I Am Familiar With From My days With The Military. But I Digress. Once Again Great Article, Awesomely Written. Thank You Very Much Sir!

BTW I Love This Quote!! Thank You For It!

If guns kill people then

Cars make people drive drunk

Pencils misspell words

Forks and spoons make people fat


Shane 6 years ago

Goldentoad:"I don't need a gun. Call me out if you like. But be ready to step to the plate."

I know I am many months late, but this is a strange comment. You seem to be trying to goad someone into arguing that you should own a gun. Why would someone attempt that?

We used to raise sheep, and they got along perfectly fine with their flat teeth. Even if they did have fangs, they wouldn't know what to do with them. And I never did see the sheepdog trying to convince any of them that they should try growing a pair.


Madeline 6 years ago

I agree with what Jack was saying to Tim. You clearly don't know much about guns. I own an AR-15 and I hunt with it. It's an amazing gun. I was sheep hunting and hit one that was 200 yards away on the run. Please tell me you can do that with your .22. Also being a girl I feel more secure with a gun. People buy guns for 3 reasons: target shooting, hunting, and to protect their families. I'm not sure about the people that have posted on here saying that guns aren't neccisary, but if a guy walks into your house with an axe and you politley ask him to leave, chances are you are going to be the first to go. For all of you "gun fearers" READ A FREAKING BOOK!!!! Learn how many lives have been saved by civilians with guns. Also please don't listen to what the media says about guns, they have no idea what they are talking about. I would suggest reading anything by John R. Lott. So please, before you comment again, read, go shoot a gun and you'll realize that it's actually a fun thing to do.


military computer financing 6 years ago

"People buy guns for 3 reasons: target shooting, hunting, and to protect their families" - hmm, i tell you another readon: because they;re brainwashed. Why are we the only nation with such a policy ? Cos we're crazy !


Coowallsky 6 years ago

military computer financing oozed: "hmm, i tell you another readon: because they;re brainwashed. Why are we the only nation with such a policy ? Cos we're crazy !"

Speak for yourself. That you want to be a serf speaks volumes. The concept of people being responsible for their own safety has to really make you soil your pink thong.

Is the UN more to your liking, tool?


james 5 years ago

I like collecting and shooting guns as a hobby. It makes me happy. I have the right to collect guns in all shapes and sizes. A person ignorant or just uninterested in guns should not decide the limits of my hobby. They wouldn't like me choosing what is appropriate for their hobby. I have 30+ guns in my house and a big army truck in my yard. They don't hurt ANYONE but they do give me enjoyment. Please don't take them away because you feel YOU don't have a use or interest for them.

My friends and i regularly have a great time at the shooting range, everyone that try's it loves it. There is a great feeling that comes from hitting a target with a bullet that you fired. Even anti-gun advocates have become friends with me and found out that guns aren't that bad after all. Please! before you judge give it a try. more than likely you will like it. then you will kinda get bored with that gun because you mastered it and then you will want to shoot something else. Probably bigger badder and cool looking. that's how the hobby starts. Bicycles to motorcycles. Soap Box cars to camaros. inflatable rafts to speed boats. Its All the same!


DJ 5 years ago

Coowallsky wrote: The concept of people being responsible for their own safety ...

Actually the courts have repeatedly ruled that 911 & Law Enforcment have no obligation to protect any individual. That means that the responsibility is yours, doesn't it.


Jon 4 years ago

Not to be that guy or anything, but its a common misconception that the AR-15 is the civilian version of the M16. Actually its the other way around. The M16 is the military name for the AR-15. Armalite model 15 was originally fully automatic. Only Colt and Armalite can use the name AR. They just still use the name on semi-only civilian models.

Also another good point you could've made is that the name "ASSAULT RIFLE" came from the word Sturmgewehr meaning storm rifle. Which was given to the rifle by none other than ADOLF HITLER himself. YA KNOW, THE HOLOCAUST!, and the fact that we use it in our laws is ridiculous. I live in CT and we have the stupid "STURMGEWEHR BAN LAWS." (assault weapon ban laws). So we are actaully basing some of our law on a made up word from the Fuhrer.

Everything you said was correct and I wish everyone in this country read it.


Mr. Happy profile image

Mr. Happy 4 years ago from Toronto, Canada

"and that's about $500 worth of ammunition, which will seriously dent their bank heist operational budget" - This is absolutely not an argument when I can link this video to You: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zJV9l0dWwg&feature...

