The So-Called Assault Weapons on My Rifle Range
At Appleseed, we’re big on the phrase “Shoot like a girl… if you can.” Women like this instructor firing a scoped version of a semi-automatic M1 Garand battle rifle in the prone position tend to be excellent shooters.
When not distracted by the machinations of working a bolt-action, pumping a pump-action, or working a lever, shooters can focus on the far more important tasks of establishing a natural point of aim and and precisely following the six steps of firing a shot. In order to accurately, repeatedly fire shots into a tight group, a shooter has to align the front and rear sights, bring the aligned sights onto the target, find her respiratory pause, focus the eyes on the front sight while focusing the mind on the the target, squeeze the trigger, and follow through.
That’s hard work, despite what your experience playing Call of Duty or Halo on Xbox suggests.
I have been to Appleseed rifle training and took my adult daughter for the training also. Of primary interest was the patriotic lessons which accompanied the rifle training, mainly based on Fischer’s Paul Revere’s Ride, an excellent history of the early days of the American revolution. The training I received that day was better than the rifle training I received while a member of the Army. The people I met were all gentlemen and ladies, no pot bellied beer swigging red necks with hate sign t=shirts, just nice clean American middle class of all ages. The photo of Biden which appears above this area reminds me – talk about gun nute! Biden is loony on every subject and is now imagining he did something around a mass shooting event: if he has ever been near one, it was when he shot himself and the Obama regime in the feet . . .
The New York Times recently published a “helpful” graphic on what constitutes an assault weapon. To my astonishment, I discovered that I own two such fearsome weapons. I had no idea, as most of my rifles are antique collectibles. Still, the finding was inescapable:
*detachable, “high-capacity” magazine? Yes
*bayonet lug? Yes
*ability to mount a grenade launcher (who knew this was a major component of American criminal intent, but the Times would not lie)? Yes
*”flash hider”? Yes on one, no on the other
Still, it is now clear that I have two such terror weapons. The first is a Short Magazine Lee Enfield rifle, dated in 1917 and used in the First World War. The second is also a Lee Enfield Jungle Carbine, this one dated 1945, and so a relic of the Second World War. Combined age of my murderous arsenal–164 years.
And don’t get me started on my 1884 Trapdoor Springfield, a big-bore killing machine with a permanently mounted bayonet lurking under the barrel with wicked intent…
Once upon a time, baxk in the ’30s, the Federal Government (under another Democrat, of course), took it upon itself to make the world safe by confiscating privately owned rifles of black powder calibers. I know about this only because an old farmer named George Cook, in his 80s at the time of the telling, related the story to me.
He had an old Winchester rifle, in the same .45/70 caliber as your US Army Model 1884.
The agents asked, they cajoled, they plead, and then they threatened, because what if George fired that old gun using ammunition that used, not black powder, but smokeless ammunition!
George’s answer was short.
“Nosir.” He recalled. “But I will give you a couple of the bullets if you don’t git off my property.” Considering that George was telling me that story sitting on the same front porch nearly 40 years later, I guess they left and didn’t come back.
When I left Eastern Washington in the summer of 1970, George still had that rifle. I saw him shoot it a number of times; big fireball and a lot of smoke and the bullet was to big and slow that you could almost see it in flight. It was a deer killer though.
Funny how the Feds always have to have something to prod regular folks about. Even if this story is apocryphal, it still resonates with me, as an example of the never-ending nannyhood of the one time Party of Slavery now become the willing Tool of Stalin.
Great story, thank you for sharing. I fear we live in a different world today than 1930.
“There are people in positions of power loudly and aggressively trying to sell you on lies.
The question is, why?”
Truthfully, because they know that they will be targeted by people with those weapons if they become tyrants. And that is what the second amendment is for….
“Truthfully, because they know that they will be targeted by people with those weapons if they become tyrants. And that is what the second amendment is for….”
The beginning and end of the argument. Truth
What do you mean “if”? Given the transmogrification of our republic into a police state, what additional line would they need to cross? Conservatives are kidding themselves. As Gregory Hood pointed out recently on counter-currents.com, “The fact is this country is far more repressive, tyrannical, and totalitarian than anything we revolted against the British for.” I predict that when DC finally passes gun confiscation, it will be signed into law by a Republican president. 99% of “conservatives” will bitch and moan, and then turn in their guns.
and they will have well earned teh slavery they will thus commence. Some of the rest of us will stand. Some will manage to repay in kind, as did men like Samuel Whittemore, Hezekiah Wyman, John Parker’s men. Others will leave this place as did Isaac Davis, having inflicted no toll on the oppressors. But stand did they all. Thek KNEW full well that, should General Gage succeed in disarming them, they ALL would be slaves. THAT is the line in the sand they drew. And they meant it. Fourteen thousand armed militia took the field that day, upon hearing the alarm for the powder raid on Lexington and Concord. How many will choose liberty and danger over slavery and what would seem like ease? I fear we shall see before long. Unless sufficient of our elected representatives have a significant change in heart and anatomy… suddenly discovering a spine where there has been none. The anti-gun lot have one terminal defect.. they oppose the very means most suited to their preservation. And that failing will tell upon them.
Only Nixon could go to China.
Only Rubio could open the borders.
Only Christie could take the weapons.
The right to keep and bear arms is the “prime right” that gets you all the rest of them. You will note that in societies where there is no right to keep and bear arms whatever “rights” remain tend to be more whatever the government wants. Then too, if you happen to be of a “minority”, in such societies you are subject to the wishes and desires of the “majority”. A recent, modern example of this is the status of Christians in Muslim countries. Who face much the same treatment as did Jews a while back. Or black people here in the USA at one time. Being a “minority” in the “land of the disarmed” isn’t a good thing to be…
It’s good to see so many people learning to shoot safely. Having to wait until one’s an adult, as I did, is far from ideal.
Keep up the good work, Appleseed folks!
Eh, I had to seek out instruction independently as an adult as well. I survived, and I suspect you did too
As an Appleseed INstructor for a few years now, I’ve worked with children as young as SIX…. and have seen some amasing conduct. Safe, accurate… ten year olds regularly outshoot many adults. I watched an eleven year old lad JUMP at the opportunity to fire an M1 Garand, from sitting position, after an event. Five shots, he came up grinnning ear to ear… he now owns his own M1 Garand, and has shot a ualifying AQT score multiple times (using his .22, not the M1). Recently heard a report that he’s been allowed into a team marksmanship sporting class restricted to 12 years and older. Adults marvel at both his impeccable safety AND his near unbeatable accuracy. He’s quite the skinny little kid…. he’s come quite a ways since I first met him as one of my charges at an AS weekend event. Best program out there, at any price, bar none.
