Guns

'Assault Weapon' Banners Still Can't Say What an 'Assault Weapon' Is

|

Testimony of William Begg

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) was not happy with the gun control hearing that the Senate Judiciary Committee held on January 30, where two witnesses spoke in favor of her proposed "assault weapon" ban and three spoke against it. So she arranged another hearing before the same committee, which was held yesterday. It featured five witnesses who support her bill and three who oppose it, so Feinstein is now ahead by one witness. But critics of her legislation made up for their numerical disadvantage with substance. When you read the testimony of the two sides, the clearest difference is that opponents of the Feinstein bill, S. 150, know what they are talking about, while its supporters don't. 

The most sophisticated pro-ban testimony yesterday came from John Walsh, the U.S. attorney for Colorado, who concedes that the 1994 ban on "assault weapons," which was also sponsored by Feinstein and expired in 2004, "resulted in certain manufacturers producing and selling firearms of equivalent functionality and lethality." That was possible because the law's definition of "assault weapon" hinged on functionally insignificant features such as barrel shrouds and bayonet mounts. Walsh claims "current proposals under consideration substantially address the gaps in the 1994 statute," but he does not explain how. The new, supposedly improved "assault weapon" ban features a longer list of firearms that are banned by name; an appendix, comprising most of the bill, listing 2,258 models that are explicitly not banned; and a somewhat different list of forbidden features that still have very little to do with a gun's usefulness to mass murderers or other criminals. Walsh says "the key features of these weapons are the ability to fire at high velocities and to accept high-capacity magazines." Yet Feinstein's bill says nothing about muzzle velocity and exempts many guns that accept high-capacity magazines.

Even more egregiously misleading was the testimony of William Begg, a Connecticut emergency room physician who emphasized the difference between .22-caliber handgun rounds and .223-caliber rifle rounds like those used in the Sandy Hook massacre. Above is a picture Begg included in his testimony, which according to The New York Times also featured "a video of two bullets being fired into beige, gelatinous material resembling flesh." As the Times describes it, "One was from a handgun, the other from an AR-15, a popular style of assault rifle. The footage revealed far more tearing and damage from the AR-15."

At the risk of stating the obvious, it should be noted that .22-caliber weapons can be used to kill innocent people; a Walther P22 was one of the two guns (along with a Glock 19) used to kill 32 people at Virginia Tech in 2007, which was the second biggest massacre at a school in U.S. history. (The biggest one invoved explosives.) Still, Begg is right that, other things being equal, a larger projectile does more damage. But Feinstein's definition of "assault weapon" has nothing to do with caliber. It is simply wrong to suggest that the guns she wants to ban are distinguished from the guns she exempts based on the kind of ammunition they fire.

For example, as Second Amendment scholar David Hardy notes in his testimony, S. 150 specifically exempts the Ruger Mini-14, which fires the same .223-caliber ammunition as the Bushmaster M4 carbine used by Adam Lanza in Newtown. (Hardy observes that "the main difference" between the Mini-14 and the AR-15-type guns Feinstein wants to ban "is that the Mini-14 has a conventional wooden stock and looks 'traditional.'") "The ammunition used in the typical 'assault weapon' exhibits intermediate ballistics," notes Fordham University law professor Nicholas Johnson, who testified before Hardy. "On this objective measure the class is less destructive than most rifles used for hunting medium to large game."

Johnson also emphasizes the destructive power of "the common repeating shotgun, either pump or semiautomatic," which Feinstein likes so much that she lists hundreds of models that are not covered by her bill:

In 12 gauge configuration, with a three inch, 00 buckshot load, any of these guns will fire fifteen, .33 caliber, 60 grain projectiles with a single pull of the trigger. With aminimum magazine capacity of five rounds and one chambered, that is ninety, . 33 caliber projectiles fired with 6 trigger pulls….

Additionally, this broad category of repeating shotguns can be continuously reloaded without disabling the gun. That is an attribute that the prohibited class does not exhibit.

