Weapons of War at the Mall and Church

[chieftain]

I still want these folks to define what an "assault rifle" is. (they have arbitrary subjective definitions of what an assault rifle is. They call a rifle that could not vaguely be defined as an assault rifle an assault rifle. Obviously they cannot define them, their answer is that they know one when they see one. That is hogwash. But as we all know that is a semantics argument. Any truly knowledgeable Military man should know the definition.

In fact the term High powered Assault rifle is an oxymoron. By definition an assault rifle MUST be an intermediate power cartridge with full automatic capability. Usually but not restricted to carbine lengths. That's it by the way. The two critical points are intermediate power and full Auto. A battle rifle like a Garand, M14 or FN FAL are battle rifles, because of the power of the cartridge, even if it can fire full Auto. The NATO 7.62 is a full power or "high Power" cartridge.

Are there weapons that might fall in a gray area, a few, but not many.

Those semantic arguments that seem so childish, are exactly why conservatives and we pro gun folks are losing slowly and steadily to the Communist/Dimocrat/Socialist/Liberal/Progressive's on so many issues. First they steal the language of the conflict, then they sell the people on the new language meaning something other than what it does.

That is how they win the long term fights against us. The steal the language, often applying Political correctness.

Look at the fight over Illegal aliens. They argue about migrants. That is not what the fight is about. It is about Illegal aliens. But their fellow ideologues in the Media support their effort to first change the language, which often in and of it self changes the argument. I know, I am the son of a Migrant.

By the way. My father was an undocumented migrant. He received citizenship under his fathers nationalization. So he had no papers of his own at all. When ever he needed a passport or such, he had to get my grandfathers (his fathers) citizenship papers. He finally filed for his own citizenship papers, just so he didn't have to go through the hassle. I know next you will tell me it is only semantics. Yup, that is where the fight begins. Not where it ends.

It is like any meeting engagement, the initial small actions to get and hold the good ground for the coming fight is often what wins or loses the day. That is how I visualize the semantics fight in so many issues.

That is my point.

We as the pro gun side must fight the semantic fight as well as the legal and moral fight to keep our weapons. don't give to the other side by default what may be the MOST important part of the issue. Never forget that words effect people.

Some of you folks have been fighting this fight longer than I have. You know the rest of the "story" and the other issues butchered in the article below.

Rant off.

I will take another Nitro, and blood pressure pill, and settle down. I hope I have made a rational point here about this.

thank you.

Fred

The New York Times:

December 12, 2007

Editorial

Weapons of War at the Mall and Church

Barely touched on in the coverage of the two latest gun rampages is how the disturbed shooters could so easily obtain assault rifles — weapons designed for waging war. In separate random massacres, eight people were slain at an Omaha shopping mall last Wednesday and four were more shot dead Sunday at two Colorado churches. The Omaha killer took his stepfather’s rapid-fire rifle from a closet to pick off Christmas shoppers. In Colorado, the gunman, leaving behind an Internet screed referenced to the 1999 Columbine massacre, was equipped with two assault rifles, three handguns and 1,000 rounds of ammunition.

How could this happen? That’s the great American cliché attached to these ever-mounting tragedies. We all know the answer. Guns are ubiquitous in this country, and the gun lobby is so powerful that this year’s toll of 30,000 gun deaths makes barely a political ripple.

Until recently, the nation did have a law designed to protect the public from assault rifles and other high-tech infantry weapons. In 1994, enough politicians felt the public’s fear to respond with a 10-year ban on assault-weapons that was not perfect but dented the free-marketeering of Rambo mayhem. Most Americans rejected the gun lobby’s absurd claim that assault rifles are “sporting” weapons. But when it came up for renewal in 2004, President Bush and Congress caved to the gun lobby and allowed the law to lapse. This was despite Mr. Bush’s campaign vow to renew the ban. It was especially frightening to see the ban expire in the very midst of politicians’ endless post-9/11 invoking of homeland security.

New presidential candidates are now wooing voters. Surely they can’t wait to address the latest slayings with a detailed plan of action at the very next televised debate. Surely moderators can hold off on immigration and finding out who believes more in the bible to bring up the latest rampages.

