Skip to comments.Letter: No assault weapons in civilian hands
Posted on 01/27/2013 9:56:36 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
I would like to rebut the Jan. 13 Guest Opinion, "Rebutting the arguments of gun-control advocates."
The writer cites supposed minimal gains from gun legislation in Britain. Yet according to Britain's Piers Morgan, last year Britain had 30 gun murders, compared with approximately 20,000 in the U.S. And they had no mass murders. The author cites absurd statistics of all the thousands of crimes that were supposedly prevented by guns. What's the source of that data?
Then, we were "treated" to a pedantic interpretation of the Second Amendment. We don't need an English lesson, sir, just rational thinking. Remember, when the Second Amendment was adopted in the 1700s, guns were muskets, which had to be laboriously loaded and could never be used for mass killing. Even conservative Gen. McCrystal has said that assault rifles and the exploding bullets they fire are designed to do only one thing: kill massively and rapidly. Troops should have them, not civilians.
Predictably, the author and the NRA are jumping to the conclusion that bans on assault rifles and large ammo clips are a threat to law-abiding citizens having guns. Let's repeat this again: No one is advocating gun confiscation. Millions of us enjoy hunting or target-shooting.
Semiautomatic pistols and assault rifles firing dozens of high impact shots in seconds do not belong in civilian hands...
(Excerpt) Read more at phillyburbs.com ...
2ndDivisionVet “Exploding bullets? This is the mind-set that we’re up against.”
The only exploding bullets are the jacketed hollow-point bullets ordered by the Federals .
Do they really need 140 million rounds that are EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN by the Geneva Convention ?
The 2nd Amendment is about bearing arms to protect yourself from threats, up to and including a tyrannical government. by Larry Correia (firearms Expert )
2ndDivisionVet~:” Exploding bullets? This is the mind-set that we’re up against.”
Oh I’m sorry !!
NOAA (the Weather people) do need exploding hollow-point bullets to protect the TV weather personalities that are called ‘meterorologists’
I wonder if the Geneva Convention covers internal insurrection? I don’t remember from my classes in Basic Combat Training 35 years ago.
2ndDivisionVet ~:” I wonder if the Geneva Convention covers internal insurrection? I dont remember from my classes in Basic Combat Training 35 years ago. “
All bets are off !
We are in new uncharted waters ..
We have never had tyranny as a head of State ,
much less than as the Commander-in Chief !
I don't own an assault weapon.
Those were tightly restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934.
I do own a Tyranny Response Rifle.
The only advice I can give you you , is ...
Get your head down ,..
.. and keep your powder dry !
It’s gunna get ugly !
Nobody has ever survived a gunfight and then said afterwards,
Darn, I wish I hadnt brought all that extra ammo.
So having more rounds in the gun is a good thing for self-defense use. ~ by Larry Correia (firearms expert )
“Even conservative Gen. McCrystal.........”
Now THAT’S funny.
Yuh Jack Wagon!
The Muskets the Red Coats were completely inferior to the muskets of “The Green Mountain Boys” or the Kentucky and Pennsylvania Rifles.
The Reds had smooth bore rifles that were probably “good” to 100 yrds and were absolutely no match for the colonial rifled bores which were very accurate out to 100 yards.
In fact, it wasn’t just the accuracy of the rifles that was so devastating but, most of the men bearing these arms regularly hunted large game with them and were excellent not only at tracking and camouflage but were extraordinary marksmen, particularly when contrasted with the skills of the Red Coats, who were also just plain not able to compete.
To be sure, there were men who were accurate out to 700 yards but, the Red Coats found themselves out gunned at only 300 yards in the battles of Bunker Hill and Saratoga, where they beat a hasty retreat when vollies of accurate fire felled their men.
Sohhhh, the point is, at this time the military has more powerful weapons than the the civilians but, not by much.
There is only so much ground they can cover in the United States, against more than 100 million gun owners.
Technology not withstanding, they can’t begin to attrit, appreciably, those numbers before they begin to wither.
Funny aside, a friend who is severely left actually believes her side will prevail on the gun issue and further restriction of our rights. Her rationale? She actually believes her side has a majority.....to which I laugh.
Sure it is.....
A flaming ultra leftist as Potus that OWNS the FBI, IRS, Homeland secirity, CIA, NSA, Police departments, firefighters, Unions, military security, the media, academia, all schools, the State Department, and most of federal, state and local givernment employees..
AND “they” want to disarm the people?..
What could go wrong?..
The Second Amendment is there in case politicians forget about the other Nine.
Its not there to protect deer hunters.
Read the Declaration of Independence.
Then read about weapons, freedom, political rights and the role of arms bearing in western civilization.
Effete liberal ninnies like the author of this piece live in a fantasy world where freedom and the protection of human rights are thought to be a constant in society.
They are not.
The kind of unique freedom we have enjoyed in America over the past two hundred years has been the product of a unique system of checks and balances and military firepower in the hands of civilians is a very integral part of that system.
The very fact the same career politicians, like Diane Feinstein, who are responsible for gun control initiatives, week to exempt themselves from the very law they would impose on the masses is chilling. Any unbiased, intelligent observer would note this.
The author of this piece has failed common sense, history and basic civics.
100 muskets fired at once did quite a bit of “mass killing” as I recall. Mr. Sharpton sounds like he was home-schooled by the family dog.
They aren't in civilian hands. They're in the hands of the militia.
Two simple points. One, violent crime rates are higher in GB than here - criminals know they have defenseless victims. Gun control in GB has been responsible for an increase in violent crime. Oh, that includes plenty of people still being murdered, just they are stabbed or bludgeoned to death. Two, the state of firearms technology art the time of the writing of the bill of rights is irrelevant. The bill of rights does not say what a citizen may our may not do, own, say, etc. The bill of rights says what the government may not do. The government may not start ordering us around regarding these freedoms - if they do, www are no longer free.
Semiautomatic pistols and assault rifles firing dozens of high impact shots in seconds do not belong in civilian hands..
If they were trying to ban shot guns i think you could bet that the school shootings would be done with shot guns.
Snipers are what they are worried about because if they start invading homes how many people are going to wait until they get close enough to use a shotgun?
Personally i have no use for weapons, but i have a lot less use for tyranny.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.