Johnson adds that while "assault weapons" are inaccurately described as "spraying" bullets, "the shotgun actually does fire a cloud of projectiles that spreads as it moves downrange." He also quotes a 1997 U.S. Army assessment that found "the probability of hitting a man sized target with a shotgun was superior to that of all other weapons" up to a range of 30 yards. So why are shotguns deemed legitimate, while firearms that are in some ways less dangerous (and are used less often in crimes) are considered an intolerable threat to public safety? Notably, Dr. Begg did not show what an ordinary shotgun does to gelatinous material.

Hardy and Johnson both show that, contrary to John Walsh's assurances, the distinctions drawn by Feinstein's bill remain nonsensical. "'Semiautomatic assault rifle' is internally contradictory and thus meaningless," Hardy writes, since a true assault rifle can fire automatically. "Drafters of legislation are thus forced to define what they would restrict in ways that are arbitrary and irrational." Feinstein's bill is so arbitrary and irrational, Johnson argues, that it would fail even the most permissive level of judicial scrutiny. He calls the legislation "simply incoherent," saying "the classifications created by the bill do not pass even a rudimentary rational basis review." And since the Supreme Court has identified the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right protected by the Second and 14th Amendments, laws that impinge upon it should receive more scrutiny than that.

In December I asked, "How Stupid Must a Gun Law Be to Get Struck Down by the Courts?" Last month I noted that people who want to ban "assault weapons" typically don't know what they are. In The Orange County Register this week, I highlighted some of the puzzling choices Feinstein made in writing her bill.

NEXT: Administration Fibbed About WV Teacher "Sequester" Layoffs

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I got in to this argument with a friend lately about the 2nd Amendment and he used the common example from the first amendment-

    “Hey, you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater so there should be reasonable restrictions on the 2nd as well. It’s not like you can go buy a tank or something.”

    Then I told him you can indeed go buy a tank. With fully operational military capabilities. He didn’t believe me and said that’s crazy, we “have laws” ‘n stuff for that. I repeated that you can buy a tank. He still didn’t believe me.

    This morning’s WSJ had a front page article on Private Tank Ownership.

    “These Vehicles Are Tons of Fun, and Good for Thwarting Road Rage”

    http://online.wsj.com/article/…..WORDS=tank

    I haven’t heard back from him yet after I sent him the link.

    1. Did you mention that “fire in a crowded theater” is a metaphor for imprisoning people for distributing socialist/anti-war pamphlets that said “Do not submit to intimidation” and “assert your rights”? Because that usually shuts people the fuck up.

      1. How many generations of imbeciles is that now?

        1. Assuming a generation is 20 years, it’s been about 5 generations since the original decision and 2 since it was overturned.

            1. That’s excellent. He covers much ground in a mere 7 minutes.

            2. God bless his lefty, atheist heart.

      2. I’d like to fire the tanks primary weapon in a theater….that’ll show em!

    2. Even a ban on tanks would be ineffective at preventing tank-related violence as Shawn Nelson showed us.

      1. They actually mention that in the WSJ article, that he stole the tank from the National Guard Armory.

        IF YOU OUTLAW TANKS THEN ONLY CRIMINALS WILL HAVE TANKS!!!

        1. You want a tank? I can get you a tank, believe me. Hell, I can get you a tank by 3 o’clock this afternoon.

          1. They show up with a tank, and we’re supposed to shit ourselves with fear?!

            1. I wonder if that dude in Tianenman Square shit himself? I always think of that when grabbers start arguing that defense against tyranny is a stupid reason because you can’t compete with the weapons of the military.

              1. *is a stupid reason to allow individuals to own military-style weapons…

        2. That’s why I always carry a maser in my car. A tank’s worst enemy. They’ll be half cooked up in there from the inside out before they realize they’re fucked.

    3. And now, the actual Holmes quote

      The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. […] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

      That quote deals with a case in which the appellant, Charles T. Schenck, Secretary of the Socialist Party, was tried and convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917 (Progressive President Woodrow Wilson in the house!) for distributing pamphlets in opposition to the military draft.

      Holmes Jr., the author of the above quote (and general piece of shit), seems to have changed his mind about the “clear and present danger” test that he created in Abrams v. US (Abrams was deported for distributing leaflets urging America not to intervene in the Russian Revolution).

      Schenck was overturned by Brandenberg v. Ohio and the “clear and present danger” test is no longer good law.

