Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Brady Campaign calls for ban on HUNTING ammunition.

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by F4GIB, Dec 30, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. F4GIB

    F4GIB Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,165
    Location:
    Midwest
    In the wake of two mass shootings in two weeks, it is no surprise that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is calling for more gun control.

    They start by falsely claiming that the now expired 1994 "Assault Weapons" ban could have prevent both shootings. Not true, as both the weapons used in the shootings in Omaha and Colorado would not have been banned under the provisions of 1994 ban. The WASR AK-47 "look-alike" gun used in the Nebraska shooting is a direct unintended consequence of the federal ban, having been cosmetically altered to comply with the 1994 law. This is a typical reaction to such shootings and is to be expected.

    What is of a greater concern to ever big-game hunter in the county is the following statement post on the Brady Center website:

    "Perhaps even more shocking, the type of bullet many assault weapons fire (7.62mm full metal jacket) can penetrate four categories of police body armor [pdf]. There is no legitimate reason the public should have this kind of access to military-style assault weapons."

    Not content to go after assault weapons, now they are going after any (all) bullet that can penetrate body armor.

    And as usual, they're trying to sway public opinion with inaccurate, misleading, and provably false information.

    In his blog, Brady bunch leader Paul Helmke references a National Institute of Justice report on soft body armor protection, but incorrectly identifies the type of bullet used in the shooting. The report references the 7.62x51 NATO round (.308 Winchester) in the testing, but the round used in the Omaha shooting was a 7.62x39 Russian. He also neglected to inform his readers that the test he refers to is for soft body armor, which is designed to stop handgun rounds only. It was never intended to stop rifle rounds. This is a telling mistake, as the Brady Center doesn't care about providing accurate information - only hysterical information.

    Almost every single popular round used for big-game in this country can penetrate the same four levels of soft body armor.

    Let's compare the 3 most popular cartridge choices for Whitetail Deer hunting: [see http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article4113.html for the ballistics charts on Remington cartridges]

    As you can see the three most popular rounds for deer hunting all have a higher muzzle velocity/energy compared to the 7.62 Russian. Which means that all three can penetrate all but level III hard body armor, even the 30-30 Winchester whom most consider the minimum acceptable round for deer hunting is more powerful than the 7.62 used in the Omaha Mall shooting. What does this mean for the average deer/big game hunter? It means that despite years of protestations that "we aren't advocating banning guns/ammo used by hunters" they are finally showing their true goal is to ban the private ownership of all firearms in the United States. It might be helpful to remember the following:

    The Brady Campaign's original name was Handgun Control Inc. The founder, the late Pete Shields, made his goals clear in an interview in with the New Yorker Magazine in 1976:

    "We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily -given the political realities - very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of hand-guns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal."

    It seems that they have expanded their stated position of banning handguns to include assault weapons and now hunting firearms and ammunition. What you call a deer rifle, they refer to it as an intermediate sniper rifle, which they define as "any rifle with an optical sight making it capable of shooting at distances of 100 meters or greater". For those who thought anti-gunners were only after "assault rifles" now they want to ban your granddad's deer gun. Please join local and national pro-gun organizations and help spread the word about the latest attempt by the gun-grabbers to disarm law-abidingly gun owners whose only "crime" is to own firearms for hunting or self-defense.

    Adapted from an article at http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article4113.html.[/b]
     
  2. Eric F

    Eric F Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    2,934
    you know its funny that every "assault weapon" I ever owned was bought durring the ban Also interesting I bought ALL of my highcap mags during that same time it was a great ban worked for me

    *** I can do that with iron sights another great thing they have going there
     
  3. RoadkingLarry

    RoadkingLarry Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    884
    Location:
    NE Oklahoma
    Maybe, just maybe this will wake up the hard core hunters who have had no interest in this issue in the past because they "knew" that THEY were not after their hunting rifles.
     
  4. jlday70

    jlday70 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Messages:
    149
    Location:
    Western NY.....On the Canadian border..
    Since this is such a large board I am sure it has been said before, but as gun entusiests we need to stop using the buzz words. Phrases like "Assault Weapon, High capacity, and the like" are words made up by the gun grabbers to make guns seem more evil. for example a 15 round magazine for a Glock 22 isn't "high capacity" it is standard capacity.

    As long as gun owners keep using our enemies buzz words they will always be a tool against the RTKBA.

    What I propose as a gun owner and enthusiasts, is when ever you hear these things being used correct the person using them and explain that the media and the brady campaign use things like this to forward an anti-gun/ anti-freedom agenda.
     
