Patterico's Pontifications

1/28/2013

Government Officials Not Subject to Proposed Assault Weapons Ban; Government Says Assault Weapons Good for Self Defense When Used By Government

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:28 am

The Blaze:

The Department of Homeland Security is seeking to acquire 7,000 5.56x45mm NATO “personal defense weapons” (PDW) — also known as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians. The solicitation, originally posted on June 7, 2012, comes to light as the Obama administration is calling for a ban on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines.

Citing a General Service Administration (GSA) request for proposal (RFP), Steve McGough of RadioViceOnline.com reports that DHS is asking for the 7,000 “select-fire” firearms because they are “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.” The term select-fire means the weapon can be both semi-automatic and automatic. Civilians are prohibited from obtaining these kinds of weapons.

Meanwhile:

Not everyone will have to abide by Senator Dianne Feinstein’s gun control bill. If the proposed legislation becomes law, government officials and others will be exempt.

“Mrs. Feinstein’s measure would exempt more than 2,200 types of hunting and sporting rifles; guns manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action; and weapons used by government officials, law enforcement and retired law enforcement personnel,” the Washington Times reports.

Place to one side for now the fact that, in light of the purpose of the Second Amendment, it raises questions for government officials to have the right to bear arms that citizens can’t. I think anyone would agree that the military should be able to have weapons citizens can’t, and the same arguably applies to law enforcement. Your neighbor doesn’t get to have a nuclear bomb.

But when “government officials” are not subject to the same laws as citizens, there is a problem.

That alone is reason to oppose Feinstein’s bill.

And why are assault weapons “suitable for self defense in close quarters” when used by government officials, but not necessary for citizens who want to defend themselves.

There’s some hypocrisy going on here, it seems.

105 Responses to “Government Officials Not Subject to Proposed Assault Weapons Ban; Government Says Assault Weapons Good for Self Defense When Used By Government”

  1. Retired law enforcement are emptied but not former military?

    JD (b63a52)

  2. retired law enforcement personnel should NOT be armed when they find out their piggy piggy pensions are getting cut for lack of funds

    they’re very very liable to go postal… these people have extreme entitlement issues after decades of swaggering around with authoritah and because they are often corrupt they tend to mix and a mingle with a very bad crowd

    scary scary

    happyfeet (ce327d)

  3. Obviously, the secret is for some local jurisdiction to deputize us all. $50 a head, and any financial problems they have are gone.

    steve (369bc6)

  4. The retired law enforcement exemption is especially indicative that the exemption exists to bribe LEO support. There is no way that one can argue that retired law enforcement have some sort of special need for arms that the average citizen does not.

    And personally, I do not believe that active law enforcement are entitled to weapons denied to me.

    SPQR (768505)

  5. And personally, I do not believe that active law enforcement are entitled to weapons denied to me.

    Roger that.

    JD (134f7b)

  6. I say the best way to eliminate stupid laws is mskr polivisnd who impose them have to abide by them. If Obamacareculd be made to be imposed on the ruling class, it would be eliminated in a heartbeat

    The ilk of Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein is thawt while deserve neither an armed guard nor a modern firearm, they are entitled to both. Sure.

    David Lentz (777421)

  7. Heaven forbid our betters follow the same laws they would impose on us.

    JD (134f7b)

  8. I also disagree that the ‘military should have weaons civilians can’t.’ I believe that any arm the military provides to a single regular in any service, and anything functionally equivalent to same, should be available to citizens.

    (I said ‘arms’ not ‘destructive devices’ by the by.)

    luagha (374170)

  9. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Read that again, Ms. Feinstein. That gives us the right to be armed against YOUR TYRANNY!!!

    IT is necessary to maintain a FREE STATE, you hypocritical b#$ch.

    © Sponge (8110ec)

  10. There’s some hypocrisy going on here, it seems.

    Gee, ya think?

    J.P. (bd0246)

  11. Feinstein’s bill makes millions of rifles into a classification identical to that of fully automatic weapons.

    Should something that stupid pass, it will mean that millions of people will end up liable for a Federal felony – often innocently because of a failure to understand a need to properly register their firearm. Our laws are already so complex as to ensnare many innocent people. Ask David Gregory.