      After going on too long, your friend is an idiot, and you should find smarter people to hang out with before it rubs off on you.

    4. Still, local authorities sometimes look askance at 20-ton weapons on their turf.

      *Their* turf?

      1. they hate being outgunned.

    5. “Hey, you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater so there should be reasonable restrictions on the 2nd as well.

      You may wish to point out to your ignorant friend that the only reason you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater is because doing so infringes upon the rights of others.

      Owning guns DOES NOT infringe upon the rights of others.

      Simple difference.

      1. I’ve shouted fire in a crowded theatre on several occasions and nothing bad happened.

        1. Was it your home theater?

        2. High school production of Towering Inferno?

      2. Yep, the 2nd-Amendment equivalent of yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater is firing off a bunch of rounds in a crowded theater.

        1. …Meaning that the 1st Amendment equivalent of banning guns is cutting out people’s tongues.

          1. Winnah!

    6. there should be reasonable restrictions on the 2nd

      “Reasonable” is progtard code for “I won’t be satisfied until I get what I want.”

    7. It’s been said that you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, but can you light a fire in a crowded theater?

  2. This has nothing whatsoever to do with “assault weapons” or anything other than passing some kind of ban. They’ll take anything they can get, because anything means incremental progress towards banning all firearms, and the BAN BONER crowd has been punched really hard in the balls over the last few years, and theirs are blue and hurting and they really want to regain some ban ground.

    Fuck them. They get nothing. Hey Feinstein, I hope you get in a horrific car accident.

    1. But don’t you understand??? Something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do this. It’s all very obvious. You must want more children shot or be in the pay of the NRA if you don’t agree.

      1. You forgot to throw in the phrase “common sense”.

        When you don’t actually have an facts or logic to support your position, you just utter the magic phrase “common sense” and that makes it all good.

    2. I don’t know if Feinstein can die.

      1. No, just a coma. So we can all pay our respects, slip thirty bucks to the night watch guy to look the other way.

    3. I think death by antique gun would be quite appropriate. Maybe send her to crazy Uncle Joe’s house in the middle of the night?

  3. ATF thinks airsoft guns can be converted to machine guns:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f…..2sWiZ8BizI

    1. I’ve seen some interesting moddies for airsoft guns, but that claim is freakin’ ridiculous. They are paid to know better.

      1. ATF is paid to ruin people’s lives if their paperwork is slightly screwed up. If they’re really pissed, they’ll strafe your house with machine guns (which they get because fuck you peasant) and then light it on fire after pumping it full of tear gas.

  4. This is yet another area where common disdain for the law of the land is obvious. We can argue about whether the 2nd amendment is a good idea. But the words “shall not be infringed” have a very clear meaning. If you don’t like those words, change them. Simply ignoring them costs you all credibility.

    1. THIS. . . Recently argued with banners and made the point that instead of all this incremental stuff that will never fly in judicial review, why don’t you just do what you really want and repeal the second amendment? There IS a process for that, you know.

      1. Because they know that will never pass, not ever. So being the dishonest scum that they are, they want to try and do it in other ways.

      2. Why doesn’t NRA call their bluff and propose a repeal Amendment? “Ok, guys, here you go. If you can bring this one home, good on ya’. Otherwise, STFU.”

        1. I figured that would be a good way to deal with the Citizen’s United derp. Propose an amendment like:

          The first amendment is hereby amended to state:

          “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press except in cases where two or more people have collaborated on the speech, including monetary or other support; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

          1. I have tried to sway an actual multiply-published author I know with the fact that, in oral arguments, it was admitted that under the previous “campaign finance reform” laws the government could censor books or prevent their publication. It didn’t change his anti-CU opinion.

      3. It takes 75 percent support to repeal an amendment, but only 51 percent to ban something. Amendments are undemocratic!

        1. 75 percent of states, but only 51 percent of the voters in each of those states. So, that’s actually less than 50 percent of the national population.

      4. “There IS a process for that, you know.”

        Appoint the right judges to the Supreme Court and turn the 2nd into the same joke that the Commerce Clause has become?

    2. … the words “shall not be infringed” have a very clear meaning …

      With a Living Constitution, those words mean whatever a majority of feckless conservative, statist liberal, and wise Latina Supreme Court justices say they mean. Nothing more, and nothing less.