  5. General Geoff

    General Geoff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    5,065
    Location:
    Allentown, Pennsylvania
    I substitute the term assault weapon with Evil Black Rifle. Definitely our term, not theirs. It's too silly to be used as a political buzzword. :)
     
  6. JohnL2

    JohnL2 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2006
    Messages:
    676
    I understand what the Brady people are trying to do. But misinformation and demagogue pleas are not going to benefit their cause in the long run.
    You would think they would understand this.
    Why can't they try working with the NRA on crime prevention?
    The Brady Campaign credibility is like a colander to me.
     
  7. The Deer Hunter

    The Deer Hunter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Messages:
    2,801
    Location:
    Chairborne HQ, MA :(
    I totally called this. Since they clearly see that spewing all that BS about assault guns with shoulder things that go up isn't working they have decided to move on to the not so scary looking but "super accurate to a mile, shoot through 4 car doors" hunting rifles.
     
  8. 230RN
    • Contributing Member

    230RN Marines raising the left-leaning Pisa tower.

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Messages:
    6,632
    Location:
    Calirado
    More suggestions for substitutes?

    I've used "Homeland Defense Rifle," and "Evil Black Rifle," but I am stuck for one for "high capacity maganzine." They hold what they hold.

    (And, parenthetically, some poobah in Canada is now objecting to "Rambo-Style" knives.)
    __________________
    Go down to the office of your candidate. Volunteer to collate and staple literature, bring print jobs to the printer,
     
  9. Eric F

    Eric F Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    2,934
    When refrencing "their" terminology......
    How are you suposed to accuratly make quotes and refrences if you dont use "their" words?
    Sugestion please(BTW I get the black rifle thing) mostly in refrence to"magazines holding more than 10 rounds" aka highcap mags

    looks like we are in the same boat here 230RN
     
  10. 308win

    308win Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Messages:
    2,918
    Location:
    Ohio - The Heart of it All
    A magazine is a magazine is a magazine; just call'em that. If you need to be more descriptive call'em 30rd, 20 rd, etc. magazines.
     
  11. jlday70

    jlday70 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Messages:
    149
    Location:
    Western NY.....On the Canadian border..
    The point I am making is that the term is an anti-gun buzz word..:)

    Since you ask though I usually call it what it is, either a standard capacity, or (# of) round magazine. as for the whole assault weapon thing like with the magazines I call it what it is, like "its a Bushmaster Car-15 Semi-automatic rifle"

    I appologize for sounding argumentative, but I think the biggest thing working against us is mis-education of our society and mis-information..
     
  12. jlday70

    jlday70 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Messages:
    149
    Location:
    Western NY.....On the Canadian border..
    I see we were thinking the same thing:)
     
  13. jfh

    jfh Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    4,866
    Location:
    Maple Plain, MN
    "...How are you suposed to accuratly make quotes and refrences if you dont use "their" words?"

    1. By careful construction of your own statement.

    2. By the use of perjorative adjectives and adverbs, as long as the argument made is appropriately rigorous.

    As an example--personally, I usually point out the fact that the term "assault weapon" is a political definition that is not part of the standard firearms lexicon.

    For an exercise, try re-stating the phrase "Gun Show Loophole" in non-propangandistic terms.
    .
    .
    .
    The answer will come after you try this, class.

    Jim H.
     
  14. Wolfgang2000

    Wolfgang2000 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    376
    First I think we all understand the Brady's main goal is to outlaw ALL firearms.

    Second their argument is a old one. I was first used in the 80"s when they were trying to push the "Cop Killer Bullet" law. It effective baned a rounds that would penetrate a level 1 vest.

    It's not just about hunting. Our number 1 weapon is our vote. The vote counts for more when there is solidarity.

    "Just the facts". ;)
     
  15. Eric F

    Eric F Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    2,934
    The term highcap has been used by some of the most hard core pro gun types I have ever met. It is standard language all over my area and also in the competition sports ie idpa uspsa ipsc and Nc 3 gun. I see little if any reason to change the terminology. The fact is weather we use the term or not it still exists. kinda like a person that "does not beleive in guns" yet they are still here.
    Now the term "Assault weapon" I can argue that all day
     
  16. jlday70

    jlday70 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Messages:
    149
    Location:
    Western NY.....On the Canadian border..
    I can't argue with ya there it is and will always be used by most people. I see High cap as anything above the factory highest number magazine, so I agree it is hard to make an arguement against that term. While I can say that when it is used by the hard core gun enthusiasts it is understood. When it is used by a person who knows absolutely nothing about a gun. That is where the problem begins, and that is where I think we need to be making corrections.

    these terms amungst us here on the board are usually used sarcastically, because we know what they mean.
     
  17. 230RN
    • Contributing Member

    230RN Marines raising the left-leaning Pisa tower.

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Messages:
    6,632
    Location:
    Calirado
    The posts are running fast and furious here, but let's see what we can do.

    1. I did not take your remarks as contentious, jday70.

    2. I've long argued that sematics are important, and the antis sure know that, but what defines "high capacity" besides just an arbitrary number?