    And millions more may consider that since their already owned firearm is a Federal felony, why not go ahead and just convert it to full auto since the penalty is the same?

    SPQR (768505)

  12. Hypocrisy? From DiFi? NO! UNPOSSIBLE!

    mojo (8096f2)

  13. As Ear Leader says, “Don’t think we’re not keeping score”.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  14. Greetings:

    Wasn’t it Senatress Feinstein who first said, “You can take my Senate seat when you pry it from my cold, dead ass.” ???

    11B40 (5245cc)

  15. If this passes, some small jurisdiction needs to allow people to work for a short time as deputies (say, 4 hours?) then retire with no pension. Voila! Retired law enforcement!

    Rob Crawford (c55962)

  16. Feinstein’s bill makes millions of rifles into a classification identical to that of fully automatic weapons.

    And is so horribly vague it’s as if it were intentionally written to be tyrannical.

    Rob Crawford (c55962)

  17. By the by, ‘reserve law enforcement’ is one of the tricks used in California to allow concealed carry to the wealthy/famous/donators to the Sheriff’s reelection campaign.

    luagha (5cbe06)

  18. Remember “cop killer bullets?” The people who coined the phrase also proposed exempting cops from the ban on “cop killer bullets.”

    What the hey do cops need “cop killer bullets” for? Do they have gang fights amongst each other?

    Steve57 (a17907)

  19. #11: Not that I’d expect you to get it right, but the law was not too complex for David Gregory to understand. He knew what the law was (evidenced by his producers asking for a waiver). He went ahead anyway, knowing that he wouldn’t be prosecuted.

    steve (369bc6)

  20. nobility, like the nomenklatura, can do anything, us ‘bitter clingers’ not so much.

    narciso (3fec35)

  21. 22. nobility, like the nomenklatura, can do anything, us ‘bitter clingers’ not so much.

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/28/2013 @ 10:50 am

    You mean like…

    (evidenced by his producers asking for a waiver)

    …overrule the Washington DC police department?

    Steve57 (a17907)

  22. Yes, ‘things of that nature’

    narciso (3fec35)

  23. In New York State, the ban on magazines carrying more than 7 bullets seems to apply to the police also, apparently making the police in violation of law if they buy any more (they are grandfathered in for a year)

    Cuomo Adminisitartion officials say, no, no, but they lkaw may have no exception written in it. (maybe some other law allows police to have all kinds of banned weapons, I don’t know)

    But they say they are going to pass another law clarifying things.

    Meanwhile Republicans in the State Senate are disturbed – the gun law was one thing, they say, but there may be whole raft of laws that the senate leader (in coalition with 5 Democrats) may be getting ready to pass, like raising the minimum wage to $8.75)

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  24. Comment by luagha (374170) — 1/28/2013 @ 8:53 am

    .I also disagree that the ‘military should have weaons civilians can’t.’ I believe that any arm the military provides to a single regular in any service, and anything functionally equivalent to same, should be available to citizens.

    (I said ‘arms’ not ‘destructive devices’ by the by.)

    This is kind of an arbitrary distinction. Anyway actually i think the police shouldn’t have large magazines either. There’s almoast no use for them,.. they just fire more buullets at the same place and don’t stop to evaluate which they should.

    The architecture of weaponry is just not the same what it was in 1789.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  25. The government is right on at least one point.

    A rifle is much, much better for self defense than a handgun. A handgun takes much more practice to be a proficient shot with. An AR-15 will be more accurate much faster, and have more power. A 30 round magazine is much better against a home intruder, too. Most handguns do not have enough ammunition for multiple attackers, and there are cases where they don’t have enough for even a single attacker.

    I don’t see why anyone would mind a law abiding citizen having a semi automatic rifle at home. I think that kind of thing will preserve far more lives than it imperils.

    If it saves just one life, right?

    Dustin (73fead)

  26. you and your spouse or partner can use one handgun in each hand and work together to both lay down suppressing fire as well as kill any attackers angelina jolie and brad pitt do this all the time

    happyfeet (4bf7c2)

  27. A familiar pattern…
    Social security for us/fabulous pension for them.
    No insider trader for us/OK for Congress.
    Obamacare for us/Cadillac plan for them.
    Pea-shooters for us/bazookas for them.
    At least they suck out loud on ice consistently.