Since You like guns and all, I am sure You will remember that forty-five minutes shootout in North Hollywood. Now, I do not know exactly how those guys got their AK-47s but they did and the outcome was not pretty. They had so much ammunition they turned cop cars to spaghetti strainers.

So, even though at this point in my life I am of the opinion that restricting any weapons is pointless, I must say that it should be a concern when people can own an M-107 (I mention this rifle again because I find it quite amazing - one can make a kill from 5,900 feet). Geez, I can shoot and by the time anyone figures out where I was I can be hoping on a plane to Cambodia ... And actually again, the concern is not that people can get their hands on such toys but that mentally unstable people can get their hands on them.

You mentioned in your comment on the other article I was commenting on, that criminals do not care about laws. Yes, I agree but that does not mean that we just shrug our shoulders and load-up. I am sure there must be something that can be done so mentally unstable people can not own such things. Maybe a psychological test before being allowed to purchase something so powerful? Not sure ... but something should be done, in my opinion.

"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." - I know I am going to sound as an idealist here but I would argue that we have to solve our socioeconomic problems and our health problems and then, we would not have riots, crazy people going on rampages and so on. A gun cannot keep a person completely safe but a safe world can keep us all safe.

Will I argue that we can get rid of all violence and such? No. Yet, much can be still done. Mentally unstable people who go on rampages need help or better say needed help before they go bananas. I am confident that addressing the issue of mental illnesses and necessary healing can diminish the levels of violence. I would invest in mental and health care before investing in more useless laws. Many people are losing their minds, cracking under societal pressures and nothing is being done about it.

I also do not think it matters much if one is wielding a semi-automatic riffle or an automatic one: my finger moves pretty fast (lol). It is really pointless in my opinion to ban some weapons and not ban others. If I can buy .357 Magnum ammo at a Wall-mart, anything is possible (lol).

Thank You for the read. Always good to learn about other people's thoughts, in my opinion.

Cheers!


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest Author

Happy sez: "and that's about $500 worth of ammunition, which will seriously dent their bank heist operational budget" - This is absolutely not an argument when I can link this video to You: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zJV9l0dWwg&feature

Jack replies: And you can link to how many stories in the past 50 years where the bad guys used so many rounds? Oh… that is right. ONE. And how successful were they? Oh… not at all. One killed, one wounded and captured.

Happy sez: So, even though at this point in my life I am of the opinion that restricting any weapons is pointless, I must say that it should be a concern when people can own an M-107 (I mention this rifle again because I find it quite amazing - one can make a kill from 5,900 feet).

Jack replies: A m-107 in the hands of a law abiding citizen threatens no one. A slingshot in the hands of a person with evil intent in their heart can harm many. I don’t think that attempting to keep the M-117 out of the hands of a law abiding citizen is going to mean in the least that it means that the criminals will say, “Oh, that gun is illegal. I won’t shoot anyone with it because I might get in trouble.”

Happy sez: And actually again, the concern is not that people can get their hands on such toys but that mentally unstable people can get their hands on them.

Jack replies: I can guarantee you without hesitation that a mentally unstable person can kill far more people with a 3,000 lb car in 30 seconds that a marksman can kill with a M-116 in two minutes.

Happy sez: I am sure there must be something that can be done so mentally unstable people can not own such things. Maybe a psychological test before being allowed to purchase something so powerful? Not sure ... but something should be done, in my opinion.

Jack replies: And mental tests should be given all drivers of SUVs, pick up trucks, and other vehicles that have been used over the past few years to drive into crowds of people and kill multiple innocents.

And “doing something” is the mantra of those who struggle with freedom and all of it’s ramifications. What do you suggest we do about the 70 BILLION dollars in damages and lives cost that drunk drivers provide us each year?

Happy sez: I know I am going to sound as an idealist here but I would argue that we have to solve our socioeconomic problems and our health problems and then, we would not have riots, crazy people going on rampages and so on. A gun cannot keep a person completely safe but a safe world can keep us all safe.

Jack replies: Good thoughts… but again… you have limited yourself to just one option… trying to change the world to a nicer place. When that option doesn’t quite work out for you… where do you go? I have every option that you have to make the world a nicer place… and when and if the first option fails I have a backup. You don’t.

BTW… sitting on a roof chanting kumbaya when the riot is headed your way is not a time to be wondering about 2nd options.

Happy sez: I would invest in mental and health care before investing in more useless laws. Many people are losing their minds, cracking under societal pressures and nothing is being done about it.

