Ted Nugent has (surprise surprise!) been featured as a guest on The Political Cesspool, as has Larry Pratt. Several other gun rights activists not mentioned in this article have appeared on that show too (including John Lott and Chuck Baldwin).

Why, exactly, does there seem to be such a close link between white nationalists (The Political Cesspool) and radical gun rights activists (Nugent, Pratt, Lott, Baldwin)?

The fact is that many of these people, but particularly the Oath Keepers, are essentially overgrown Live-action Role Players. Seriously, they are playing kids games. I recently read on a blog called Gossip Boy about forum messages these guys have been posting- they have been making up fake BATF raids which never happened, and have been sending warnings about possible raids and forced starvation plans. Every message generally ends with something like “I’m going off the grid” or “keep your powder dry.” It’s pathetic really.

These gun nuts can’t even afford to book “Republican Rocker” Ted Nugent? What a bunch of losers.

“The Nuge” is a second-rate 70′s has-been. You can probably book him for weddings and bar mitzvahs. He’s a loser too.

The DC cops are going to have their hands full with these armed idiots. Get the paddy wagon!

I can’t believe Obama has done this bad a job when it comes to gun laws! He really needs to stop pandering to the right…

Because it just doesn’t work!

And when you look at the real intent of these f’ing Gun Enthusiasts–ASSASSINATION–they are clearly playing the President for a sucker! Anyone with a criminal record or other dubious background shouldn’t be allowed to have a gun.

Oh yeah, and it would also help if the U.S. would once and for all cut off merchant relations with China and other countries that ship all these guns to us.

The Nuge seems to prefer hunting with bows anyway, so why is he getting all upset about this? Besides, hardcore gun-nuts usually hate those who are all about sporting weapons. They stress the legality of owning firearms for defense, not for hunting.

There are restrictions against felons and people with dishonorable discharges from the military in regards to the purchase of firearms. There is the instant background check as well. The only problem is the private sale loophole. Individuals are allowed to buy and sell guns from other individuals without any kind of background check, ID, or whatever. That is a legitimate gun control issue I think.

But the thing about these people is that the guns seem to play some kind of compensatory role, and they are always ultra concerned that someone is coming to take their guns.

why is it that everyone who is a rightist according to u progressives a loser and a nut? i know u progressives use this blog to vent, but do u really believe that all gun advocates are insane? furthermore do u guys really believe the gun control crowd are doing the country any favors and keeping ourselves safe in our homes by widdling away at our gun rights. if u guys prefer to get shot and raped in a home invasion while trying to call 911 thats your perogative, but no one in the government should ever have the authority to take my guns away. have australia and england become safer now that they don’t own guns? don’t think so. gun control only hurts law-abiding citizens. criminals are going to get guns illegally.

It doesn’t appear to me that these wing-dings of the far Right, are able to grasp the fact that Obama made it clear on several instances, to which he will not take away our Rights to bear arms. Yet, the fear mongering continues. One would remember the infamous incident here in cactus country(AZ). A Black gun nut by the name of “Chris B.” was seen prowling about in the crowds with an AR-15 assault rifle on his back. They were protesting Obama’s convention here last year. This incident made national headlines. AZ is chuck full of whack nuts like “Chris B.”, Leanne Stevens, and most of all–the rogue demagoguery thug Sheriff Joe Arpaio. What i would love to see, is another law enacted to prevent the mentally murdered, insane, and psychotic numbskulls from ever owning a firearm. Remember folks, guns don’t kill people. People do.

–GENO–

Gun-nuts are those who are incredibly fearful of draconian gun laws despite all the evidence that they are not on the table in the foreseeable future, as the author of this article wrote. Like with many conspiracy theories, these guys have been warning of a general gun-ban for literally decades now- and the whole time it was just around the corner.

By the way, I was a gun owner myself.

It’s still absurd and anachronistic that a developed first-world country such as the United States still permits private firearms ownership, however.

In today’s United States, there is zero reason why anyone who is not in military, law enforcement or private security should be permitted to own a firearm. The radical right’s fascination with weapons is a serious issue and one of many compelling reasons for gun control.

Alan Aardman, you are so wrong.

My family and myself would not be alive today except for the fact that I was able to defend us against armed home invaders.

Guess when the cops showed up to protect us?
You guessed it, 25 minutes after I had shot 2 and had all three held at gunpoint.

This idea that somehow I have no right to defense when the law can not defend me is ridiculous and absurd.

I sincerely hope that you never have that situation to deal with, but if you do, don’t cry to me about how you and your family were injured, raped or killed because your beloved police showed up AFTER the damage was done.

I happen to be both a liberal and a gun owner and I see no conflict with being both. Here in Texas the ACLU was a contributor to passage of a bill allowing citizens to “travel” with firearms (meaning entitled to carry a concealed weapon in your vehicle, as long as there are not other disqualifying factors such as drug possession, gang membership, etc.), and I think this is a good law. While I certainly understand the arguments against gun ownership, I think this is a question that must be decided at a local government level, with the broadest possible laissez faire from federal government.

That said my belief is that the rising disgruntlement of the right wing lends itself naturally to gun rights issues, given the long traditions in our country. Now that the right wing is struggling for survival, any and all issues that can galvanize the Republicans and stir up anger will be most ruthlessly exploited by party doyens. So I would view this issue in the context of the broader political tides driving America to destroy itself from within.