Here is something by Bill Maher that I agree with (say what??)
BILL MAHER: Doesn’t anyone care that this is the new normal? I guess not, because gun nuts don’t care, and neither do liberals. When Bush did warrantless wiretapping, ‘Oh, he was wiping his ass with the Constitution.’ But when Obama does it, ‘Oh, well, whatever helps Jessica Chastain find bin Laden. We’re good with that.’Both parties compete mightily to appear to be the greater champion of our freedoms, but the only thing that still has bipartisan support in Washington is not giving a shit about privacy. And when you talk to the NRA types, as I like to do down at my local [unintelligible] — they actually believe that what protects their rights isn’t laws, or courts, is that’s they have a gun. They think that’s what keeps the government from going too far. Without guns, Obama would become emperor and force everyone to gay marry, but he can’t because a guy in Kentucky named Skeeter has a .22.
Except that, while you guys were buying guns to protect your other guns, sitting up on the porch there, waiting for Obama’s negro army to come confiscate your weapons and go all Django Unchained on your ass, that’s when we lost all the stuff in the Bill of Rights about trials and juries and warrants. You see, the Redcoats, they never wanted your gun, they wanted your liberty. And that’s why the Founding Fathers said you could have the gun, dumbass. And now, the only right we have left is the guns and nothing left to use the guns to protect. We’re like a strip club with a million bouncers and no strippers. (HBO’s Real Time, January 18, 2013)
http://realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/01/19/maher_the_only_right_we_have_left_is_the_guns_and_nothing_left_to_use_the_guns_to_protect.html
The Recoats never wanted our guns? Well then, guess we can stand down the militia at Concord.
Maher is still an ass, even if he says something one of us agrees with.
Steve,
I agree Maher is an ass, perfect in fact, but I’ll give a hat tip where due.
Redcoats and guns? No they didn’t want our guns, they weren’t gun collectors, they wanted us to stay in line and do their bidding. In this case the power grab so naked and arrogant guns were the solution.
But Steve would you give me this; I have owned guns since my father gave me a .22 at age seven and I own now guns that have been in my possession for decades but “having” those guns didn’t stop the country from being stolen one covert step at a time. This theft is not overt and open it is covert and it has worked to a degree that disheartens me. Guns aren’t going to turn this around it will take education of our kids and organization and political action, every election every time.
I don’t know if you watched the vid in my post below but that man’s life and family were stolen ‘arbitrarily’ for several weeks and magnanimously and ‘arbitrarily’ returned to him by the authorities. The Hell I say to that! When I heard that story I wanted to throw up that it had come to this. But Steve surely you’ll agree a gun wouldn’t have helped this father. But political action will help and I would guess the Tea Party is a good place to start.
I agree that most of the American public has been shamefully asleep at the switch while our freedoms have been eroded, usually in exchange for a check or a tax credit. But you’re mistaken about the guns.
The opening battles of the American Revolution were fought at Lexington and Concord because that’s where the powder and shot were stored. The British under Gen. Gage were explicitly trying to disarm the colonists so as to make the occupation of Boston easier.
So, the redcoats didn’t want the guns, huh? So what then, pray tell, were they doing in Lexington that fine April morning in 1775 and what did the local arsenal have to do with it? Surely the orders commanding General Gage of fortress Boston to disarm the rebellious militias and to arrest key colonial leaders must have figured into it somehow.
The act that turned the provincials’ disputes with the crown from angry words to a shooting war was the attempted confiscation of arms, ammunition, and powder by imperial troops.
Read Fischer’s Paul Revere’s Ride and check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_Alarm
Precisely so. Gage’s raid on Lexington and Concord was the fourth such raid, the first being in September, 1774 (Fort William and Mary, up in New Hampshire, though not far from Boston). then December 1774, Charlestown, February 1775 at Salem. We also know that Gage has received written orders from his King in late 1774 commanding him to systematically begin the diisarmament of the Colonials. WHY? The Crown realised that an armed citizenry would be VERY difficult, if not impossible, to subjugate…. and that was precisely the intent of the Crown. As long as the Colonials remained armed they would never totally submit. Thus, the Colonials determined that they should NOT allow themselves to be disarmed. It wasn’t about the guns directly.. but only as a means of resistance to the desired tyranny from the Crown. King George was wanting money to pay for his vast war campaigns being pressed in nearly every corner of the world. Sound familiar? Once the lethal force of Gage’s troops was met with equal lethal force by the Colonials, the war was on… who had awakened that morning as British Subjects had now committed treason by firing upon the army of their king….. and there was no turning back. And every man amongst them knew it well. As Captain Parker said to his men, formed up on Lexington’s Commons awaiting the arrival of the British Regulars “we don’t want a war, but if they want a war, let it begin here”. It did. And the “untrained, undisciplined, disorcerly, unseasoned commoners” put the rout onto the largest and best trained, most feared, military force on the planet. The British suffered heavy casualties, and lost about a third of the officers sent out that morning. Tom Gage took a drubbing of epic proportions.
I recognized the picture of the M1 right away. I qualified with one back in 1961. It is the only weapon I am familiar with that uses a clip. That’s right, an eight round clip, which would be illegal under the New York law. I can’t imagine loading seven rounds into an M1 clip without having them fall out all over the place. Seven round magazines are virtually unobtainable. They could be specially manufactured for current weapons, but owners of older weapons would be S.O.L. (Simply Out of Luck). The seven round magazine or clip law is like suddenly requiring all cars to have metric lug nuts or the owner is guilty of a felony.
They’re darned hard to find, but en bloc clips for M1 Garands are made in both five and two shot varieties. Their purpose is to allow an M1 to be used for hunting in places that restrict the number of cartridges a hunter can have loaded. Just a minor detail, but indicative of how people will figure out some way to get around any silly or stupid regulations levied upon them.
So if you loaded a five round clip, and the a two round one, you have seven rounds and are good?
I’d cynically suggest that the seven round limit in NY was intended to make felons of M1 owners, except that the moron pols running that wretched hive of scum and villainy probably don’t know an M1 from a BMW M3.
Actually, there’s a procedure to load fewer than eight rounds in an M1, but I don’t recall specifically how it works. I think it involves inserting an empty clip while holding the bolt open and then loading individual rounds into it.
The method exists, but it’s not really practical unless you’ve got three hands: one for the rifle, one for the bolt and one to load rounds with.
7-rd magazines for the M1911/M1911A1 pistol are still being manufactured…
http://www.promagindustries.com.
Yep, I have dozens of them…the old military version. I actually like them on the range because every now and then I get a malfunction. Good practice.
Wilson Combat also makes high quality 7-rounders and I have several of those too.
Since the M1911 started out using 7-round mags, there are plenty available. Only problem with the M1911 is the weight, but it’s still my favorite.
