http://www.sigsauer.com/Products/ShowCatalogProductDetails.aspx?categoryid=35&productid=114
Posted on 12/14/2007 5:07:40 PM PST by holymoly
I asked this question last week of the candidates for President now campaigning in Iowa, and I think that for most of the American people [pdf] the answer is clearly “no.”
In the last ten days, two states in the heart of the country have sustained mass shootings by people armed with military-style assault rifles – two attacks with assault weapons in less than a week. One shooter attacked a mall full of employees and Christmas shoppers in Omaha. The other attacked a church in Colorado.
Together, they left twelve people dead.
Yet today assault weapons remain perfectly legal to buy in gun stores and gun shows across the country, in unlimited quantities. Perhaps even more shocking, the type of bullet many assault weapons fire (7.62mm full metal jacket) can penetrate four categories of police body armor [pdf]. There is no legitimate reason the public should have this kind of access to military-style assault weapons.
It’s also frustrating that when a UPS employee raised concerns on September 13 about the “multiple boxes” of ammunition the Colorado shooter had delivered to his postal box, police officers said there was nothing illegal. No limits on the number of guns; no limits on ammunition; very minimal limits on the type of guns – no wonder we have problems.
Since the terrible shootings last week, leading newspapers are joining the call. Here is a sample of what they’re saying.
The New York Times: “Until recently, the nation did have a law designed to protect the public from assault rifles and other high-tech infantry weapons. In 1994, enough politicians felt the public’s fear to respond with a 10-year ban on assault-weapons that was not perfect but dented the free-marketeering of Rambo mayhem. Most Americans rejected the gun lobby’s absurd claim that assault rifles are “sporting” weapons. But when it came up for renewal in 2004, President Bush and Congress caved to the gun lobby and allowed the law to lapse.”
The Philadelphia Inquirer: “The troubled 19-year-old in Omaha used his stepfather’s AK-47-type assault weapon to unleash 30 rounds of gunfire on innocent victims, and then killed himself. Who needs a gun like that around the house?”
The Washington Post: “The AK-47 assault rifle that an Omaha teenager pilfered from his stepfather was among the guns outlawed under the ban on assault weapons that Congress and President Bush unwisely allowed to lapse. Why that kind of gun should be so easily available to someone as troubled as that 19-year-old is unfathomable. Eight people shopping or working at a mall died as a result.”
To protect ourselves and our police [pdf], these weapons of war should be kept out of the hands of civilians.
| Variable SEMIGUNS : SHOULD SEMI-AUTO GUN SALE BE LIMITED TO MILITARY Literal Question
Should semi-automatic, assault weapons or semi-automatic guns known as assault rifles be sold to the general public or should their sales be limited to the military and police?
Summary Statistics
|
http://www.sigsauer.com/Products/ShowCatalogProductDetails.aspx?categoryid=35&productid=114
Paul Helmke: "Should The Public Be Able To Get The Types Of Guns We Use In Iraq? "
Well Pailie, I say 'dam straight'. But enough about me, let's hear what some experts on the Constitution and the 2A have to say on that.
Patrick Henry: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.Samuel Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
And Paulie, before you retort with that militia thingy, read thsi...
George Mason: "Who are the militia? They consist of the whole people, except a few public officers."
Now drink your bottle, have your mama tuck you in and say night-night.
(oh and the 2A ain't about 'hunting' - unless the topic is hunting tyrants.)
The media and the police chief got things mixed up as usual.
It appears that he used a semi auto version of the AK family known as the MAK-90. I have not seen definitive documents, but a freeper spoke definitively of it.
And that is the crux of the divide and conquer strategy. A great many people are willing to say, “no real need for that”.
Even though your post may be sarcastic, you seem to have fallen for the anti gunners propaganda on this one point.
Richard Quigley, 1943-2007
1 gallon of fuel = 440 yards.
Even if you've got a Suburban or a Expedition, the recoil from that sucker would flip your SUV right over. I'd suggest something a bit more more modest, like a quad .50.
Of course under the Second Amendment, you have a right to keep either one, if you can afford it and to feed it.
You can have one. You just have to beg your local chief LEO for permission, sometimes a campaign contribution helps. Then you have to pay the danegeld to the BATFE. There's also a tax on every round, unless you use non-explosive ammunition.
I used to work with a guy in San Antonio who had one. He also had an M-1919 converted to 7.62x51, and an M-2 Carbine. The latter is a fun gun to shoot.
That would be Switzerland. Also Israel to a lessor extent. Although Sweden does have a very large (for the country) Home Guard, which is armed with H&K 7.62x51 battle rifles, generally with optical sights, as well as crew served weapons.
You don't see any Jihadies trying to make these young ladies wear Burkas. You don't see them going after them with whips because of their manner of dress. Wonder why? On top of all that, these ladies are the dreaded Joos.
Notice that while the magazines are not in the rifles, they are loaded. (I'd not notice that before when I'd seem this picture, but check out the magazine of the lady on the left who's apprently invented a new carry method, butt crack carry. :) ) I guess the Israelis trust young ladies probably just out of basic training more than California (and other states) trusted their Guardsmen in the months following 9-11.
Have an "official" source for that? The pictures I saw sure looked more like an AK profile to me. Not that it matters much.
Teflon coated bullets were *not* designed to defeat body armor. Rather to better penetrate auto glass and other barriers, especially at shallow angles. The Teflon is strictly to reduce barrel wear, the brass core does the penetrating. For something designed to penetrate body armor, look up the "cyclone round" as used by the BAFTE, FBI and others looking to protect us from the Eviil assault rifles and other arms.
Kind of mixed up a bunch of different stuff.
While they had guns, during and precessing WW-II, the Swiss, like everyone else, were equipped with bolt action rifles. (Some US units had begun to get the semiautomatic Garand, but many of the units in the Pacific had not yet received them when they went in to battle with the Japanese). The Swiss militia/reserve army, is now equiped with fully automatic weapons. The second generation of them in fact, the 7.62 battle rifles having been replaced by 5.56 assault rifles (Real ones!).
The "Shoot Twice and Go Home", remark was reportedly made by a Swiss militiaman directly to the Kaiser, shortly *before* WW-I. At least according to Stephen Halbrook it went something like this.
Shortly before World War I, the German Kaiser was the guest of the Swiss government to observe military maneuvers. The Kaiser asked a Swiss militiaman: "You are 500,000 and you shoot well, but if we attack with 1,000,000 men what will you do?" The soldier replied: "We will shoot twice and go home."
No, He died April 14, 1997, at the age of 74. His arch rival, and good buddy in later years, Mikhail Kalashnikov, is still alive however. He's 88, and was born in 1919, three years before Eugene Stoner.
Not to mention more than a few RINOs as well.
Unverified. And many have tried. It does sound like something Jefferson might have said or written about the time the Bill of Rights was passed. The first part, "No free man shall..." is from his proposed declaration of rights for the Virginia constitution. In the event his version, which was limited to "within his own lands or tenements)" was not adopted. (The () indicated that he thought that part might be optional) Instead, the following was adopted:
The Constitution of Virginia
June 29, 1776
Bill of Rights; June 12, 1776
A declaration of rights made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free convention; which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government.
SEC. 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; 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.
Jefferson did say:
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45
Thanks for the Sigsauer pic!
Weather permitting, I’m heading out to the local Elks Club gun range to practice my 2nd Ammendment rights!!
Who IS this clown? Never mind, I really DON’T want to know. Disgusting...
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.