    3. Please. If you say that on HuffPo, you will have a hundred responses of “Well Regulated Militia!!!!!!!!!!” in seconds. The lefties are very, very good with talking points.

      1. I know. Then we can start talking about the actual definition of “regulated”. Any conversation with these hacks falls apart quickly.

      2. If you say that on HuffPo, you will have a hundred responses of “Well Regulated Militia!!!!!!!!!!”

        Of course, they are completely ignorant of the fact that “well regulated” means “well trained”. If you look at the title page of Baron von Steuben’s Revolutionary War Drill Manual, it states that the manual is “Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States”.

        1. Actually, it’s a qualifying statement. The founders feared a standing army, but knew there was a need for some sort of defense force. “Well regulated” refers to it being under civilian control. So…

          Because we need a defense force, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And since we fear standing armies, we’ll make that defense force a militia. And to ensure they don’t run amok and form a military dictatorship, they will be a well regulated militia…IOW under civilian control.

          1. Actually, it’s a qualifying statement. The founders feared a standing army, but knew there was a need for some sort of defense force. “Well regulated” refers to it being under civilian control. So..

            While I agree with you that the Founders explicitly feared the threat to liberty that a standing army represents, I don’t follow the leap from “well regulated” to “civilian control”. A militia was defined as an irregular force of non-professional soldiers. Secondly, the concept of civilian control of the military was already established in the Constitution in Articles I and II, so I don’t see why they would feel the need to repeat it in the Bill of Rights.

            1. I just read this somewhere and I’m nearly certain it came from American Sphinx (Ellis), as I’m currently reading it, but cannot give chapter and verse.

              The 2A was modeled after Virginia’s State Constitution’s right to bear arms.

              Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Art. I, ? 13 (enacted 1776 without explicit right to keep and bear arms; “therefore, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” added in 1971).

              1. I’m not sure it matters. You don’t have to even complicate it to that extent. If the 2nd Amendment only applies to the Militia, exactly what kind militia would you have if they were not armed?

                An unarmed militia is just a bunch of dudes standing around. The fact that they are armed is exactly what makes them a militia. No need for clarification of that.

          2. Regulated = trained and equipped.

            That’s why troops that are trained and equipped were called “regulars”.

            Ceding control of their actions (and armenments) to a hierarchy of civilian control had nothing to do with it.

      3. Propose this amendment:

        “A well read militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.”

        Then ask the progtards whether they think it would restrict the right to read to a well regulated militia.

        1. I love this idea. Alternately, state it as “A well-educated populace being necessary to the prosperity of a free state, etc…”

          Then ask if this would restrict the right to read to only those who are well-educated.

    4. “Nothing can destroy a government more quickly, than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence.”

  5. the 1994 ban on “assault weapons,” ….. “resulted in certain manufacturers producing and selling firearms of equivalent functionality and lethality”

    TEH DERP!!!! MEGADERRRRRRRRRRRRPPPP~!

    …seriously, that hurts.

    “Strangely, our stupid restriction on ‘barrel shrouds’ and ‘pistol grips’ had no real effect on the operational characteristics of firearms… which I can *only attribute to the nefarious, ingenious, plotting schemes of evil gun manufacturers*”

    1. Imagine that. The Top. Men. were outsmarted by the collective effort of the unwashed masses. Say it ain’t so…

  6. Hopefully 3D printers make this all academic soon.

    Will guns printed on 3D printers be covered under the 1st or 2nd Amendment?

    1. Both, presumably.

    2. Neither, since the 2nd only covers muskets, and the 1st only covers hand-cranked printing presses.

      /progressive derp

      1. I’m fine with soldiers being quartered in my home as long as they aren’t wearing Revolutionary War-era uniforms, which would violate the third amendment.

    3. Will it matter? The internet let the information cat out of the bag. You can’t put it back in without a severe crackdown on physical property. I’m talking invasive, dragnet searches and so forth. This will not stop certain people from trying to place limits on 3-D printing. But they won’t succeed.

      1. Even declaring martial law and all communication samizdat would not stop it.

        1. I believe the Iron Curtain experience with 2D printing shows the limits of this.

        2. You can’t stop the signal Mal.

          1. “He killed me, Mal. Killed me with a sword!”