If I,my family, or neighbors are attacked, anything that I can use to stop the attack, will be an assault weapon.
Well, I see my last post didn’t provoke anyone so let me try this. Bare with me I’ve got a real whopper at the end and it won’t be a double with “biggie fries”.
When did the police start wearing ski masks and breaking doors down, no knock? Are you under the impression that of the hundreds (thousands?) of these home busts that they never get the address wrong? One minute you’re having dinner with your family and the next you and you wife and children are on the floor, cuffed, dog dead, with guns in your faces. Or worse you actually reach for your gun and the family doesn’t have to turn to TV violence that night because they can watch daddy getting 125 rounds pumped into his body. When did all this begin, oh, yeah, with bang up success “duh War on Drugs”.
How about that little girl a couple of years back with a lemonade stand… family fined some $300 for a what ever not filled out in triplicate from the rubber stamp folks.
How about that eleven year old a couple of weeks back who “saved” a bird from a cat and nursed it back to health. Knock on the door, two agents from whatever moron government organization with two state troopers; because you see the bird is an endangered species… $500 this time I think. What did the troopers think, that this eleven year old would “throw down” on them? How did they look at themselves in the mirror afterward. “What did you do at work today daddy? I made a little girl cry for nursing a bird back to health but I was just following orders. Do you suppose that investigation and confrontation cost a great deal more, a great deal more than the fine; so then who’s the winner here?
Drone killings! Hooray! In a ‘shadow war’ intelligence is king but we aren’t, to my knowledge, trying to capture folks because it would be politically embarrassing to add to the guests at Guantanamo bay. They are enemy combatants, I’ll give you, but we don’t keep people locked up forever without trial in the country I was born into. Military tribunals are good enough for our men and women in uniform they are good enough for these people… but wait, it might be politically embarrassing. And by the way torture, by whatever definition, is the least best way to get good humintel by at least an order of magnitude.
There’s an article in this month’s “Atlantic” about holding accused and convicted pedophiles virtually forever past their sentence because a psychiatrist “thinks” that they might do something; future crimes. Think about that precedent and your guns.
How about the prosecutor over reach in the Duke case. That little false accuser sweetheart went on to murder a boyfriend.
Speaking of over reach, how about Aaron Swartz who did, what, less actually, than Bill Gates and Jobs did at his age as far as breaking the law but where as they became great Americans Swartz was facing a possible 50 years and million dollar fine. What?????
Now for my personal favorite, a father, his son, a lemonade and the authorities. The whole thing is critical listening to but the story starts at minute 6.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA-zdh_bQBo
And the last sentence by the police, the judge and the welfare workers, “…all say the same thing, we hate to do it but we have to follow procedure.” Tell me true isn’t that the song that had no listen in 1945 when tens of millions of Germans were singing it to anyone who ‘would’ listen? It didn’t make the American Hit Parade then why is it making it now?
Remember the movie “Judgment At Nuremburg” where Burt Lancaster, playing a German judge says, “We never thought it would come to this,” and Spenser Tracy replies, “Once is too many.” Buds we are way, way, past once.
Please don’t tell me anything about Obama or Bush, we, the people are the sovereign power in this country and all this went down on our watch.
Finally, just tell me this with a straight face, is the above the country you were born into, is it the country you want to pass on to your children? Well, is it?
So your only reason for being here is to provoke a fight?
Adults know the difference between domestic and foreign, war and law enforcement. It’s the lefts’ insistence that the war against the jihad be a law enforcement war that causes the deterioration of civil rights at home.
“When did all this begin, oh, yeah, with bang up success “duh War on Drugs”.”
Conservatives have been open to discussing the war on drugs for the last — what, decade and a half? It was the left — particularly urban black “leaders” — who screamed and wailed for harsher drug policies. (Then screamed and wailed when they were imposed, of course.) The left uses expanding police powers on the war on drugs to cover for their absolute dedication to letting criminals run riot otherwise. Any movement from the right ends with them attacked by the left.
“How about that little girl a couple of years back with a lemonade stand… family fined some $300 for a what ever not filled out in triplicate from the rubber stamp folks.”
Not gonna find a lot of support for overregulation on the right. This one is at the foot of the anti-business left, which sees bureaucracy as a sledgehammer to
level the inequalities of society.
“How about that eleven year old a couple of weeks back who “saved” a bird from a cat and nursed it back to health. Knock on the door, two agents from whatever moron government organization with two state troopers; because you see the bird is an endangered species… $500 this time I think.”
Hello Greens!
“How about the prosecutor over reach in the Duke case.”
Well, that prosecutor is still a Democrat in good standing, and the whackademics who were out banging pots for a lynching are not exactly advisors to the campus Young Republicans, if you get my meaning.
“Speaking of over reach, how about Aaron Swartz who did, what, less actually, than Bill Gates and Jobs did at his age as far as breaking the law but where as they became great Americans Swartz was facing a possible 50 years and million dollar fine. What?????”
Another up-and-coming Democrat prosecutor.
“Military tribunals are good enough for our men and women in uniform they are good enough for these people… but wait, it might be politically embarrassing.”
Yes — and that’s the left’s fault. The lawyers who shut down the tribunals weren’t from the Federalist Society.
“Please don’t tell me anything about Obama or Bush, we, the people are the sovereign power in this country and all this went down on our watch.”
Uh-huh. It’s all our fault. Not any one group, it’s ALL our fault. Never mind that any attempt to change it gets demagogued to death as being “racist” or “for the rich”. Any attempt to disagree gets you branded “racist” and “hater” and “tool of the 1%” and you get to hear how everything would fall apart if the Ivy League isn’t given absolute power. Any attempt by the right to organize, no matter how peaceful, is painted as the next Sturmabeiltung on the march — and every act of political violence from the left is buried under the Newspeak “mostly peaceful”.
And, eventually, some anonymous coward comes and lectures conservatives with examples of abuses largely caused by leftist dream policies.
“Finally, just tell me this with a straight face, is the above the country you were born into, is it the country you want to pass on to your children? Well, is it?”
No, and no.
What’s your point?
And why all the bigotry towards gun owners? You could have made your point without it. But, then, I guess it wouldn’t have made you feel as superior…
Rob, you missed the point so completely and perfectly you are undeserving of a response.
I don’t think he missed your point, I think he’s saying that you’re preaching to the wrong choir.
We members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy have been complaining for years about the Drug War, abuse of civil forfeiture and eminent domain, prosecutorial overreach and everything else you mention. The problem is that when we complain about it we’re dismissed by the NY Times, CNN and academia as being a bunch of paranoid, racist cranks. And according to homeland security we’re all just one bad day away from committing a terrorist attack.