    Gazzer (ef8376)

  28. “The architecture of weaponry is just not the same what it was in 1789.”

    Sammy – The architecture of the 4th Estate is not the same as in 1789 either. Maybe we need to take another look at restricting freedom of speech.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  29. you and your spouse or partner can use one handgun in each hand and work together to both lay down suppressing fire as well as kill any attackers angelina jolie and brad pitt do this all the time

    LOL.

    But one reason being attacked is so unrealistic is that every criminal knows that they are taking on a tremendous risk if they were to invade my home.

    If I lived in an area with severe gun laws, like Chicago or England, a home invasion wouldn’t be so far fetched.

    Dustin (73fead)

  30. Sammy thinks police have almost no use for larger magazine capacities?

    We have thousands of shootings on record now, and they are more survivable with more ammunition.

    I also appreciate Daley’s point. Our press can reach more people more rapidly. Their lies or mistakes can cause more damage now. Now, any psycho can get a photo of your home in a jiffy, and often find information about your loved ones and harass them.

    In this new world, should be have the same freedom of speech we had in the 18th century? I say we should. I say the principle is that the government should not abridge free speech (except libel, threats, fraud, etc).

    Similarly, just because effective weapons are more advanced today doesn’t mean the 2nd amendment’s clear purpose and meaning can be ignored. This is a protection on our liberty and only makes sense if the people can be armed with weapons of military use. At the very least, an AR 15 is the most appropriate example of what the second amendment protects. We can debate fighter planes and bombs (I don’t think those should be legal to own).

    Dustin (73fead)

  31. The idea that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t cover weapons useful to a militia is preposterous. And the Supreme Court agrees with me (US v Miller)

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  32. Dustin,

    I’m sure the founders never foresaw internet video porn when they passed the 1st Amendment.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  33. I wouldn’t want to unnecessarily alarm anyone with heart probs, but:

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/01/obama-administration-repositioning-homeland-security-ammunition-containers/

    There might be michief afoot.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  34. In my opinion this is the road Senator Feinstein would like us to go down.

    An Englishman’s Home Is Was His Castle

    A Leicestershire police spokeswoman said: “A 35-year-old man and a 43-year-old woman were arrested in Melton on suspicion of GBH and four men aged 27, 23, 31 and 33 were arrested at Leicester Royal Infirmary on suspicion of aggravated burglary.”

    I bet the couple that defended their own home get more jail time than those poor innocent burglars. I don’t get the liberal mind set, but then I can’t get my braincase that far up my anus.

    MSL (5f601f)

  35. I can see an argument against using rifles for home defense in, say, apartment buildings and such. Depends on the rifle, of course, but wall penetration is a problem.

    But it’s as much a losing game to defend these for self-defense as it is for hunting — the 2nd Amendment talks about the militia, and pump shotguns aren’t all that useful there.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  36. Just wondering, will .50 cal copper magnums penetrate a cargo container?

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  37. 18. I’ve driven San Diego to Las Playas, it must be numbing to live in that climate.

    When the Alien, Ayers and Dohrn move tho, Liberals will be shot at the first lull in the action. They said so.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  38. Dustin:

    At the very least, an AR 15 is the most appropriate example of what the second amendment protects.

    You’re making the same mistake gun control nuts do, confusing appearance with function. I’m no more able to protect myself with an AR15 than I could with a less mean looking rifle

    (scene: two criminals breaking into a house… one yells “let’s get out of here, the lady’s got a gun”… only to have the second crook answer “no need to worry, her rifle doesn’t have a bayonet mount or a folding stock”. End scene)

    If the gun control side is silly for focusing on how a gun looks rather than the capability of the weapon, why shouldn’t the same standard hold for those on the other side?

    steve (369bc6)

  39. 41. According to that nee Abbate lady, its the best of five weapons she reviewed on Hannity for the marksman, including a .30-06.

    Also out a couple hundred yards the bullet tumbles.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  40. 38. I can see an argument against using rifles for home defense in, say, apartment buildings and such. Depends on the rifle, of course, but wall penetration is a problem.