            1. It was an assault sword, with a pistol grip and flash suppressor.

              How weird is that?

              1. All swords are assault swords. Except the ceremonial ones.

      2. “The internet let the information cat out of the bag. You can’t put it back in without a severe crackdown on physical property.”

        Well, then, crackdown it shall be.

    4. Except for the bolt,barrel, and a few internals, it should be possible to make a copy of the SW MP 15-22 with one of the 3D printers now. Sure it is a 22LR, but I can put 30 round inside a paper plate just as fast as I can pull the trigger.

      1. Good, I’ve been looking into getting this gun since late November, and trying to find one in stock since late December.
        3D printer, here I come.

  7. OT: Sequester already returning positive results!

    http://www.foxnews.com/politic…..ne-travel/

    1. Amtrak probably costs us more than AF2, what with SS and the entourage and all the government subsidies that it takes to keep that shit running…

      1. Yeah but if the finances continue to get worse I’m hoping to see “Shotgun Joe Biden” on a minibike like Lloyd Christmas soon!

        I’m an optimist!

      2. Yeah, but it is a relatively fixed cost to run a train (though Amtrak manages to lose money on food service thanks to union rates and other craziness), so more people on the existing train isn’t going to hurt. Besides, the trains from DC to NYC which stop at Wilmington, DE probably make sense to run.

        It’s all the retarded long distance trains through the middle of nowhere that cost the real money.

        1. You are basically correct and I was being somewhat facetious.

          But on the flip side, AF2 is a relatively fixed cost as well. The crew isn’t going home and that jet is going to be sitting somewhere at high idle, waiting for ‘the Call’.

          Also, the SS security requirements (and costs) for terrestrial travel have got to be outrageous.

  8. Should be “needs to be continually reloaded.”

    Funny how shit that is considered to be a drawback is what they think is so dangerous about them.

    Asylums and patients and all that.

    1. Everyone knows “Continuously Reloaded” is a bad thing, “Limited capacity” is a good thing.

      Get it?

  9. If the “ShootEmUp, Model SEU45” is specifically banned, can’t they just change some paperwork to relabel it as “SEU Model 45.1”?

  10. The comparison of the cartridges is fucking retarded. The .22LR is one of the smallest and least powerful commercially produced cartridges. ANYTHING looks massive compared to it.

    The .223 Rem/5.56mm NATO cartridge has long been derided as a poodle shooter round. It’s commonly thought of as being too weak a round to use for hunting deer, an animal that closely resembles humans in terms of weight and bulk. Compared to many popular hunting cartridges, the .223 Rem. is pretty anemic.

    To illustrate the point, here’s a picture I took of various cartridges I had laying around:

    http://img40.imageshack.us/img…..compv2.jpg

    The .308 Winchester and .30-06 Springfield started out as military rounds and quickly became popular hunting rounds, as they worked well on deer and other large game. The 7.62x39mm was developed for use in the AK-47 and is sometimes used for hunting. The .30-30 was never a standard military round, but it is one of the most popular deer hunting cartridges in the United States. The other cartridges are hunting cartridges derived from either the .30-06 or the .308. They are ALL way more powerful than the .223 Remington.

    1. The 7.62x39mm was developed for use in the AK-47

      WRONG. It was developed for the SKS. You MORON.

      1. It’s true!

        *runs away crying*

        1. Actually, we’re both wrong. It was first used in the RPD.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62x39mm

          1. Fuck your technical correctness. I’m technically correct, the best kind.

    2. ANYTHING looks massive compared to it.

      Except Warty’s dick.

      I got your back, GS.

      1. Except Warty’s dick.

        Which one?

        1. At this point, what difference does it make?

          1. -4 government employees

    3. And the article said “caliber”…. A .22LR and a .223 round differ in caliber by only 1.4 percent.

      1. No way dude. 223 is more than 10 times as big as 22. /media

      2. Which, technically, means that going from a .22 to a .223 constitutes a draconian cut in bullet size.

  11. Feinstein’s bill is so arbitrary and irrational, Johnson argues, that it would fail even the most permissive level of judicial scrutiny.