So if you’re looking to provoke people you’re in the wrong place. Democratic Underground is across the street and three doors to the left.
If he got it, I certainly missed it.
Rob,
I spoke hastily, everyone deserves more respect than to be dismissed. I apologize.
HEY!
…….what’s goin’ ON?
…….those small rugs look too much like Muslim prayer rugs……
They’re just there to keep people from having to lie in the mud. Not every appleseed takes place in perfect, sunny weather. I’ve been to more than one where I’d have been in the mud if not for a ground cover.
Those are Shooting Mats, something in the equipment inventory of every police sniper.
Quote:
The truth of the matter is that there is no such thing as an “assault weapon.” The term was coined out of thin air by a gun-control zealot in the 1980s…
Sorry, that is not correct. In 1966 an army NCO handed my my first M14 (semi automatic, not selective fire), and he told us (a platoon of recruits) that it was an ‘assault rifle’. Good enough for the US Army, good enough for me.
In 1776 a black powder, smooth bore musket, was an assault weapon. It was still in use in 1860 but the flintlock ignition system was rapidly replaced with a percussion cap. The smooth bore was rifled when the ‘mini ball’ was introduced. It was also an assault rifle. In 1916 the bolt action Lee Enfield with ten rounds in the (not quickly detachable) box magazine was the assault weapon of the day, as was the M1 in 1943. In 1966 it was the M14, which was replaced with the M16.
Apparently, in Senator Feinstein’s newest proposal a semi automatic pistol is now an assault pistol.
The type of weapon does not determine how it is classified, it is the use to which it is put. Earlier assault weapons were the pike, sword, and even earlier, a stone axe.
Trying to score debate points over nomenclature with an opponent that wants you enslaved is a fools errand. Give it a rest, please.
Re: Origin of expression, “Assault Weapon.” Coinage of the term
“Sturmgewehr,” Ger., literally, “Assault Rifle” is attributed to A. Hitler, who so described a German weapon to which the later AK-47 was very similar..
“Assault Weapon” should mean a medium-power, full-auto or selective fire type such as that German StG 44, or the Russian AK-47, but all firearms nomenclature is idiosyncratic and variable. In common usage, the term extend to “Clones” or semi-automatic versions of true Assault rifles. There is little point in grousing because a commonly used word does not comport with the glossary in the back of our gun books.
No, “assault rifle” has that specific meaning. “Assault weapon” has no real definition. Closes you can come is “scary looking rifle” since most of the factors in the expired Federal “Assault Weapons” ban were cosmetic or meaningless – like a flash hider or bayonet lug.
“In 1776 a black powder, smooth bore musket, was an assault weapon. It was still in use in 1860 but the flintlock ignition system was rapidly replaced with a percussion cap. The smooth bore was rifled when the ‘mini ball’ was introduced.”
Okay, just picking nits here but the flintlock stayed in use for quite a few years after the percussion cap was developed. Mostly on the frontier where civilization was hard to find and nobody wanted to lose a tin full of little caps and have their rifle turn into a club. Rifled barrels started in the early 1700s and were used with patched round ball up until the mid 1800s when the Minnie ball was developed. The smoothbore military musket was used mostly because of ease of loading. The rifled bores were prone to fouling and had to be cleaned much more often than the older smoothbores.
Picking the nit back.
Rifles were considered mostly useless as a combat arm before minie-ball ammo was developed. The only use for them was for skirmishers (read, snipers) since the rate of fire was so low as to be useless. Having to hammer the ball down the barrel in order to load the thing made it too slow. After the Minnie ball was developed, it became as fast to load a rifle as to load a musket, and rifles quickly replaced muskets in the order of battle.
You have given us the best reason that all this gun banning is constitutionally illegal. At the time of the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights the smooth bore musket was the common firearm in civilian hands and in the militaries. If those were assault weapons then assault weapons are exactly the type of weapons the 2nd Amendment mandates “shall not be infringed”!
Still it doesn’t matter one whit. Why? Rifles are involved in less than 7% of all gun deaths including those killed by police. Less then the number killed by hand. Why? Because it is about control and the fear that lifetime members of government have about free independent citizens.
The salient fact is that the 2A says “arms,” not flintlocks, not matchlocks, not pikes and swords. And the reason? That “well regulated militia.”
So the only interpretation is that whichever weapons are suitable for militia use (i.e. light infantry) are what the citizens may rightfully keep and bear.
But the progs are relentless in arguing that “the people” means somebody other than the people, that “right” means something other than right, that “arms” means something other than arms, and that “Keep and bear” means… well, you get the idea. Nothing in it means what it means, just ask Piers Morgan.
Do you not see the difference between Assault Rifle, and Assault Weapon?
And, that M14 was originally manufactured as a selective-fire weapon (machine gun in ATF’s view), and the full-auto feature was disabled so you raw recruits wouldn’t hurt yourself, or others.
Any thought about Feinstein proposal?
I think what she is doing is a totally crazy radical draft that can be used as a starting point for negotiations. I think that among the so-called Democrats there will be a fake discussion and opposition to some minor things.
I’ve also been through the Appleseed Program. No matter what your background is, it’s absolutely worth it. I highly recommend Appleseed as a family activity or a parent/kids event.
“It may come as a surprise to some to learn that the AR-15 is the best-selling, most common centerfire rifle in the United States.”
which is why DiFi et al want to ban it.
I have a theory as to why Feinstein, Schumer and their ilk want to ban AR-15s and semi-auto AK-47s. At night when they have nightmares about being brought to justice for their treason, the people pushing and prodding them down the plank are armed with semi-autos.
The gun at bottom right is not an AR,that’s a Choate stock for a 10/22 or Mini-14,I know because I have the exact same stock on my 10/22.
Hurrah for the Appleseed effort. Too many kids today grow up ignorant of our heritage.
I learned to shoot and gun safety at my grandfather’s knee in the mountains of western NC over 50 years ago. One of my rifles that would be classified an “assault weapon” (whenever I hear that term I can’t help but think to myself “asshole liberal”) under Frankenstein’s bill came to me from my grandfather after my father’s death.
I haven’t fired any of my firearms in about 15 years. Nonetheless, I sure hope no half-wit damn fool tries to register or take any of them. I’m too young to die, wouldn’t do well in prison, and will be subdued with great difficulty.
At the risk of being persnickety, I believe you misspelled the name of the town in which this Appleseed facility is located. It’s no doubt “Ramseur” not “Ramsuer”.
Stephen Dodson Ramseur was a Confederate Brigadier General who hailed from North Carolina. He commanded troops in the Army of Northern Virginia, and was KIA at the battle of Cedar Creek in 1864. I believe when he died just after the battle, of wounds received during the latter part of the fighting, he was attended by his West Point classmate and erstwhile opponent, George A. Custer.