    This is sort of a public service announcement. Just about anything that will kill a human being is also going to blow through your average wall or hollow door at the kind of close range you’ll be firing at if you have to repel boarders from inside your house. Somehow people got the impression that handguns or shotguns are safer than rifles for self-defense. Not true. Even buckshot will penetrate.

    I personally favor no. 1 buckshot. More of it fits into a 12 gauge shell than 00. Almost twice as many pellets in your average 2 3/4 inch case (9 v. 16; Winchester makes a self-defense load that packs 20 pellets but it’s really, really hard to find). The odds of the smaller pellet staying in your target instead of passing through and into whatever is behind the perp goes up slightly over 00 as well.

    But it’s as much a losing game to defend these for self-defense as it is for hunting — the 2nd Amendment talks about the militia, and pump shotguns aren’t all that useful there.

    Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 1/28/2013 @ 11:50 am

    Nobody told me.

    Mossberg 590A1.

    Steve57 (a17907)

  41. 33.Comment by Dustin (73fead) — 1/28/2013 @ 11:21 am

    Sammy thinks police have almost no use for larger magazine capacities?

    We have thousands of shootings on record now,

    Thousand os shooting in which police are involved?

    and they are more survivable with more ammunition.

    What’s the basis for that claim? Firing off more rounds more rapidly only leads to more misses or duplicate hits.

    Similarly, just because effective weapons are more advanced today doesn’t mean the 2nd amendment’s clear purpose and meaning can be ignored.

    It means the justification offered (as a defense against tyranny) is no longer true. Governments now have air power. Really bad ones have chenmical weapons. Even nuclear bombs.

    Weapons didn’t help the Kurds against Saddam Hussein in 1991 – only a no-fly zone did. the only thing that stops chemical weapons from being used in Syria now is fear of outside intervention and fear on the part of people in the military of of being punished personally after losing. (they were warned)

    This is a protection on our liberty and only makes sense if the people can be armed with weapons of military use.

    Won’t work anymore. We now have to rely on a (somewaht) citizen army and there being no centralized command of all posisble armed forces – people not obeying illegitimate orders, that sort of thing.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  42. Steve57, there never was any such things as “cop killer bullets”. Armor piercing handgun ammunition was designed by and for police use. It was to enable police to better shoot into cars. Nothing else.

    Today we hear gun control advocates attempt to expand the bans on ammo by trying to get people excited about armor piercing rifle ammo. But the reality is that rifle ammo pierces police vests regardless of the bullet type – specifically because police vests were never designed to resist rifle ammo. Rifles are not a significant risk to police because there are so seldom used in crime at all.

    You really can’t make a police vest that would defeat ordinary rifle ammo and be wearable by a police officer day to day. US infantry do wear such vests but they are marginal against higher caliber rifles and they add a lot to the infantryman’s load.

    The fact that some military surplus rifle ammo is “armor piercing” is really meaningless with respect to police officer safety – police won’t be any safer were it effectively banned – and you can’t effectively ban it because hundreds of millions of rounds of it already exists in civilian hands. And much of it can’t be distinguished from non-armor piercing ammo from casual examination.

    Its all a tactic to make firearm ownership too risky for ordinary people. And its a tactic to demonize firearms owners.

    SPQR (768505)

  43. In 1789, they also didn’t want A STANDING army.

    Alexander Hamilton didn’t think that was a great idea then, and it certainly not possible now exceot if you are Costa Rica.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  44. Sammy, your knowledge of firearms and tactics is a bad joke.

    SPQR (768505)

  45. “I’m no more able to protect myself with an AR15 than I could with a less mean looking rifle”

    steve – You’re also no less able to protect yourself with an AR15 than you could with a less mean looking rifle. You just want to allow the government to take the choice out of your hands.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  46. If the gun control side is silly for focusing on how a gun looks rather than the capability of the weapon, why shouldn’t the same standard hold for those on the other side?

    Because one side is not trying to infringe on somebody’s Rights

    JD (b63a52)

  47. With a cruiser I’m just trying to be more useful that teats on a bull. I’d like to have people near, either sex, who are handier.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  48. “Because one side is not trying to infringe on somebody’s Rights”

    JD – Plus, appearances mean everything when you are standing on the graves of dead children. Function means nothing.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  49. You just want to allow the government to take the choice out of your hands

    daleyrocks: once again, assuming facts not in evidence. Pointing out that the ‘mean looking’ AR15 is no better for defending oneself than a standard semi-automatic rifle doesn’t mean I want government making the choice.