Instead of asking how could this happen, the country needs to know who is going to stop it.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

 

[RLsnow]

"Instead of asking how could this happen, the country needs to know who is going to stop it."

armed citizens!!! (LEO also considered citizens)

 

[bogie]

Guys, arguing at the media about the definition of "assault rifle" is a sure way to (a) get ignored; and (b) get branded a crackpot.

Fight battles that mean something.

 

[Deanimator]

Guys, arguing at the media about the definition of "assault rifle" is a sure way to (a) get ignored; and (b) get branded a crackpot.

Fight battles that mean something.

When you let the enemy set the terms of debate, you've lost before the fight starts.

I absolutely refuse to concede the lexicon to liars and fools.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

Instead of asking how could this happen, the country needs to know who is going to stop it.

Obviously laws don't.
Giving the most effective tools only to police and military puts the citizens in a very bad position.

also: Assault Rifle = select fire rifle chambered in an intermediate cartridge. Assault weapon = made up by the media, applies to anything they want to label as such.

 

[Soybomb]

Amazing how the author of that article ignored that during the wonderful assault weapons ban we had shootings at jonesboro, thurston high school, columbine, atlanta day trading firms, wedgewood baptist church, xerox, a wendy's in flushing ny, wichita, wakefield, and lockheed in meridian among others that killed 70 people.

 

[Prince Yamato]

Most Americans rejected the gun lobby’s absurd claim that assault rifles are “sporting” weapons.

Ok, folks, when we see this claim, let's start jumping all over it. MOST American gun owners OWN Assault Weapons. And if we own bolt actions, they tend to be mil-surps, which by definition are weapons of war.

Let's drown this claim before it's used again like during 1994.

 

[Javelin]

Let's drown this claim before it's used again like during 1994.

Yes exactly!

a) get involved b) join the NRA c) contribute to pro-gun orgs d) all of these

 

[El Tejon]

As if "sport" has anything to do with the motive behind the right to arms.

This is it? This is what the might House Organ of the Left is reduced to? Stamping its feet like a little child? This is all they can do?

How wonderful!

Write your letters. Point out what fools they are.

 

[Outlaws]

who cares if the media calls it an "assault rifle" or "assault weapon"? What pisses me off is they act like anything that isn't sporting is something we shouldn't have access too. I want them to call them what it is, and that term isn't a "sporting rifle"...and the term "assault rifle" might technically mean automatic, but who cares at this point. We need to win the battle on these "military style" weapons and if people associate them with the word "assault rifle", then when the next battle comes for reopening/removing the registry for FA, people will be more open to "military" weapons.

 

[uneasy_rider]

Assault weapon = made up by the media, applies to anything they want to label as such.

Uh, thats not the whole story. "Assault weapon" is a defined term. It is misused at times by the media when they describe weapons, but the term does have a definiont. The term assault weapon was officially defined by the federal government in 1994. Whether you like it or not, it is now a commonly accepted, legitimate term. It is also now listed in the American Heritage and Random House Dictionaries. The term is here to stay, deal with it.

 

[ROMAK IV]

It doesn't matter to them. I always catch conflicting reports on the news about just about any subject. The rant about "30,000 gun deaths", pure garbage!

Let's get a bit of perspective... In spite of media hype, the number of those killed with "assault weapons", even with the loose definition of the media, is below 1%. Were it possible to ban and retrieve every semiautomatic rifle in the US overnight, theoretically, it would reduce the total by a mere 300, and that is assuming, a big assumption, that the perpetrators wouldn't just switch to another type of firearm. And of thse 30,000, a good portion consists of justified shootings, that is, those performed by police and private citizens. Of the shootings by private citizens, at least four studies have determined that at least 99% of the time, the citizen won't shoot if the criminal flees when confronted. So, obviously the best way to reduce gun deaths is to arm citizens, in both the area of restraint and deterence and, particularly, John Lott's research confirms this. If fact, there is evidence that the ten year tend of reduction in the US crime rate was almost entirely due to the passage of State CCW laws.