Anyway, I live in California, where all of this stuff is an “assault weapon” which means you have to mutilate the gun with something called a “bullet button” which makes it rather annoying to operate, so I’ve been told. Weirdly, a mini-14 isn’t an “assault weapon” so it doesn’t need the “bullet button” but the price of guns and ammo have skyrocketed to the point that it’s not really practical for me to buy either right now. Our glorious leaders wish to make sure that only the wealthy can defend themselves…
Here in Rahm Eamanuel’s Chicago we know that there is no legal or practical purpose that can be served by owning or possessing an AR-15. There is no place in the city to shoot such a weapon. There is no legal purpose for which such a weapon ever could be used in the city. Some might suggest that the weapon could be used for “self-defense,” but let’s be serious. Where in a city like Chicago would an AR-15 be suited for “self-defense”? Self-defense would be legal only in the case of a home invasion by an armed intruder, and other weapons would be more suited to self-defense under such conditions.
Maybe country people have some place to use an AR-15 to defend themselves from wild boar or mountain lions or something, city people do not.
Of course there is that canard that AR-15 owners need those weapons to resist tyranny. Unless you are willing to name the tyrant you plan to shoot, those are mere weasel words. President Lincoln made the statement quite forcefully that individuals or groups may not take up arms to resist Federal authority. That has been the law in this country since that time. And as was the case during the Civil Rights movement years, you do not need arms to resist state governments that are reluctant to give you rights, you can instead appeal to Federal authorities to enforce your constitutional rights. President Eisenhower forcefully made that statement when he sent the 101st into Little Rock.
That might leave a need to resist “private tyrants.” And it is the case that folks often exercise their second amendment rights to safeguard their home and family from private threats, of course that led to over 500 gun deaths in Chicago last year. For whatever reason, I don’t see the NRA crowd defending the Second Amendment rights of citizens on the south and west sides of Chicago who defend themselves against “private” tyrants in their neighborhood.
You had 500 gun deaths in Chicago because the gangs are absolutely free to do what they want. Large swaths of Chicago are cop free zones because cops are afraid to go their. The gangs also know no law abiding citizen can protect themselves.
The true results of disarming citizens? They become subjects and live in terror for themselves and their loved ones.
And AR 15s for home defense? They make excellent defensive weapons with hollow point ammunition.
And the NRA would love to defend the rights of the law abiding citizens in the south and west sides of Chicago. All they need is the people to come out and say they want their rights as citizens, that they are tired of living as subjects.
How do I know this? I AM the NRA. So are nearly 5,000,000 other American Citizens. That is a small fraction of the 100,000,000 American Citizens that won firearms in America but I doubt you would find many in that 100,000,000 that would differ much.
“that own firearms”
Harry Huntington said:
Suited for bodyguards of Chicago’s Elite 1% who run its corrupt boss machine.
Why is that a canard? What do think a tyrant is?
President Lincoln didn’t have this problem:
http://demonocracy.info/infographics/usa/us_debt/us_debt.html
You can’t pay the Legions with funny money, the Late Roman Emperors found this out the hard way.
Ghetto slime shooting ghetto slime, with occasional bystanders and disarmed victims getting shot. With a corrupt urban boss machine that plays catch and release with the gang banger thugs, it’s almost as if Chicago is actually run by thugs…
And the NRA crowd does support taxpaying citizens in Chicago to defend themselves, the thug boss machine and the ghetto slime don’t.
The “country people” feel the same way about you too, asshole.
In case anyone hasn’t seen these yet:
Mike Huckabee interviews firearms expert Larry Correia
Larry Correia refutes the gun controllers, once and for all
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
“Unless you are willing to name the tyrant you plan to shoot, those are mere weasel words.”
Take it up with James Madison. He didn’t name the tyrant he wanted to shoot, either. (Prophylactic history lesson, in case you answer “George III” — this was in Federalist No. 46, *after* we’d won the Revolution.)
The tyrant we want to shoot? Whichever one shows up.
As for the right of rebellion recited in the Declaration of Independence, Lincoln didn’t repudiate it. And if he had, he wouldn’t be worth revering as the great President he was. He only stated that the South’s grievance didn’t rise to the level of “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object” that would justify armed resistance.
And of course armed resistance only works, when it *works*. It didn’t work for the Army of Northern Virginia, because Lincoln was able to convince enough Americans that the government he headed was Constitutionally legitimate, and worth fighting for. How many Americans do you think would charge Marye’s Heights — sixteen times! — in support of a vision to “fundamentally remake the United States of America” into something other than a Constitutional republic?
Well, Mr. Orville J. Waddington the 3rd, I had to reply to your little epistle with one of my own.
Starting with Captain Shay’s Rebellion, the Federal Government has successfully crushed by force or threat of force, every incident of armed uprising in these United States.
Lincoln ran a very near thing, though, and if you are familiar with the history of the country between April 1861 and April 1865, you might appreciate what a bloody affair it was.
You have the right to sing the blues, Mr. J. Waddington III, just as you have the right to be slaughtered like a sheep in your home, while you wait for the response of the constabular forces in your city if you so desire. They are only an hour away, and I’m sure nothing would happen untoward in that timeframe.
You neglect to remember that the orgy of muder in Chicago is being held under the auspices of the Great Benevolent Blue Model, which outlaws private ownership of firearms. It is safe to assume that the PISTOL killings in Chicaco, that Paradise of Democrat Chatel Bondage, are all performed by felons who ignore gun laws just as they ignore the laws regarding drug trafficking, armed robbery and capital murder.
Those 500 murders are, by definition, unpossible in Chicago. Please report to a mental health institution immediately for re-educational therapy until you once again regain the correct Democrat world view, comrade.
Personnally, I think a pistol is only useful to provide suppressive fire while you go get your rifle. I would much rather shoot a perpetrator with a long gun that a pistol, given the choice, because a rifle in most any caliber is more powerful and more accurate.
We have been asleep. All of us. And we should be ashamed. I know I am. Having said that, there are limits that the Government cannot exceed, lest we decide that the legitimacy of the government no longer exists. The last time that happened on any great scale in this country, 600,000 Americans died sorting it out.
The Stupid Party and the Party of Slavery Reborn could trigger something like that, if they elect to overreach. If they forget everything in our history and every good thing ever written or said by the people who built this nation, they could ignite a response from the rest of us, who mainly just want to be left alone and who would leave you alone if given the choice.
You aren’t safe in Chicago because you believe in the Gospel of the Left and you are unwilling or unable to act in your own defense. Not many of the rest of us are believers in your peculiar intstitution, so we will opt for keeping firearms.
Actually, the government has NOT crushed every armed rebellion in the United States. Not even close.