    Because one side is not trying to infringe on somebody’s Rights

    JD: the argument against a ban on assault weapons is that cosmetics is a stupid and ineffective standard to apply, and not that we have a constitutional right to a rifle with a flash suppressor or a bayonet mount.

    steve (369bc6)

  50. “Pointing out that the ‘mean looking’ AR15 is no better for defending oneself than a standard semi-automatic rifle doesn’t mean I want government making the choice.”

    steve – No, by even raising the argument you are saying the government is in a better position to make choices for its citizens than the citizens themselves. Am I going too fast for you?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  51. You’re not going too fast. You’re just making things up.

    steve (369bc6)

  52. “You’re not going too fast. You’re just making things up.”

    steve – What am I making up?

    The mistakes you attempt to attribute to those who are attempting to preserve our Second Amendment rights sound suspiciously like the blame you attempt to attribute to the Republican party for being unable to persuade low information/Democrat voters that the lies being fed to them by the Democrat Racist Media Industrial Complex are actually lies.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  53. Is there a Cliff Notes version of what you two are arguing about?

    SPQR (768505)

  54. “I think anyone would agree that the military should be able to have weapons citizens can’t, and the same arguably applies to law enforcement.”

    Nope, I don’t agree with that.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  55. Hey, mebbe we could git us some o’ them 27 shooters from the old cowboy flicks…

    mojo (8096f2)

  56. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…”

    I want access to automatic weapons and whatnot, just in case the day should ever dawn when we need to alter or abolish the government and it doesn’t feel like getting altered or abolished.

    If they have automatic weapons, then I want automatic weapons.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  57. “Is there a Cliff Notes version of what you two are arguing about?”

    SPQR – I think steve believes gun rights advocates are making a mistake when they argue that cosmetic features, like bayonet mounts and barrel shrouds, of sporting rifles such as the AR-15 should not be banned because they don’t make people safer than less scary looking rifles with the same functionality.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  58. SPQR – steve is concerned again.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  59. JD: the argument against a ban on assault weapons is that cosmetics is a stupid and ineffective standard to apply, and not that we have a constitutional right to a rifle with a flash suppressor or a bayonet mount.

    There is much to unpack in that statement. I disagree with the stupid and ineffective standard. I maintain it is simply unconstitutional.

    JD (134f7b)

  60. daleyrocks, concern troll is concerned? Thanks, I love Cliff’s Notes.

    SPQR (768505)

  61. Then again, even steve makes more sense than Joe Biden and Feinstein.

    SPQR (768505)

  62. 46. Steve57, there never was any such things as “cop killer bullets”.

    I knew that, of course. I just always found the term amusing. I used to have fun going back and forth with gun-control advocates who knew nothing more about guns than the latest catch-phrase.

    Some would come to their senses when I tried to corner them on the subject of why cops needed an exemption so they could have cop-klller bullets.

    …and they add a lot to the infantryman’s load.

    We’re going to need to do something about that now that we’re going to be sending women into ground combat. Maybe the Army’s chief diversity officer can file a class action suit against body armor manufacturers for making sexist discriminatory bullet-proof vests.

    Its all a tactic to make firearm ownership too risky for ordinary people. And its a tactic to demonize firearms owners.

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 1/28/2013 @ 12:40 pm

    Yeah, but maybe they’ve gone too far this time. New York just banned magazines that hold more than 7 rounds.

    Quick! Run down to the guns store and buy a 7 round magazine for your Glock 17 or Sig P226.

    Judge rules EPA can’t mandate use of nonexistent biofuels

    It’s a sad day when you have to get a court ruling to stop the government from requiring you to use non-existent things. Like the 7 round magazine. (Other than for Colt Government models does anyone even make 7 round magazines?).

    Actually I believe you’re allowed to keep your 10 round magazines. You’re only allowed to load 7 rounds in it. And I believe the higher cap magazines are banned.

    So if you buy a pistol you’re screwed, as I don’t know what they’re going to put in the box with the gun.