    Feinstein: “Will… fail… scrutiny… judicial. Got it! Gee, this is why I love these committees, because the critics always spill the beans and unwittingly help me to improve my bills!”

    1. I’m really not sure if the courts would overturn it based on their ruling over the insurance mandate. They can even say it falls under the commerce clause. who knows.

      1. Only if there is a penaltax involved. This bill would have to be amended so that these weapons aren’t “banned”, you just have to pay the $1,000,000,000,000/year ownership “tax”.

  12. I wonder if the good Dr. William Begg is aware that it would be illegal to hunt deer with a 22LR for precisely the reason that he condemns the 223 round.

  13. the U.S. attorney for Colorado, who concedes that the 1994 ban on “assault weapons,” which was also sponsored by Feinstein and expired in 2004, “resulted in certain manufacturers producing and selling firearms of equivalent functionality and lethality.” That was possible because the law’s definition of “assault weapon” hinged on functionally insignificant features such as barrel shrouds and bayonet mounts.

    That might require DiFi to possess some technical knowledge of how firearms actually work and not just looking for parts that make a rifle look “assaulty.”

    Even more egregiously misleading was the testimony of William Begg, a Connecticut emergency room physician who emphasized the difference between .22-caliber handgun rounds and .223-caliber rifle rounds like those used in the Sandy Hook massacre.

    Isn’t it slightly dishonest from the get-go to compare a rifle cartridge to a pistol round?

    1. Technically it is the .22lr – Long Rifle. It happens to be used in target pistols because the recoil is so light.

      The point is, the banners don’t care about calibers or anything else. They just want to start banning guns somewhere – and they will be done when no American civilian owns anything beyond a BB gun.

      1. “and they will be done when no American civilian owns anything beyond a BB gun.”

        If we’re lucky. I think in Australia, BB and pellet guns are treated the same legally as single shot rifles.

        1. Krikey! You’ll put yer eye out, mate!

        2. That blows my mind. Can you even have a childhood without a BB gun?

    2. Yes. And one of the smallest pistol rounds at that.

  14. I hate this line of reasoning. The logical conclusion to what you are saying is that since they can’t define it, they should just ban all semi-automatic weapons.

    The same goes for when you try to argue that “assault weapons” are only used in 2% of gun crimes…well, then, BAN 100% OF GUNS.

    I mean, what do you think the people terrified of guns and afraid for the children hear?

    1. I thought the point is to reveal that that’s exactly what they want to do.

    2. I don’t know. I think it is valuable to point out that these people don’t know what they are talking about and that the laws they want to pass will never accomplish what they say they will.

      If they can be pushed to making the argument that all guns should be banned, they will fail even faster, which is good.

  15. Shotguns are more deadly at close range than an “assault-style” AR-15 rifle.

    In a single 00 shotgun shell, there are 8-9 pellets each .33″ (8.4 mm) in size. It requires a single trigger pull to shoot a minimum of 8 pellets/rounds/projectiles.??In a single round of an AR-15, you fire a single .223″ (5.56mm) projectile per trigger pull.

    The AR-15 is used by many to hunt small game, is used in target practice, and each individual shot is less deadly than a shotgun.??If they don’t understand this, they have no business discussing the issue.

    If they do understand this, and go after so-called “assault-style” weapons, we know their actual motive is to disarm us.

    1. Pretty much already know their real motive is to disarm us.

      I’ve seen enough – I’m good! No more evidence required! I believe ’em!

    2. Shotguns are more deadly at close range than an “assault-style” AR-15 rifle.

      And you can just shoot through the door like Joe Biden says. Like the amputee in South Africa.

  16. Th stupid of the average gun grabber is in clear view all over the place. I had to avoid getting suckedinto a mega-derp argument when right out of the chute my leftard friend was all “I FORWARDED YOUR POST TO A WOMAN ATTENDING THE FUNERAL OF ONE OF THE PEOPLE KILLED IN CT SO THEY KNOW WHAT A SUPPORTER OF GUNS THINKS LIKE!!111!”

    Because I protested that the preseident of my college had signed on to a bullshit “College Preseidents For Gun Control” letter…that rehashed all the old “Assualt Wepppinz BANZZ!1” stuff that wouldn’t have saved ANYONE.