I invite you to read up on the McMinn County War (1946) in which returning veterans deposed a corrupt Democratic Party machine in Tennessee. There were also several contemporary events at the same time.
North Carolina Democrats, acting in concert with the Ku Klux Klan (they were actually one in the same), and with the encouragement of the Raleigh News & Observer and the utter indifference of the NC Governor and President of the United States, conducted a successful coup d’etat known as the 1898 Wilmington Massacre, in which black Republicans running the town were murdered and driven from office.
History is your friend, when you read all of it.
“Of course there is that canard that AR-15 owners need those weapons to resist tyranny. Unless you are willing to name the tyrant you plan to shoot, those are mere weasel words.”
If the second amendment only does so little as to make a corrupt cop think twice about shaking down a civilian for extra donut money (or a gangster doing the same) then the second amendment has done it’s job in curbing tyranny and corruption.
Gangland thugs, corrupt mob bosses, bent cops and machine leaders are all leaders of tyrrany in one sense or another and they all deserve the same: a bullet to the head.
You call us cowards for not shooting them, but you wait for baited breath to call us criminals in the very moment we do so.
Well buddy, don’t hold your breath…
Harry, a small accurate rifle like an AR-15 is more suitable for self-defense than a larger 30-06 deer rifle. An AR-15 is just powerful enough to stop gang members and rioters in the event that the police are unwilling or unable to provide protection, it’s light weight and easy to carry when it’s your turn to guard the neighborhood, it’s easy to keep an AR-15 barrel pointed on the target, and fairly large quickly replaceable magazines mean you’re not going to get overrun while reloading. This politically incorrect video of rioters and Korean shop owners in the LA Riots shows the situation where city dwellers need guns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgCiC6qTtjs
Here is a report of how armed citizens protected their neighborhood in the aftermath of Katrina.
http://www.theplacewithnoname.com/blogs/klessons/p/0091.html
Unbelievable sir,
Who are we to appeal to on our behalf, if in fact it is that very government that is attempting to strip us of our rights? I am a man, sir. I am responsible for the safety of myself and my family. I am a veteran. I am also a life member of the NRA. I have donated time and money to see that everyone, no matter their color or station, has the right to defend themselves and their property. Responsibility and self reliance made this the greatest country in the history of the world. We have been so weakened and lulled in complacency that we have nearly surrendered to those with your way of thinking. No more. I intend to fight tooth and nail. It is no longer possible to ignore those that would strip us of our rights, any of our rights. So I suggest if you, or Bill Maher, or Senator Feinstein want to relieve me of my weapons, come get them yourself. Don’t send some kid foolish enough to obey your diktats, please do it yourself. If you don’t have the courage of your convictions, please gather with your friends and form your own country and leave us the hell alone.
President Lincoln made the statement quite forcefully that individuals or groups may not take up arms to resist Federal authority.
To bad for Lincoln that our Declaration of Independence states:
–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Jefferson said:
“A people unwilling to use extreme violent force to preserve or obtain their liberty deserves the tyrants that rule them.”
Mr. Huntington, Sir:
This is coming to you from Deep in the Heart of Texas, waaay out here in the country.
Your words – “Here in Rahm Eamanuel’s Chicago we know…” suggest that you do reside in ballerina-Rahm’s metropolitan quagmire. Correct?
You are familiar with the SOUTH side Chicago burg of Morgan Park? Does the name “Otis McDonald” ring any bells with you? I guess not.
In 2009-2010 Mr. McDonald, a fine man by anyone’s measure, WITH the help of the National Rifle Association’s legal defense fund took on the city of Chicago’s totalitarian dictates against the personal ownership of handguns in McDonald v. Chicago. The case went all the way to the SCOTUS.
Mr. Huntington, Sir, “they,” the humble, loveable Otis and the NRA, won that one.
I am surprised you missed that. Maybe it’s because, as we like to say out here in the country, YOU Sir, most likely did just fall off the turnip truck!
Praise the Lord, now pass me the ammunition!
“I don’t see the NRA crowd defending the Second Amendment rights of citizens on the south and west sides of Chicago…”
You’re not looking very hard.
The NRA poured considerable resources into McDonald v. Chicago. You can read the NRA’s brief here. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/NRA-brief-in-McDonald-11-16-09.pdf
Next time ditch your intellectual laziness before casting aspersions at the NRA.
“. There is no place in the city to shoot such a weapon.”
Because the idiots who run Chicago have made it near impossible to open a gun range. That is where legal responsible go to learn and practice gun safety and marksmanship. Gang bangers do not go to ranges where there are things like cameras and ID checks.
There are lots of gun and rifle ranges in the suburbs.
Your ignorance astounds. An AR-15 is nothing more than a small caliber semi-automatic rifle that looks different from a semi-automatic hunting rifle. Sort of like a Corvette with a 4-cylinder engine, in the automobile world.
And those 500 murders – doesn’t Chicago have the strictest gun laws in the country? Wow, who would have thought? You may want to consider voting Republican the next time around. What’s the definition of insanity? Repeating the same action/process over and over again while expecting different results.
Guess there wasn’t any other place in the room that smelled as good from a fly’s perspective.
http://news.yahoo.com/photos/fly-lands-head-u-president-barack-obama-white-photo-203805084.html
Wow, those people are awfully close together. Where I shoot, it’s so rocky someone would get hit with a ricochet for sure. My range is kindly provided to me by the BLM- I mean, the American taxpayer. Thanks!
“Could it be that politicians are lying about what constitutes an assault weapon, and what they are used for?”
Some are, but the majority are simply dumbshits who wouldn’t know an AR from a hole in the ground. I like to define “assault weapon” simply — it’s the type of weapon currently favored by the military at that point in time. All popular sporting rifles going back before the Revolution were patterned after if not almost identical to the rifles carried by the Army and state militias. During the Revolution, ordinary citizens owned and used the same black powder flint and hammerlocks as the Continental Army. When the Army adopted cartridge rifles, citizens adopted them as well. When repeaters became available, repeaters became the standard on the frontier and the west. The most popular hunting and target rifles in America – Remington Model 700′s, Winchester Model 70′s, Browning A-Bolts, etc were simply sporterized versions of bolt action rifles from WW1 only these were now available in many different calibers. When the Army adopted semi-autos for WW2, low and behold the amazingly popular Browning BAR and Remington 750s were born. Now after Viet Nam and later conflicts have shown the versatility of the AR platform, ARs have become the rifle of choice for target shooters and a lot of hunters.
Leftists and Progressives are lying when they claim they only want to regulate and ban certain types of guns. Their goal is complete disarmament of the citizenry. They can go to hell.