    And will it be legal to sell 8 shot revolvers like the S&W N-frame .357? I doubt it.

    Prof. Jacobsen at Legal Insurrection read the law and he said he couldn’t understand it. So of course you’re right. The whole point of the law is to make owning a gun in NYS too complicated. A lot of people are going to run afoul of it (although I recommend that if the cops try to arrest you for breaking this law you should just turn around and effect a citizen’s arrest as the cop is breaking the law, too).

    Steve57 (a17907)

  63. As a complete aside, I would just like to mention that the reason Dirty Harry can fire seven bullets from his six-gun in the famous scene at the end of the first eponymous Dirty Harry movie is because he reloads. He does it in the misty tunnel that both he and Scorpio run through, and he does it without looking down to do it although you can see his hands manipulating the gun.

    When he asks Scorpio if he feels lucky, Harry knows that his revolver is fully loaded.

    luagha (5cbe06)

  64. 60. “I want access .. just in case the day should ever dawn when we need to alter or abolish the government and it doesn’t feel like getting altered or abolished.”

    We’re getting close to that juncture.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/27/Dictator-Obama-DC-Appeals-Court-Ruling-Has-No-Impact

    Dog retaliated by killing the Jobs Council, clearing his calendar for winter ball.

    It may be a while before the shoulder-fired AA missiles are repatriated from Syria, but things will get interesting.

    DHS and Muslim terrorists comrades in arms could be messy.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  65. “Actually I believe you’re allowed to keep your 10 round magazines. You’re only allowed to load 7 rounds in it. “

    Thereby criminalizing an inability to count.

    SPQR (768505)

  66. If we’d deal with the mentally ill in a more rational way none of this would even be on the table.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  67. Which reminds me… Amy Bishop’s appeal brief was due today. Haven’t seen it or grounds for appeal hit the news yet. The only thing that could possibly apply to her, that would survive her waiver of appeal in her plea deal, is ineffective assistance of counsel.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  68. Well, I’m a member of the DHS (a CHARTER MEMBER according to the certificate they sent me) with an ID to match, so I guess those hours spent volunteering at the USCG-Aux wasn’t a waste of time.

    Can’t wait to get my own PDW – hope it comes with lots of 30-rd mags.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  69. And why are assault weapons(sic) – those are Assault Rifles – “suitable for self defense in close quarters” when used by government officials, but not necessary for citizens who want to defend themselves.

    Assault Weapons (ie: Semi-auto/self-loading) firearms are just too complicated to be entrusted to civilians.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  70. Thoughts on KelTec PLR 16?

    JD (134f7b)

  71. Comment by SPQR (768505) — 1/28/2013 @ 9:13 am

    If we’ve already been classified as a “felon”, and that we’re at risk of being shot-down-in-the-streets according to the Chicago Police Commish, then I suppose that “Treason” for taking up arms against the government, won’t entail any additional risk, will it, and could just save the country!

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  72. Comment by JD (134f7b) — 1/28/2013 @ 3:22 pm

    KelTec RFB might be just a bit more suitable.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  73. Rounding up the mentally ill sounds easier than rounding up assault weapons.

    mg (31009b)

  74. Rounding up is loaded language. Rational management is not what happens now, though.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  75. A handgun takes much more practice to be a proficient shot with.

    Not really, unless by “proficient” you mean “competitive in bulls eye pistol competitions”. At 10-20 yards I can hit the “lethal triangle” with my .45, even when making two shots rapid-fire. I admit I can’t even hit the paper at 50 yards. But I’m not going to be using a pistol for self-defense at 50 yards.

    Rob Crawford (d8dade)

  76. “Civilians are prohibited from obtaining these kinds of weapons.”

    But, the government will provide them to aces like William Calley, Timothy McVeigh, Nidal Hassan, Steven Green or to various foreign dictatorships.

    Don’t worry about it…you can trust them to decide who is fit to have guns.

    Not.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  77. Rounding up is loaded language. Not if your a white 60 year old male.

    mg (31009b)

  78. one should make a point of never feeling lucky I think

    happyfeet (4bf7c2)

  79. I think that was meant ironically, pikachu,

    narciso (3fec35)

  80. So illegal aliens get amnesty, while law abiding gun owners get screwed.

    Is this a great country or what?