    Some revolvers nowadays have 8 round capacity and I had a .22 revolver once that held nine rounds. No one on our side of the fence would argue that these are "high capacity revolvers," but how do we counter the semantics of the term "high capacity magazines?" That's what my question really was.

    It's like using the terms "high powered revolvers" or "high capacity revolvers." If the antis latch on to terms like that, how would we counter them semantically?

    I've gone into the importance of sematic loading before, and while some folks want to just ignore semantic loadings, others have asked the same question.

    So what substitute/counter for "high capacity magazines," in a semantic sense?

    "Reserve Capacity," "Extra Capacity," "Contingent Capacity" magazines?
     
  18. jfh

    jfh Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    4,866
    Location:
    Maple Plain, MN
    "...So what substitute/counter for "high capacity magazines," in a semantic sense?"​

    By even getting into a qualifying argument about magazine capacity, one is ceding the discussion to the antis' hypothesis: that the amount of ammunition available has a bearing on the (relative) danger of the firearm. So, simply eliminate the qualifier / adjuective--it's a "magazine".

    I surely don't believe--and in fact I know--that the number of cartridges I have available makes me an accurate-deadly-undeadly-dangerous shooter. Does having a 30-round mag in your AK-47 make you more dangerous?

    I absolutely stopped a gun-grabber's query cold about "those armor-piercing bullets" by simply saying: "What difference does the bullet make if a criminal is going to shoot someone?"

    learn the grabber's arguments well: They truly impacted the political lexicon on firearms and have shaped it for well over twenty years, and it is now part of the American Psyche (collective unconscious). It will take a long time to reshape those assumptions.

    Arguably, in today's political climate, even a commentary done from the a priori assumptions of the standard lexicon is a political statement--we've gotten that far out of whack in our perspective on this.

    I think the best place to start is to simply start using the terms without the qualifiers. Revolvers are revolvers are revolvers....

    Remember that the anti is arguing the political definitions of firearms. While you and I may wish to have a discussion of the relative (power) merits of a revolver chambered for 500 S&W versus .44 Magnum, that's an entirely different kind of discussion.

    Jim H.
     
  19. 230RN
    • Contributing Member

    230RN Marines raising the left-leaning Pisa tower.

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Messages:
    6,632
    Location:
    Calirado
    JTH:
    Yes, yes, I'm sure we all agree on that point (and thanks for codifying it.)

    But the question is, how do we avoid it or counter it?

    How, in fact, do we go about re-shaping those assumptions?

    What words shall we use?

    What semantic loadings can we manipulate in our favor?
     
  20. Robert Hairless

    Robert Hairless Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,983
    230RN

    Sarah Brady and Carolyn McCarthy define "high capacity" and "assault weapon" and so on. Those are classifications based on judgments. You can't ever beat that approach and it has no objective meaning anyway.

    What would you do if a doctor you've never met before said to you "Quick, nurse, hand me a high capacity syringe filled with Cortisone?"

    What does have objective meaning is the system we've always used in the past: specify the maximum number of rounds that a magazine can hold.

    Even if none of us had ever met previously there isn't one of us who wouldn't know the capacity of a 10- 20- or 30-round AR-15 magazine specified that way. But use classifications such as Low- Medium- or High-capacity and communication breaks down unless everyone has the same chart and refers to it.

    The thing is that capacity specified in numbers doesn't lend itself to value judgments. Value judgments are what scare people. Sarah and Carolyn would have a relatively difficult time explaining why a 30-round magazine is more dangerous than a 20-round magazine, especially if the owner has the 30-round-capacity magazine loaded with only five rounds for zeroing the rifle. But call a 30-round magazine "high capacity" and it's easier to flummox people by befuddling everyone.

    Politics aside, there's nothing to be gained by using classifications instead of numbers to describe magazines. It's confusing. Back to politics, that's why politicians use classifications instead of numbers: they're so much easier to play with.

    I laughed so hard that tears came to my eyes when a neighbor told me about "the high speed chase" that took place on our street the other day. The street is posted for a 25 MPH speed limit but a wreckless teenager was pulled over by a patrol car behind him for doing about 30 MPH. It was indeed a "high speed chase." Fortunately no one was hurt. Everyone got to go home at the end of the day.

    How do you counter it?

    First, you don't use terms such as "High Capacity." Ever.

    Second, you could do what I do when I'm in a conversation in which such a term is used. I react with honest confusion. "What is a 'High Capacity' magazine?" I've never encountered anyone who used that term who had an inkling of what it meant, so the response has always been "What do you mean?" I explain by asking "How much capacity is 'high' and what's 'normal'?" No one has ever been able to tell me. So I say, "If I don't know and you don't know, how could it possibly be important?"