You can easily discredit this kind of propoganda, but you will never get rid of it, because it is so enbedded in the psyche of certain people. To these people, there is never a justified shooting. They will count the shooting of a murderer/rapist caught in the act to the ruthless murder of a child for some prevert's sexual pleasure. To them, there is no justification for shooting a home invader. They also will count the killing of terroists in with the innocent victims the execute. Reducing crime is just an excuse, and a poor one since disarming people doesn't reduce crime. Even if disarming the nation were to work long term, that is, by eventually exhausting the supply of guns to the criminals by disarming the public, the nation may not survive the short term. As a practical matter, the guns can't be kept from the criminals long term, and even non-gun violence becomes more brutal to compensate.

 

[Prince Yamato]

Maybe we should boycott "Sporting rifles" as being incompatible with the second amendment?

Only buy military style rifles and handguns.

Put down that Remington bolt action! From now on, you may only hunt deer with ARs, AKs, or FALs. Bolt action military rifles are grandfathered however Hunting rifles may however be converted to military configuration by threading the barrel so that it can accommodate a flash suppressor, silencer, or grenade launcher.

 

[Desk Jockey]

From the Colorado Springs Gazette this evening:
http://www.gazette.com/articles/purchased_30808___article.html/colorado_springs.html

Shooter bought 5 guns in past year
THE GAZETTE AND ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS
December 12, 2007 - 5:43PM


Matthew Murray, who killed four people and wounded five others in attacks on two Christian centers, bought all five of his weapons over the past year from licensed firearms dealers, including one in Colorado Springs.

Colorado Springs police this afternoon confirmed information provided by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Murray had three of the weapons on him when he died at New Life Church in Colorado Springs: A Bushmaster XM 15 assault rifle, purchased Jan. 9 at the Sportsman’s Warehouse at 14140 E. Ellsworth Ave. in Aurora. The average retail price of the firearm is $700 to $800.

A Beretta .40-caliber semiautomatic handgun, purchased Jan. 4 at Sportsman’s Warehouse at 555 N. Chelton Road in Colorado Springs. While the company would not provide a sale amount, the average price of the firearm is $600.

A Springfield Armory 9 mm semiautomatic handgun, purchased Sept. 11 at Dave’s Guns, 1842 S. Parker Road in Denver. The average sale price of the firearm is $500 to $700.

In addition, investigators found an AK-47 assault rifle in the trunk of his car and a Beretta .22-caliber handgun at his Arapahoe County home.

The AK-47 was purchased Nov. 17 at Robert’s Firearms, 18498 E. Colfax Ave., in Aurora. The Beretta was purchased June 2 at the Aurora Sportsman’s Warehouse.

Murray purchased all five weapons himself, according to Colorado Springs police.

At the Sportsman’s Warehouse in Colorado Springs, a store manager referred questions to the company’s corporate headquarters.

“We are fully cooperating with the authorities who are investigating this horrible tragedy,” Vice President Matt French said today.

He said sales from both Sportsman’s Warehouse stores followed the law.

“He bought guns from throughout the area and obviously had to pass a background check every time,” French said.

Along with the background check, employees must “feel comfortable” about the sale, and nothing raised any alarms, French said.

Police investigators also said today that Jean Assam, the church security officer who shot and wounded Murray, fired 10 rounds from her Beretta 9 mm semiautomatic handgun.

Church officials have said the volunteers serving as security guards at the church have all required permits and licenses.

 

[charon]

Here's my letter:

Your recent call to restrict so called "assault weapons" (real assault weapons, by definition, are capable of automatic fire) was both hysterical and hypocritical. It was hysterical in that while incidents using these weapons are highly publicized, they are rare. According to the FBI, rifles of any type are only used in about 2.5 percent of all killings. The editorial was hypocritical in your lack of interest in restricting the 1st Amendment as well as the 2nd. Both the recent mall shootings and the Virginia Tech shootings were motivated by the killers' desire to gain infamy though the media. Cho, at Virginia Tech, even sent his own press kit in to NBC. So where's the call to limit the coverage of these criminals? To not use their names, or images or publish their manifestos? Well, that just might get in the way of selling a few newspapers.