Brothers in Arms


PDA

Partisan Ranger
April 29, 2003, 01:00 PM
Another article I just wrote -

I hunted once long ago – a most unsuccessful squirrel hunting expedition with Dad in 1986. While I enjoyed tromping in the woods with Dad’s 12 gauge Remington and soaking in the blissful silence and quiet beauty of southern Ohio’s rolling green hills, my passion for firearms today has little to do with long guns and hunting. I’m more interested in handguns, personal protection, and defending my family and me from those who would harm us.

Though I’m more into Kahr Arms than Bushmaster, utter the words ‘assault weapons ban’ around me and I go on full automatic invective. I vehemently oppose this silly busy-body legislative nonsense that does almost nothing to stop criminals and restricts the freedoms of law-abiding sportsmen and ordinary folks defending their property. With a little luck, this obscene legislation will die quietly next year when Congress does not reauthorize it. I may not have wielded a shot gun since I was an adolescent, but any attack on our 2nd Amendment rights is an attack on all of us. We’re all in this fight for our rights together.

There go the wails and cries from the anti-gun bigots: “Aha! Another gun-hugging whack-job who opposes ‘sensible and reasonable gun control laws!’ These people are extremists! I bet they’d let anyone buy bazookas if they could! How can anyone oppose the ban of dangerous guns that thugs use to slaughter kids, Girl Scouts, and cute puppies?

To paraphrase a particular former president, it all depends what the definition of ‘sensible and reasonable’ is. Gun grabbers tend to claim the ‘sensible and reasonable’ middle ground with their rhetoric, but the results are anything but to the millions of law-abiding gun owners in America. I’ve seen quite a few supposed ‘sensible and reasonable gun control laws’ in my time including the ‘assault weapons’ ban that morphed into something other than sensible and reasonable – more like mindless, emotion-driven Trojan Horse dictates that do little to nothing to stop crime but run roughshod over our Constitutional rights.

The halls of Congress are littered with examples of freedom-choking anti-gun legislation that should never be allowed to become law. Take the misguided efforts regarding gun shows and background checks on private gun sales. Sen. John McCain really has his dress over his head on this one.

As most know, mandatory background checks have been in effect at gun shows for years on licensed dealers. This has done very little to stop crime - only about 2 percent of criminal guns come from gun shows. Still, if it takes only a few minutes and I receive my gun then and there, I can deal with the background check.

That fight won, now the gun grabbers are pulling a classic bait-and-switch that would make the most odious used car salesman proud. Their latest holy grail is to close the mythical ‘gun show loophole.’ Their goal is to mandate background checks for Joe Six Pack who brings a gun from his collection to sell at the show. Calling this a loophole is disingenuous at best, and a lesser gentleman might call it a bald-faced, scum-sucking lie. Mr. Six Pack selling his 30.06 hunting rifle at a gun show is a private sale of a gun by a person who is not a gun dealer. Background checks don’t apply to private sales, be it at a gun show, in my garage, basement arsenal, wheat field, or the nearest donut shop. Gun grabbers are quietly trying to use ‘sensible’ legislation passed for one stated purpose – requiring backgrounds checks at gun shows by licensed dealers – for an ominous, hidden purpose - restricting the private sale of guns between citizens. Outrageous! If the gun-grabbers succeed in regulating the private sale of firearms at gun shows, does anyone seriously believe they will saunter off into the sunset, fat and happy? Hardly. They will turn to the next target – regulating private firearm sales everywhere else.

Precisely the same scenario has played out with the ‘assault weapons’ ban. Anti-gunners foisted this seriously flawed legislation upon the public under the guise of public safety after a deranged killer opened fire on children at an elementary school in California in 1989 with a semi-automatic look-alike of an AK-47 fully-automatic assault rifle. The man had a long criminal record and a history of mental illness and should have been in jail. He killed 5 children and wounded 29 others in his psychotic killing spree.

In typical fashion, the gun control crowd unleashed its fury - at the weapon the killer used. They also threw in a potent mix of deceit and deception by capitalizing both on the gun’s military appearance and the public’s lack of knowledge of firearms to create a new media boogeyman – the dreaded ‘assault weapon.’