The fun part is when the leftists admit that gun bans aren’t practical and won’t stop scofflaws from getting guns or making them. For example, previous antigun poster “techno” admitted gun bans don’t work and hasn’t been seen since.
And very recently, antigun poster zeke has also admitted that gun bans won’t stop scofflaws from obtaining guns:
http://pjmedia.com/blog/supreme-court-may-have-final-word-on-obamas-gun-control/#comment-4349385
Any person who defines “assault weapon” as anything other than “an intermediate-caliber infantry weapon capable of selective fire” is an enemy of freedom and the truth, and should be treated accordingly.
A common tactic is a twisting of meaning. To them, a word means what they want it to mean at the time. We need to begin denying them this tactic.
No!
That’s an Assault Rifle!
An “assault weapon”, in the vernacular, is a military look-alike, semi-automatic (ie: self-loading) rifle of virtually any caliber, as it is the cosmetics that are the defining characteristic.
“Assault weapon” is a term made up in the 80s that has little defined meaning.
“Assault rifle” is the English from the German “Storm Rifle”.
The first German rifles of this type were labled “Machine Carbines”, the Mkb-42. Hitler forbid them, the German army continued to acquire them as “machine pistols” MP-43 and MP-44. Later Hiler permitted them, they were renamed “storm rifle” Stg-44 and Stg-45, “storm” being a final phase of an assault.
Machine Carbine makes the most descriptive sense.
17. So, how is it working out Rahm Emmanuel’s Chicago, with guns all but impossible to get, legally, and more than 500 homicides in 2012. Or Martin O’Malley’s Baltimore,MD, where it is just about impossible to have a gun in public, and there were more murders than all the rest of the state. Or name any big city where guns are legally banned and criminals commit as many crimes as they care to.
The point is, you can write words on pieces of paper that (illiterate) criminals can’t read and don’t care even slightly about, and it doesn’t change their ability to get guns and use them.
Would you send men with guns door to door with AR15s to confiscate the AR15s in the hands of citizens?
Would you agree that there should be NO exemption of law enforcement personnel from the provisions of any gun ban or associated legislation? Do you think that in Rahm Emmanuel’s Chicago there are AR15s in the hands of police officers? What on earth would they have use for such things in a city?
As for home defense, the AR15 is actually arguably a better gun to use than a pistol, if it can have a folding stock and rather short barrel. Oops! Banned features, those.
Harry Huntington,
There’s an underlying premise to your post that must be challenged:
“… other weapons would be more suited to self-defense under such conditions.”
“Maybe country people … city people do not”.
Who are you to say what’s “more suited”? More generally, who gets to decide what is “more suited”?
There’s a stock answer for new shooters who ask “What’s the best gun for (fill in the blank)”? The answer: “The one you will actually use”. The subtext is that the best gun for a person is the one that they are comfortable with, can use safely, can train with, and can use effectively under stress if they have to.
So, if someone owns an AR-15, has been trained on it, and can use it safely and effectively, why should they be forced to discard that and retrain with whatever you and our other betters deem “more suited?” What if they can’t afford to buy that new gun and the training for it? Haven’t you then denied them their 2nd amendment rights?
Your post implies you know what’s best for all the rest of us. Sorry, but my choices for self-defense are intensely personal and I’m not willing to surrender that choice to you.
Just received my first “assault weapon” in December the day before the awful shooting of kids in CT. It’s a BMaster M4, pretty basic, fixed carry with peep sight. This is a fine weapon, made in USA, can’t imagine why the angst is directed at LEGAL owners in this way.
My purchase is for target practice, a rifle the wife can shoot well and augmenting my Russian 223 capability for HD and 2nd Amendment duties if called upon.
Yours.
RMH
I was shooting my Garand at an across-the-board match a couple weekends ago and the other Garand shooter there and myself were noting that, athough the eight other shooters were using AR’s, we Garand shooters there were the only ones with actual military (not “military style”) weapons that were actually high-powered (30.06) and had actually been “designed for use on the battlefield.” None of the AR’s there could ever make that claim. Not only that, I didn’t need the “gun show loophole” to acquire it, I bought it mail order from the US government!
AS far as “gun safety” is concerned, I’ll take an AR over any lever-action traditional rifle any day. You can empty it with the press of a button to drop the mag and a pull on the charging handle to clear the chamber. An old lever gun can only be cleared by cycling the lever one round at a time placing each round in the chamber under a cocked hammer and in battery each cycle before ejecting it. A lot more people have been accidentally killed with Winchesters than with AR’s.
why oh why would anyone put a scope on a garand !!! On the seventh day God rested. He went to the range, and fired his garand. As it was meant to be – with iron sights. It’s how I shoot mine, fed with IMR 4895 and 150′s. And I remember in my younger, better vision days being able to reach out to 400+ yds and shoot as well as my buddies with scopes.
I’ve got the tech-sights on my 10/22 (love them) and am teaching my boys to shoot correctly, meaning looking through an aperture. I am also looking to get involved with appleseed. Great project.
funny, I was never an AR guy. lots of friends were, and they were cool, but I was never really into them.
Ever hear of the M1c, or M1d?
Who would put a scope on a Garand?
The U.S.Government.
These psychopathic Democrats think they can extract, in small steps, the rights of American citizens to protect themselves with whatever armament they deem necessary for the task.
Once these psychopaths think they are in the position that they can overwhelm the citizens without any resistance, complete authoritarian government will ensue.
They have already demonstrated they want total domination and unfettered power to regulate the American populace.
How can there be any doubt at this point in their campaign?
With Feintein’s bill, any semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine is an “assault weapon” that’ll be banned… whether Ruger 10/22 or M1 Carbine. Not about those scary “assault weapons” but sem-automatics.
Someone above said where in Chicago could you use an AR-15 for home defense.
It reminds me of an old Bill Cosby comedy album where he is describing his new Ferrari, and how it will go 150mph (this album came out quite some time ago when 150 was quite a benchmark).
His listener said: Where can you go 150mph?
His response: Down Any Side Street!
All I know is: I felt no need for one before, but now I am in the market for the most bad-ass weapon I can find on today’s legal market. Not for target practice. Not for shooting deer. But to defend against tyranny in these United States. And as for a national registry of legal arms? Do they mean for non-criminals? Who do these fascists in Washington, D.C. think they are? Our masters? (Yes, it’s a rhetorical question.) Why would anyone “register” their Second-Amendment rights until such rights have been taken away by way of amendment to the U.S. Constitution? Obamanation may be willing to give it all up for a warm place to curl up (for now), but not me. Never. I am an old-school American and proud of it. And I join with my brothers and sisters, from sea to shining sea, in averring: Sure, you can take my gun: come get it. Seriously, I am still shopping around for the best AR-15 at the best price. But once I have it, I will never let go of it. Not that I need it. I will fight for my liberty with a butter knife if it comes to it. But I would rather have more to contribute, should ever so dark a day ever come to pass.
