Your take on a CNN iReport

Discussion in 'Activism Discussion and Planning' started by txgunsuscg, Jan 9, 2013.

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

    txgunsuscg Member

    Jan 1, 2011
    Chesapeake, VA
    I was thinking of signing up for CNN's iReport and posting the following article. This is your chance to let me know what you think both about the tactic and the article. It is targeted less at the uneducated public, and more at the gun owners that think that if they let black rifles get banned, their guns will get left alone.

    “We Must All Hang Together…”

    “…Or assuredly, we will all hang separately.” This quote from Benjamin Franklin at the signing of the Declaration of Independence is still as relevant today as it was those many years ago. Gun owners, of all types – long range precision, hunter, 3-gun, National Match, blackpowder – must all band together to support each other in the coming year to push back on the coming gun control legislation, even if they do not own or utilize the so-called “assault weapons” currently being targeted. The reason for this is very simple: the arguments being made against “assault weapons” can be applied to almost every other type of firearm in at least one or more scenario.

    Argument #1: They are powerful. Actually, they are not. The 5.56x45 cartridge (sometimes referred to as .223 Remington, although there are differences) is at best an intermediate power cartridge. The .308 Winchester and .30-06 Springfield - both common hunting cartridges in which millions of hunting rifles, both semi-automatic, pump-action, and bolt-action, are chambered - are both more powerful. How much more powerful? For a Full Metal Jacket target bullet – range type ammunition – the .308 delivers 1,233 more foot/pounds of energy at 100 yards, and the .30-06 delivers 1,635 more foot/pounds of energy at 100 yards than the 5.56. An AR-15 powerful? Your hunting rifle is a lot more powerful.

    Why should this worry you? Because when gun control advocates talk about “high-powered” or “sniper” rifles, they are actually talking about your hunting rifles. The Remington 700, an immensely popular bolt-action hunting rifle, is also the base rifle used for building Army, Marine, Navy, and Air Force sniper rifles. Gun control advocates also argue that we should restrict “armor-piercing” ammunition. While it is true that there is a specific “armor-piercing” military round, most modern hunting rifle ammunition will pierce the most common type of body armor employed by police officers – NIJ Level IIIA. NIJ IIIA is certified up to handgun calibers – no rifle. How would you like to see your Winchester .270 banned?

    Argument #2: They are designed to fire fast (900 rounds a minute is what someone told me). Actually, only fully-automatic firearms (already regulated under the National Firearms Act) fire that fast. Every semi-automatic firearm, and all double action revolvers, fire 1 round every time the trigger is pulled, as fast as the trigger is pulled. Realistically, the AR-15 doesn’t fire any faster than a revolver. In fact, if you bother to YouTube Jerry Miculek (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSFPw), he fires his revolver faster than most people are even capable of firing their AR-15s (4 rounds per second from a revolver with a reload).

    Why should this worry you? Because any time gun control advocates talk about restricting firearms that “shoot fast,” they are the judge of how fast is too fast. YouTube the Cowboy Action National Champion. Watch how fast he shoots single action revolvers, lever-action rifles, and pump-action shotguns. Is that too fast? How fast can you shoot your Glock, or your Ruger, or your Smith and Wesson pistol? Is that too fast? They are all semi-automatic, they all fire one round per pull of the trigger. How is that different from an AR-15?

    Argument #3: No one needs high-capacity magazines. Actually, what are referred to as “high-capacity” are standard capacity. Very few modern full-size firearms were designed with a magazine of 10 rounds or less in mind. The Glock 17 was designed to function with a 17 round magazine. The Springfield XD in 9mm was designed to function with a 16 round magazine. The AR-15 was designed with a 20 round magazine, and most come today with a 30 round magazine standard. Most gun control advocates call for a 10 round limit on magazines. This is an utterly arbitrary number, with no research behind it. A well-practiced reload takes a second, sometimes less (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GsmUzSBaUQ). Many people say that if the bad guys had only needed to take a break to reload, someone could have jumped them. Watch that video, then tell me that you’re going to somehow get the jump on him while he’s reloading.

    Why should this worry you? Assume that we do ban all magazines over 10 rounds. What happens when the next shooting takes place, using only 10 round magazines? Do we mandate that all magazines take less than 10 rounds? How few are too many? 7 rounds? Watch out 1911 lovers. 6 rounds? Watch out revolver lovers.

    The plain fact of the matter is that despite their aesthetics, the modern AR-15 is not the “killing machine” that people make it out to be. Gun control advocates say that it isn’t useful for hunting or for any other sports. Actually, the AR-15 is the primary firearm used in the National Matches, a precision target sport, every year. The AR-15 is also the primary firearm used in most 3-gun matches, a speed-shooting sport, every year. With the many calibers that it could be chambered in (5.56, .300 BLK, 6.8 SPC, 7.62x39, and 9mm to name a few), it can easily be adapted to work in everything from a home defense environment to a hunting environment. Spend a little time on the internet, and you’ll find plenty of pictures of people utilizing the AR-15 for deer, hog, coyote, and varmint hunting.

    Think that your precious wood-stocked hunting rifles are never used in crimes? According to the Violence Policy Center (definitely not a friend of gun owners), the killers in the Westside Middle School shooting that left 5 dead and 10 wounded utilized a Remington 742 .30-06 semi-automatic hunting rifle and an M1 Carbine. Coincidentally, this occurred during the first Assault Weapons Ban (as did Columbine). Neither of these firearms was on the banned list at the time, and the ban didn’t prevent either massacre from taking place.

    Gun control advocates have a sometimes stated/sometimes unstated goal: the elimination of private firearms ownership. The cold, hard truth that gun owners don’t seem to want to face is that if they allow these arguments to be used against AR-15s now, they will eventually find these arguments being used against their firearms, and the shoe never feels as good on the other foot.
  2. Captain*kirk

    Captain*kirk Member

    Oct 22, 2010
    Waukegan, IL
    Excellent points all, and good that you've targeted the "won't affect me" group. I know too many of them myself.
  3. 58limited

    58limited Member

    Nov 8, 2012
    SE Texas
    You might also want to point out that according to the U.S. Department of Justice's annual crime report, as compiled by the FBI and published in their yearly Uniform Crime Reports Crime in the U.S., We are actually living with the lowest violent crime rate in at least 40 years. All of this data is readily available to the public and politicians in the library or online. As you all know, this entire gun control issue has nothing to do with facts. The media and politicians have skewed everything and the public at large is dumb enough to believe it at face value.
  4. kwguy

    kwguy Member

    Dec 17, 2012
    That is an excellent article. It should be posted. It seems there is no one to dispel the myths that the media likes to perpetuate, and this article will do just that.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice