A model to the rest of the nation and the world

Fear and Loathing in the US

NOTE: This was an unpublished post that I wrote that I thought was good enough to push out.

One thing that’s will always be sure is there will be those who will use emotion and lack of knowledge to get what they want.  These are typically the most dispicable type of people there are.  Right now, it’s the anti-2nd admendment and gun control advocates.

One of the things that they are hoping to do is further erode our rights to own firearms.  And one way they are trying to do this is by the “Assault Weapons” ban.  But, how many people really know what an “Assault Weapon” is?

Unlike in 1994 when the Democrats first passed the “Assault Weapon” ban we now have lots of information available to the public about what is going on.  And theres plenty of people using the internet to try and send the information around.

One such article, is this one by a Liberal.  He does a fine job at describing what is going on, from a Liberal mind.  The point is, “Assault Weapon” is a term fabricated by the gun control crowd.  It’s not an actual term that is applied in the gun industry.  Let me put it this way:  There’s no such thing as an “Assault Weapon”.

What is the “Assault Weapon”?  It’s things that make a rifle look evil.  It has NOTHING to do with how a gun functions.  There’s the barrel shroud, the pistol grip, suppressors, and finally the magazine clip.  Banning these do nothing to make a gun safer or make them less likely to be used to kill someone.  Take a look at the article

Advertisements

4 responses

  1. Well, the appeal to emotion (over facts or logic) is the stock in trade for most op-ed pundits. It’s not just limited to lefties. Hardly anyone takes sides about abortion without resorting to it.

    So let’s talk a minute about guns from a factual point of view. AKs, and all varieties like the Bushmaster rifles, are designed not to kill, but to wound. In war, that ties up more enemy forces. They’re crap for hunting. It tears up the meat. And do you want to wound a home invader? No, you want stopping power, which means either a .357 or Magnum for ease and speed of use, or a shotgun that you won’t need a good aim for using at close range in the dark. I have zero problem with banning rifles designed for field combat. It’s the wrong tool for the job, and the missiles go too far out of control, into neighboring homes.

    February 7, 2014 at 3:28 pm

    • I’m not an expert in firearms, but I did a little research while I had some time (about 30 minutes). One thing to point out about the damage you speak of, it’s a function of several variables. Things like the the length of the barrel, the twist rate of the barrel, the make-up of round (full metal jacket versus hollow point), the type of round (in the case of the AR-15, .223 or 5.56 NATO), the grain in the ammo, the resulting mussel velocity, and finally the medium through which the round travels. For example, we know that the faster the round spins, the more stable it is and less likely to tumble should it encounter something on it’s way to the target. A higher twist rate the faster the spin. However, that also means that the mussel velocity of the round will be slower. So on and so forth. I believe that most rifles have these considerations and the right (or wrong) combination could be problematic.

      The problem about banning is that how do you ban those types of rifles? We all know that the “Assault Weapon” ban was based purely on cosmetic attributes of “weapons” the anti-gun supports thought were dangerous and really had no effect. Does this mean that all weapons that fire the .223 Remington are banned? What about the .222? How do you ban a type of rifle and just that type of rifle? Without banning a bunch of other rifles? I really don’t trust Congress to make that decision (especially since I saw that “Ghost Gun” press conference).

      February 8, 2014 at 9:21 am

      • ” One thing to point out about the damage you speak of, it’s a function of several variables.”

        The 55 gr M16 round used in Vietnam got a bad rap. Modern rounds fired in the M16 today are very different. However the 55 gr was not intentionally designed to wound. It was designed as a standard FMJ/BT bullet intended to be fully compliant with the Geneva Convention.

        As it turned out the 55 gr. M193 bullet tended tumble in the human body exposing the soft lead base (the only part not with a jacket) which sometimes would come apart creating some fairly horrendous wounds. It was somewhat unpredictable.

        The modern M855 cartridge my son fires in the Marine Corps today is a 62 gr bullet and it performs like a standard military cartridge is expected to. However for the civilian there are a wide range of available bullets some of which are quite capable for use in hunting small to medium game. If you handload the options are even greater.

        It is a good cartridge. For hunting medium to large game I would use something larger, but for military use it is a good compromise for many situations. Afghanistan however does expose its one weakness. It is not really a good cartridge out to 600 yards (like the 7.62). The reason more emphasis on having designated marksmen with rifles in 7.62 or sometimes something a little larger.

        regards,

        lwk

        February 8, 2014 at 9:18 pm

    • “AKs, and all varieties like the Bushmaster rifles, are designed not to kill, but to wound.”

      Nope.

      ” you want stopping power, which means either a .357 or Magnum”

      A classic load for the 357 Magnum is a 125gr JHP at 1450 fps giving 583 ft-lbs of energy. A .223 Remington 55 gr at 3240 fps produces 1282 ft-lbs. Do the math.

      “They’re crap for hunting.”

      Actually in Texas the .223 has been found to be very effective for hunting feral pigs, many of which are equal to or greater than human weight. As to being effective for killing, don’t make me laugh, and don’t tell that to my fellow Vietnam Veterans if you don’t want to get laughed out of the room.

      ” I have zero problem with banning rifles designed for field combat.”

      I will forgo at this moment any more disparaging remarks on your intelligence. I might suggest reading:

      Who Needs An Assault Rifle?
      http://free2beinamerica2.wordpress.com/2012/12/19/who-needs-an-assault-rifle/

      regards,

      lwk

      February 8, 2014 at 9:02 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s