    MSL (5f601f)

  81. MSL – Does anybody really expect the government to protect us from the menace of an Iranian space monkey invasion? I think not!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  82. You’re making the same mistake gun control nuts do, confusing appearance with function. I’m no more able to protect myself with an AR15 than I could with a less mean looking rifle

    (scene: two criminals breaking into a house… one yells “let’s get out of here, the lady’s got a gun”… only to have the second crook answer “no need to worry, her rifle doesn’t have a bayonet mount or a folding stock”. End scene)

    If the gun control side is silly for focusing on how a gun looks rather than the capability of the weapon, why shouldn’t the same standard hold for those on the other side?

    Comment by steve (369bc6) — 1/28/2013 @ 12:23 pm

    No, I based that on function. An AR 15 is a more functional defense weapon than a bolt action rifle, primarily because it is so accurate and semi automatic.

    At no point did I talk about what an AR 15 looks like, and I don’t care what it looks like.

    If you think a Remington 700 is just as effective, you are mistaken. A traditional long gun is equal (or better in the case of the Rem 700) when hunting or shooting at long distances, but for anything within 150 yards, if you are defending yourself from people, an AR 15 is a very competitive option. This is not because it has a bayonet lug. There’s a reason the military put a bayonet lug on the M-16 instead of on a mean looking Smith and Wesson 626 or a Savage Trophy Hunter (both guns I would personally rather have than an M-16, to be honest).

    Kevin is right that a 5.56 is going to go right through walls, so for home defense a semi auto .45 carbine with JHP ammunition or a shotgun makes a lot of sense.

    If you had a choice and you needed to defend yourself from multiple people, you’d be crazy not to take the semiautomatic long gun. Be that a Beretta Storm or an AR or even a crummy AK.

    Dustin (73fead)

  83. A handgun takes much more practice to be a proficient shot with.

    Not really, unless by “proficient” you mean “competitive in bulls eye pistol competitions”. At 10-20 yards I can hit the “lethal triangle” with my .45, even when making two shots rapid-fire. I admit I can’t even hit the paper at 50 yards. But I’m not going to be using a pistol for self-defense at 50 yards.

    Comment by Rob Crawford (d8dade) — 1/28/2013 @

    I noticed you didn’t say how accurate you are with an AR.

    A handgun takes more practice to be proficient.

    It depends on the handgun whether you should be concerned that you can’t hit the target at 50 yards, a long range for most pistols and shooters, but if it’s a full size gun, I respectfully suggest more practice.

    Handguns just aren’t as easy to shoot as a rifle. With an AR, you should be able to hit a man-sized target at 50 yards practically instantly, and I’ve seen privates do so the very first time they tried. There is no reasonable argument that a pistol is that easy to shoot.

    Dustin (73fead)

  84. daleyrocks, my bad. Perhaps if I was a gun toting illegal alien harboring Iranian space monkeys in my basement so I could read the Qur’an to them. Then, maybe then my government would reward me.

    MSL (5f601f)

  85. What really pisses me off — what infuriates me to no end — about the anti-gun liberals is that, at the same time, just about all of them are so permissive about, if not outright supportive of, social-cultural trends and behaviors that have incubated some of the brazen, shameless, narcissistic aspects of our current era, including that which is symbolized by I’m-rowdy-and-proud-of-it rap music.

    To make matters even more contemptible, many of these same liberals shrug off the existence of the various foolish judges (just about all of them appointed by Democrat governors or presidents) throughout the judiciary who shed tears for Fred Felony because, well, he didn’t have access to daycare as a youngster or his mother didn’t know about HUD and subsidized school lunches.

    Mark (1c1145)

  86. (Other than for Colt Government models does anyone even make 7 round magazines?).

    I don’t think so, but my M1895 Mosin-Nagant revolver holds 7-rounds.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  87. Comment by Dustin (73fead) — 1/28/2013 @ 5:50 pm

    Dustin, you can get frangible ammo in 5.56 x 45.
    Also, to confound the hoplophobes, semi-auto’s should be referred to by their original terminology:
    Self-Loaders.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  88. Thereby criminalizing an inability to count.