Jack replies: You’re getting dangerously close to seeing things the American way. Be careful.


Mr. Happy profile image

Mr. Happy 4 years ago from Toronto, Canada

For the sake of the argument, I must say that in that attempted bank heist, "eleven police officers and seven civilians were injured". I was not thinking about the success those guys had, I was thinking of the damage that they caused with their Ak047s and their AR 15. They carried "high capacity drum magazines" and ammo that can penetrate the police body armor. True, one such case in which 2,000 rounds are fired in a regular neighborhood but I am sure that was one case too many if You ask anyone who witnessed it, or was involved.

This brings me to your comment about: "And mental tests should be given all drivers of SUVs, pick up trucks, and other vehicles that have been used over the past few years to drive into crowds of people and kill multiple innocents." - I agree! Back home (I was born and raised in Romania), one would have to have a psychological test, a reflex test, a theory and practice (night time and day time) test, in order to get a driver's license. In my opinion, North American driving examination tests are a joke and I have to dodge bad drivers who endanger my life almost on a daily basis, when I am out driving on the roads. It would not hurt to make sure that those who operate such vehicles or weapons, are responsible and mentally stable.

This actually brings me to another point. I trained for seven and a half years in shoto khan martial arts. When and if You get your black belt with the Japan Karate Association, your name will be entered in police records here in Toronto. This is precisely because someone with such extensive training is considered to be a weapon. I do think we have to be responsible people when we live communally in societies and sadly, we do have to conform in some ways (not happy with that but I understand the necessity).

"you have limited yourself to just one option… trying to change the world to a nicer place. When that option doesn’t quite work out for you… where do you go?" - I think we never tried to make the world a better place. I was a major in History at one point in my life and from what I have studied I must say that I think we tried more over the course of history, to try to build big walls, fences, armies and such, more than we tried to come together as people. Now I am heading into philosophy and spirituality though so I'll just stop here.

"You’re getting dangerously close to seeing things the American way. Be careful."- I try to learn from anyone and everything because I think every culture and people have knowledge to offer.

I may be labeled a socialist but I just finished Ron Paul's book "A Life of Ideas" and I can say that I agree with him on many, many issues. I even wrote a hub a while ago why I could easily see myself as a Republican: http://hubpages.com/politics/Why-I-could-be-a-Repu...

Well, thank You again for the discussion - I think I learned one or two things and as I digest these thoughts and conversation perhaps I can learn some more.

Cheers!


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest Author

Again, while I have great empahy for any who is injured by any means by a bad guy, one incident out of decades is certainly not a reason to curtail the freedoms of millions of other law abiding people.

BTW, virtually ALL rifle ammo is capable of going through a normal bullet resistant vest, including Uncle Bob’s much more powerful deer hunting rifle tucked away in the back closet.

And I am glad I don’t live in Romania. Or Canada for that matter.

And yes, with human nature the way it is, high walls and armies often make much more sense. We’ve become perhaps more “civilized” but human nature remains the same. It would only take a small tipping point for that veneer of civilization to go away very fast.

Here are some thoughts that may have never occurred to you…

http://old.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120501.sh...


Futamarka 3 years ago

Причины женской эпиляции: Фото женской эпиляции. Одиночество. Если у женщины по какой-либо причине нет кремового партнёра, то в это время эпиляция служит неплохим способом снятия маникюрного напряжения. Излишнее возбуждение. Просмотр стилистического фильма, чтение романической книги, просто тёплые приятные воспоминания о любимом человеке — всё это может вызвать непреодолимое желание, приводящее к немедленной эпиляции.


Stellar Phoenix Mac Data Recovery 3 years ago

Great blog. Its very informative and the theme mixes well with your content. Its very professional looking.. Your content is always favorable.


Bensabossatlife profile image

Bensabossatlife 2 years ago from Duluth, GA

loved the article! I wrote one similarly on my views of this topic, any anti-gun banners wanna check it out?http://hubpages.com/politics/The-TRUTH-about-Gun-C...


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 22 months ago from upstate, NY

Love your killer arguments against these liberal gun grabbers! They fear freedom and feel the need to control everybody else's. Kinda like the rest of the gun grabbing crowd, ie Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong , Castro, Pol Pot ect.


gepeTooRs 6 months ago

You’re actually a good webmaster. The site loading pace is amazing. It kind of feels that you’re doing any unique trick. In addition, The contents are masterwork. you have done a excellent activity on this matter!

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working