Feinstein is using “profiling” to ban certain weapons.
“Profiling” and “discrimination” charges should be filed against her, Biden, and Obama, with the U.N.
It’s not about controlling guns. Not about which guns or what accessories or “features,” It’s always been about control. I’ve been on this planet long enough to see what’s happening and it isn’t pretty.
I bought my first gun when I was nine years old, in California of all places. My mom drove me down to the local hardware store and I took out my “chore money” and paid for the Winchester .22 rifle and a single box of ammo myself. No background check. No having to be eighteen years old, and no “cooling off” period. By the time I was 12 years old, I had two rifles and a shotgun to my name – all stored in my room. Along with ammo, of course. Heck, my boy scout troop actually had a club house on the local junior high school campus where the troop’s .22 rifles were stored. Ok, so what’s my point? The point is that me and all of my friends had FATHERS in the home, our mothers were almost all homemakers and we all went to church on Sundays. There weren’t any school shootings or any mass killings of any kind. Period. Not even accidental ones. You could walk the streets at night without fear. Parents knew where their children were. We didn’t spend all of our idle time drooling in front of a computer amassing “kill streaks” in violent video games. We went outside and played ball in a vacant lot.
If you believe the Democrats, it’s the guns that have somehow gone evil. The guns turn “troubled” teenage boys into mass murderers. Rational people know this just isn’t the case.
So what has actually changed? Is it the guns or our society? Progressives don’t want to discuss this because they’ve been in the cultural engineering business for years while busily attempting to craft a world where everyone is entitled to equal life outcomes.
How is that working out for us?
Sorry, Skeet, it IS about guns. The Democrats must get rid of them if they hope to control the nation forever in a Marxist/Fascist tyranny. If Republicans had that mindless mindset, they would try the same. That’s why many Republicans go along with the Democrfats.
America forever! USA, who cares?
In the Deductive-reasoning brain of the Left, a person weearing cowboy clothes is a cowboy.
Senator Feinstein has been poisoned by too much Hollywood.
The mechanics of good drama requires introduction of major props. The gun will be introduced before it becomes used by a character. “As the hand reaches in the drawer for the check book, deeper in the shadows lurks the butt of a deadly and threatening Smith & Wesson product!!” See this and in a few minutes there will be a firearms felony in Living Color. See 10,000 repetitions of this and one believes the object moves the action of the character. The mechanics of drama becomes training as how life happens.
Powerful images please audiences. John Wayne, George Peppard, Stallone, or one of the current incumbents has a fierce, righteous scowl on his face. At his waist he holds an industrially-menacing Assault Rifle. He holds the trigger down as the Assault Rifle does machine-gun firing. Giant white sausage flames flutter from the muzzle; spent brass dances in the air, as off in the incredible, physics-defying distance the epitomes of evil fling arms and twirl in death. Repeat that 10,000 times and one acquires beliefs relating to the magic power of assault rifles or anything looking like them working like Death Rays.
Given the advantage of 66 years worth of firearms competence (I am 75), I have never understood why anyone of good intelligence would buy a .223 for sporting or military use, although I confess I had a Mini-14 for a while and gave it to my son. No, setting aside the Enhanced Battle Rifle (EBR) and like larger caliber rifles the Marines and Army use today (but not widely enough), the two best rifles ever invented up to now for general military use were the M1 Garand and the M14 Rifle. Reduced to something to fight American troops led by Obama loyalist turncoats in the Marines and U.S. Army, I would take an M-14, brass, bullets, powder, and reloading tools. Failing that, a Kalishnakov with tools.
Think fighting U.S. troops is fanciful? What happened in the Eighteenth Century? If Genuine Americans don’t do it soon, we will do it later. Jefferson wrote, and I paraphrase, He who beats his swords into plowshares will plow for those who do not.
I used to prefer rifles in 7.62 NATO, but now I prefer the 5.56 (.223).
AR15s in 5.56 are beating M1As (semi auto M14s) in National match competition at 600 yards on a regualr basis, and even started beating them out at 1,000 yards.
Soldiers training with 5.56 weapons in various NATO countries have shown that they have better scores on their 300 yard ranges.
Within 100 yards 5.56 ball can fragment and create larger wounds then most (but not all) 7.62 ball.
Comparing 5.56 to 7.62 NATO, and the cost and weight is less, as is recoil, but in most respects effectiveness is as high. Flatter trajectory make hits easier in the first 300 yards, for example.
Where 5.56 does poorly is in penetration of objects like wood. But even that has an upside, making 5.56 safer in an urban environment or residental neighborhood.
The only legit distinction between an assault weapon and a normal gun would be full auto or burst capability, which have been banned in civilian weapons for decades, but are typical in military weapons. The so called assault weapons being talked about in the latest ban are not military at all (not having full auto) and are functionally identical to common guns not covered by the ban. It is a lie. What they are calling assault weapons, are really just normal guns, that happen to look scary.
“The question is, why?”
Indeed! I believed, for a while, that the politicians and soi-disant journalists pushing disarmament were misinformed, ignorant, or just plain stupid. Then I watched Stanley McCrystal stand up in front of the American people and utter bald faced lies about the .223 cartridge and the AR-15 rifle.
Something else is at work here, and it scares me. When something scares me I knock it down and stomp on it until it doesn’t scare me anymore.
Charlie
Bob Owens, why are you taking us back to the ABC’s of gunmanship? We got it. We been got it, long before you came along.
Because some of the readers here might be uninformed about guns, and this is a good chance to educate them-or would you rather leave that up to Senator Feinstein?
Having grown up in the 50s in rural NH, I know a .223 Remington is what is called a varmint caliber. As Bob sys – suitable for small animals. It was considered unethical to hunt deer with such a small caliber. Militaries around the world used to use 30 caliber ammunition in bolt actions in WW1 and then semiauto and full auto in WW2. But then it was discovered that smaller calibers like the .223 Remington allowed soldiers to carry a lot more ammunition and increased the chances that they would wound their adversaries, therefore tying up more enemy manpower caring for the wounded. A small fast bullet has a much flatter trajectory making it simpler to aim too. I would prefer a AR 15 for home defense as opposed to a 30 caliber deer rifle because I would have more shots and be less likely to create collateral damage in the neighbors house. In actuality, I would probably choose a pump shotgun because, as one reader put it, I would feel more comfortable in a home invasion situation where aiming an AR 15, or a 9mm pistol for that matter would be more difficult. But I now live in Australia where guns have been banned so the the question is theoretical. Good luck and God bless your efforts to preserve the 2nd Amendment.