    If only. We could empty Washington.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  89. Dustin, you can get frangible ammo in 5.56 x 45.

    Hey, that’s cool! I wasn’t familiar with that, but after a little googling I’m very interested.

    Dustin (73fead)

  90. Dustin (#86)

    I use hollow point .38 special to be extra safe.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  91. Comment by Dustin (73fead) — 1/28/2013 @ 8:25 pm

    Try: International Cartridge Corp., in Reynoldsville, PA, just down the road from Punxsutawney.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  92. Once Ogabe has sorted out all the generals unafraid to fire on citizens what’s to stop their wives and kids from fragging them.

    Would seem a best-practice of devoted mothers to protect her offspring.

    Anyway I’m glad I live in the sticks. Field corn beats starving when the EBT card tilts.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  93. 93.

    Dustin, you can get frangible ammo in 5.56 x 45.

    Hey, that’s cool! I wasn’t familiar with that, but after a little googling I’m very interested.

    Comment by Dustin (73fead) — 1/28/2013 @ 8:25 pm

    When I left active duty and went into the reserves we had a lot of cops in the unit. At the time they thought very highly of 55gr. Winchester Ballistic Silvertips. It was not overpenetrative. Although they did have to swap out magazines if they had to deal with a barricaded suspect.

    But if you’re not going to be shooting through car doors or windshields that’s not a problem.

    Hornady TAP ammo, Federal Law Enforcement TRU ammo (Tactical Rifle Urban) and Black Hills ammo loaded with the Barnes TSX bullet also have good reputations.

    Steve57 (a17907)

  94. I’d worry a little more about the DHS buying more than a billion rounds and 7000 automatic rifles if not for the size of the average TSA official.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  95. Comment by Steve57 (a17907) — 1/28/2013 @ 2:35 pm
    The feds are told they can’t mandate companies to buy something that doesn’t exist? My, a breath of sanity!

    I would be good to not only document where private gun owners have stopped crime, but where private gun owners have prevented abuse by the government, which is part of what the 2nd Amendment was about.
    At least 2 examples in the last 50 years have come to mind in my limited knowledge base:
    1. NRA efforts to train people to use guns in the south to protect against the KKK when law enforcement was not doing its job/part of the problem
    2. local farmers defending a vet from arrest by state troopers in michigan (i believe in the 70′s) because he was investigating a problem that state officials were trying to cover up

    In general, this “OK for me, not for you” govt and Dem tactic should result in their getting kicked out of office no matter what else they stand for.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  96. From the Blank Slate blog, analysing data of mass shootings:

    So, what we have is national legislation aimed at 35 weapons that were used in 25 instances over 31 years in a nation that contains approximately 300 million guns. What’s more, the last time this ban went into effect, it failed to stop the acquisition and use of over a third of all assault weapons used in mass shootings since 1982. This legislation is likely to be wholly impotent to stop mass violence—the catalyst for this legislation.

    SPQR (dc3315)

  97. Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 1/29/2013 @ 8:20 am

    Legal, defensive use of arms:
    Every month in American Rifleman (an NRA publication) there is a section devoted to this pulling news items from local media nation-wide noting a bad guy running afoul of a gun owner defending himself, his family, and his property.
    Cut the page out and mail it to your local newspaper with a question:
    Why don’t I ever read about things like this in your paper?

    Also, see: Battle of Athens (TN)!

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  98. SPQR: As has been said many times,
    it is never about “gun control”,
    but is always about “control”!

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  99. I guess it’s time destined to be some boring old post, however it paid for my own time. Let me post a hyperlink to the web page on my small blog. I know my site visitors will see that will very beneficial.

    lawyer cufflinks (a0d7ae)

  100. First of all I want to say superb blog! I had a quick question in which I’d like to ask if you don’t mind.

    I was interested to know how you center yourself and clear your thoughts before writing.
    I have had a hard time clearing my thoughts in
    getting my ideas out there. I truly do enjoy writing however
    it just seems like the first 10 to 15 minutes are usually lost simply
    just trying to figure out how to begin. Any recommendations or hints?
    Thanks!

    Here is my blog travel

    travel (d6112a)

  101. Morons!

    askeptic (b8ab92)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3224 secs.