    I'm sure that there are many other possible questions. Sometimes people do get argumentative anyway. I usually agree with them and explain my own opposition to "High Capacity" personal vehicles, especially when they're owned by families with four people or less. I call them "Assault Vehicles." Nobody but the military needs an Assault Vehicle.

    Don't get me started on Assault Cereal Boxes, Assault Fruit Cans, Assault Detergent Boxes, or Assault Educational Degrees. Nobody needs a B.A., M.A. or Ph.D. Them high faluting pieces of paper are meant to intimidate people and nothing more. Reedin, written, and 2 + 2 is good enough for everyone. I know.
     
  21. antsi

    antsi Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,398
    This has been in the works for a long time.

    I remember 2 or 3 years ago watching Ted Kennedy speechifying in the Senate about how we should ban .30-30 because it can penetrate soft body armor.

    That is the new definition of "armor piercing." We have not heard the last of this one.

    The scary thing is how you will see LEOs in the news standing up to support this kind of nonsense. I don't know whether they really believe this stuff, or whether they are just such political creatures they will say anything as long as it's in the party line.
     
  22. Kimber1911_06238

    Kimber1911_06238 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2007
    Messages:
    1,548
    Location:
    AZ
    +1 on waking up hunters. they aren't just going after the black rifles. they are going after the bolt action "sniper rifles" as well. To some they are hunting rifles, but if you think for one second that the anti's care about preserving your right to keep any guns you are sadly mistaken
     
  23. the pistolero

    the pistolero Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Messages:
    783
    Location:
    Beaumont-Port Arthur, Texas
    I saw both of the following suggested here a while back:
    1. Instead of "high-capacity magazines," why not just call them "normal-capacity"? Wasn't 15-18 rounds the normal capacity for most defensive sidearm mags (and 30 for most semi-auto rifle mags) before the AWB? I could be wrong...
    2. Instead of "assault rifle," we could call it a general-purpose rifle, or Jeep rifle. :D
     
  24. jfh

    jfh Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    4,866
    Location:
    Maple Plain, MN
    "...How, in fact, do we go about re-shaping those assumptions?
    What words shall we use? What semantic loadings can we manipulate in our favor?​

    Well, there's a doctoral dissertation for someone.

    Personally, I do reshape those assumptions in a number of ways--first, I avoid "arguments;" and above all, I present myself as caring and concerned, but rational and logical. (That is not a posture, BTW; I think it fits a personal description.)

    Second, I usually give one example of the (current topic's) irrational hypothesis. Since I usually associate with people who think rationally as well as emotively, I may even catch them off guard with a statement that turns their assumptions on end--for example, I have found the phrase "gun control: the belief that a woman raped and strangled with her own hose is morally superior to a woman who defends herself with a firearm" to be useful in shifting the argument.

    Note that I introduced several new assumptions into the discussion--items such as

    1. Calling out their statments as a belief and by inference, not a fact.

    2. Creating an implicit appeal to the (moral) authority of the Collective Unconscious--e.g., that people do have a right to live, to self-defense, and that such a hypothesis is not morally inferior to violence.

    So, to summarize (all too soon), it seems to me we can shift the semantic loadings to our favor by using ironclad (well-constructed) suppositions that appeal to 'American Values' (and not the hollow political ones) and that also demonstrate the fallacy of the (antigun) supposition.

    The nightmare--as demonstrated here, at THR in general and even in this thread--is that there are far too many pro-gun people who have been exposed only to the anti-gun perspective (courtesy of the MSM, etc., etc.) and for whom the reference to the broadest values of the American CU is simply missing. Hence, they see the term "assault weapon" as a 'real' definition, and not merely a political (and relatively new) definition--and then, because of the American CW of 'pragmatisim' resist NOT using it.

    Personally, I believe that pro-gun people using antigun assumptions should be called out, and their arguments denigrated--and their ability to argue as well. But, that is not THR's position, so I won't do it here.

    I'm going to bow out for now, simply because I want some other posters to present their rhetoric for this--and there are some here who are extraordinarily good at it. We need to hear from them.

    addendum: While preparing this post, I see other posters got their comments on line as well--and I simply want to again call out the problem of using the standard firearms lexicon definitions to answer antigun statements without shifting the semantics: --In the political debate, rifles are rifles are rifles, and NOT subject to the parsing for "weapons", "semi-automatic," "sporting," "hunting," recreational, and the like. Anything else is a slippery slope. The place to parse in not on personal firearms--crew-served might be the beginning of that (and even that can be successfully argued if one takes a strict construction historical perspective of the Constitution.

    Jim H.
     
  25. Prince Yamato

    Prince Yamato Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    4,410
    Location:
    Texas
    Aww crap, now they're going after sniper rifles. It was one thing when I was able to purchase AWs, but sniper rifles are expensive. I guess I could always buy an SKS and put a scope on it...
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page