There was just one problem: The look-alike AK-47 semi-automatic in question, and other guns outlawed in the ban, aren’t ‘assault weapons.’ These semi-automatic weapons are legitimate firearms used legally by millions of average citizens for hunting, home defense, and recreational shooting. They are easy to operate, fun to shoot, very accurate, and good for home defense. They have legitimate, real-world uses. True assault weapons are fully automatic and have been outlawed for purchase by the general public since 1938.
But goose-stepping gun grabbers never let facts interfere with their agenda. A new gun myth was born. ‘Assault weapons,’ which according to ignorant media mavens included many semi-automatic rifles that had a militaristic appearance, were evil and had to be banned. And so they were. On September 13th, 1994, HR4296 a.k.a the Assault Weapons Ban, was enacted by Congress with the support of President Clinton.
As is typical with legislation passed in a fit of emotion, banning those guns had a minimal effect on crime. In fact, gun crimes committed with ‘assault weapons’ was hardly epidemic prior to 1994:
• Over 100,000 police officers delivered a message to Congress in 1990 stating that only 2% to 3% of crimes are committed using a so-called "assault weapon."
• The New York Times reported that, "Although New Jersey's pioneering ban on military-style assault rifles was sold to the state as a crime-fighting measure, its impact on violence in the state... has been negligible, both sides agree."89 Moreover, New Jersey police statistics show that only .026 of 1 percent of all crimes involve "assault rifles."
• The Bureau of Justice Statistics reported in 1995 that violent criminals only carry or use a "military-type gun" in about one percent of the crimes nationwide.
• Less than four percent of all homicides in the United States involve any type of rifle. No more than .8% of homicides are perpetrated with rifles using military calibers. (And not all rifles using such calibers are usually considered "assault weapons.")

The effect on law-abiding citizens, however, has been more severe, because of the legislation’s concentration on cosmetic appearances rather than on actual functionality. The law specifically outlawed 19 different firearms, plus any firearm that can accept a detachable magazine, and possesses two or more of the following features:
• Folding or telescopic stock
• Pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the stock
• Bayonet mount
• Flash suppressor or threaded barrel
• Grenade launcher

Every item on the list at has some practical purpose. For example, a folding or telescopic stock allows the firearm to more easily be transported and stored, and would also be useful in a home defense situation where maneuverability is important. A flash suppressor reduces the visibility of the bright flash of light that is sometimes produced by firing in the dark. This would be very important for someone defending their family against an intruder in the middle of the night, as the flash would tend to temporarily hamper the shooter's vision.

The puny impact on crime rates and the brutal impact on citizens’ rights reveal the true nature of all-too-much gun legislation today. Enacting ‘reasonable and sensible gun laws’ to ‘reduce crime,’ usually ‘for the children,’ is the false excuse used to foist yet more gun regulations on the only people who obey them – the law abiding. With more and more senseless gun legislation passing each year, peaceful gun owners are finding their firearm options more and more limited and expensive, which is precisely what the gun-grabbers are trying to accomplish.

Whether you are a hunter, target shooter, carry a gun for personal defense, or simply believe in The Bill of Rights as written and not how East and Left Coast intellectuals interpret it this week, opposing the renewal of the assault weapons ban legislation is the only sensible and reasonable action a 2nd Amendment-respecting citizen can take.


www.josephpickett.com
pickettj1970@yahoo.com

If you enjoyed reading about "Brothers in Arms" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Justin
April 29, 2003, 02:39 PM
Well done. Reading through it, there are just a couple of places that need some polishing:

“Aha! Another gun-hugging whack-job who opposes ‘sensible and reasonable gun control laws!’ These people are extremists! I bet they’d let anyone buy bazookas if they could! How can anyone oppose the ban of dangerous guns that thugs use to slaughter kids, Girl Scouts, and cute puppies? Need a closing parenthesis on this one.


As most know, mandatory background checks have been in effect at gun shows for years on licensed dealers. This has done very little to stop crime - only about 2 percent of criminal guns come from gun shows. Check your stats on this one. IIRC, the feds did a study on this, and the conclusion was that something like .7% of all guns used in crime were bought at gunshows. More info here: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=88492&highlight=gun+show

These semi-automatic weapons are legitimate firearms used legally by millions of average citizens for hunting, home defense, and recreational shooting. They are easy to operate, fun to shoot, very accurate, and good for home defense. Redundant.

• The New York Times reported that, "Although New Jersey's pioneering ban on military-style assault rifles was sold to the state as a crime-fighting measure, its impact on violence in the state... has been negligible, both sides agree."89 Moreover, New Jersey police statistics show that only .026 of 1 percent of all crimes involve "assault rifles." I don't quite understand this one? .026 what? Percent? Are you talking about a percent of a percent here?

Every item on the list at has some practical purpose.

Partisan Ranger
April 29, 2003, 03:29 PM
Thanks for the corrections. I wrote this one rather quickly and haven't checked it over as carefully as I should.

.7 of 1 percent of criminals bought a gun at a gun show....yep, a regular Tupperware party for criminals.

If you enjoyed reading about "Brothers in Arms" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!