    Cause none of that matters to gungrabtards – GUNS R SCARY AND IF YOU POINT OUT THE FLWZ IN REASONING OF PEOPLE LIKE FEINSTEIN THEN UR A MEANIE AND ARE GLAD EVERY TIME THERE’S TEH MASSACRE!!!1!

    They. Really. Believe. That.

    PS Ex-friend…

    1. Yeah, I have a now ex-friend that told me that ALL gun owners are just as guilty as any of the mass shooters because we all secretly really wanted to shoot someone too.

      1. I wanted to shoot someone last night. He’s got a show on CNN and seems to have raised deliberate stupidity to over 9000. Had a very strong desire to show him just how big a baseball bat sized hole is.

        From behind, by surprise.

  17. Here is an actual demonstration of the killing power of a shot-gun vs an AR-15 ‘assault-style’ rifle:

    http://youtu.be/w0o7YgiTFm4?t=2m10s

  18. Hey, Warty – thanks for the tips a couple days back about CMP and the M-1 club. Sent in my 25 bucks – ordering an M-1 in 30-06. No need for new ammo, matches my 1903 “SNIPER RIFLE ZOMFG!!!” – figure it will tide me over till the panic subsides and I can get an AR.

    Or, if they banhammer goes through, I’ll use it in lieu. 8 rd clip is pretty much OK by me….:)

    Thanks again!

    1. I should buy some ammo from the CMP. I hardly have any .30-’06 left.

      1. How reliable are the 30-06 Garands? I know a man who used them in the service and said he could hit a man sized target at 600 yards. He was quick to then say, “And that was a 30-06!”

        Despite the sleek aerodynamic awesomeness of the various 6.5mm rounds, the 30-06 is till pretty dang cool.

    2. Make sure it is the right ammo for the Garand. The heavy hunting stuff will cause damage.

      1. IIRC the stuff the CMP is selling is military surplus, so that shouldn’t be a problem.

  19. Above is a picture Begg included in his testimony, which according to The New York Times also featured “a video of two bullets being fired into beige, gelatinous material resembling flesh.” As the Times describes it, “One was from a handgun, the other from an AR-15, a popular style of assault rifle. The footage revealed far more tearing and damage from the AR-15.” … Still, Begg is right that, other things being equal, a larger projectile does more damage.

    It is an absurdity to compare .22LR and .223 Remington, rounds whose only similarity is bore diameter. It is not exactly surprising that a 30-grain round fired at 1,700 fps produces less effect on ballistic gelatin than a 60-grain round at 3,200 fps.

  20. An Assault Weapon, is a weapon used by a criminal who criminally assaults a person, thusly committing assault, thereby VIOLating The Law and in such doing VIOLence. Labeling weapons owned by law abiding citizens as “assault weapons” surely qualifies as defamation of character, it is libelous slander, and an assault on god given natural rights, the right to own the tools that might be necessary to defend yourself in this precocious existence, where so many without scruples are so devastatingly armed. Self defense is NOT VIOLence. VIOLence VIOLates The Law. Self Defense is lawful and morally defensible. Effective self defense secures JUSTICE. Violence, as might be imparted by an Assault Weapon, isn’t nearly the most common use of Semi Automatic Rifles in America, which though is, and by far, self defense in the home of the rifle owner.

  21. An Assault Weapon, is a weapon used by a criminal who criminally assaults a person, thusly committing assault, thereby VIOLating The Law and in such doing VIOLence. Labeling weapons owned by law abiding citizens as “assault weapons” surely qualifies as defamation of character, it is libelous slander, and an assault on god given natural rights, the right to own the tools that might be necessary to defend yourself in this precocious existence, where so many without scruples are so devastatingly armed. Self defense is NOT VIOLence. VIOLence VIOLates The Law. Self Defense is lawful and morally defensible. Effective self defense secures JUSTICE. Violence, as might be imparted by an Assault Weapon, isn’t nearly the most common use of Semi Automatic Rifles in America, which though is, and by far, self defense in the home of the rifle owner.

  22. Jacob, you might also want to mention that a true assault rifle has automatic fire capability, and that the Army has a perfectly good definition of assault rifle, and has had since WWII.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.