I would also like to point out that one of Bill Clinton’s most obvious mistakes was leading the “assault weapon” ban that sunsetted a few years ago. I don’t want to get into the nitty gritty of ballistics, but the ban was aimed mainly at guns that look scary without real scientific merit. The measures adopted, such as banning weapons with a muzzle break (that’s the port on the end of the barrel that allows gas to discharge as the projectile leaves, reducing the felt recoil), or with magazines that contain over a certain number of bullets capacity, are silly. Another example are banned short barrels on carbines. The longer the barrel, generally the higher the velocity of the projectile and the greater the chance that a projectile will pass through an intended target and hit someone else. The weapons that were banned were no more nor less lethal in their majority than the ones that were not banned.

Please remember people, the mind is the most lethal weapon in the world. Look at England — no handguns there. But walk the streets of London and you are more likely to get jumped and stabbed than you would getting shot in Los Angeles.

If we on the left wing are not willing to be self-critical and look objectively at the policy errors we commit, we should not expect to find any sympathy from the right wing on issues where we do have better policy ideas such as health care reform and immigration reform.

By the way if my esteemed fellow commentators are ever attacked by a criminal or right wing extremist, you might be very glad to have this CHL liberal ready to come to your assistance and perhaps save your life.

jjjohnson,

Sorry buddy! It’s actually people like you, from the right, that scares the crap out of me. You call people from the middle and left, weaklings, crazy…yet, we are not the ones out there citing “Hitler” to make our point – it’s people like you as well as some of the GOP senators, congress w/men, radio talk show hosts that tries to incite fear and violence.

People like me, are not out there trying to control people. We could care less if someone terminates a pregnancy, is gay, is non-believer of Christ…..Yet, we care when rapists, murderers….are on the streets trying to do us harm.

People like me try to enjoy life instead of harboring so much anger, resentment, jealousy to the point we want everyone to be miserable. We believe in communicating, while the “right,” likes to cause arguments and get people riled up, use violence, fear and intimidation.

So, go ahead, call us whatever you want, however, I can assure you, we don’t sweat the small stuff – we actually live longer lives because we are not hostile, angry, and uptight all the time.

But as you say, “love your guns,” which can eventually become your downfall. Should you happen to get into a dispute with the opposite sex, she will use your “love of guns” against you. Trust me, I’m a woman, we can be treacherous if scorned. If that woman ever has to call the police on you, the first thing she will say, “he has (a) gun(s) in the house – I’m scared…..”

GUN CONTROL FOR EVERYBODY EASY WAY
LAW
1,000,OOO INSURANCE EACH EACH GUN
NO INSURACE YOU MUST BE PROSECUTED
MAKE MONEY FOR THE GOVERMENT

Those so called gun nuts have the right to do this!!

Alan Aardman, boy are you not from this earth!! Why don’t you leave this country if you hate it so much!! I’ll buy your one way ticket.

Alan I couldn’t disagree with you more. Are you one of those folks who thinks they can “talk their way out of” getting mugged or that you can simply “run away” from the threat of violence?

I own two firearms. I am not a gun nut. But my friend, I’m a helluva lot safer than you are. My permanent home is in Oakland, California (“First World”). This year I’m living abroad in Guatemala (“Third World”). Trust me, you’re better off strapped in either place.

Arpil 19th may have been chosen for the Revolutionary War reference, or maybe the Baltimore Riot of 1861. But, I’m afraid they are using the date for a refference to Branch Dividians and Murrow Building.
As someone who live in Oklahoma in 1995 I remember the 168 who died because a terroist born and raise in the US hated my country.
I have no problem with anyone who voices their opinons, but they should pick another date.

As an outsider( ie Briton) I for one fail to see the point in this continuing obsession with the “right to bear arms”- once when in Philadelphia(where I spend Thanksgiving with my cousins), I once wandered into a sporting goods shop and was dumbfounded to see an AK-47 Kalashnikov assault rifle for sale(NB this type of firearm has no demonstratable hunting or sporting usage) and was heartily relieved to return to a country where such deadly weapons are emphatically NOT for sale!

Yeah, an AK is a little over the top. But even if we totally outlawed guns here in States, you’d still be able to purchase assault rifles like that illegally. The price would be super-inflated but it would surely be available on the black market. (why’s it gotta be black!? ;-)

I just don’t understand what world anti-gun nuts live in. I guess if you’ve never had to physically defend yourself you probably wouldn’t get it.

How amusing. These rightarded NRA gunloons are easy to manipulate, their right wing politicial leaders pullthese stupid clown’s strings and these gunloons start to dance.

Republidiots have Republican IQs, ergo they’re manipulated and played by FOX “News” and other traitors like they’re violins.

Sorry to interject here but “assault rifle” is probably the most misunderstood term in America. The term derives from the Nazi Stg44, developed during WWII and refers to a category of military arms.

By definition an assault rifle is “select fire”. That means you can select full auto, where you pull the trigger and it keeps firing till you run out of ammo, or single shots or in some cases 3 round bursts. If the rifle is not select fire, it is not an assault rifle.

Second point. You can purchase semi-auto versions of the AK-47, the AR-14 etc, which fire only one round per trigger pull. These are not assault rifles. By the way, the overwhelming majority of these semi-automatic rifles cannot be converted to select fire. A select fire rifle costs about $20,000 and you must have a special license and thorough background check anywhere in the country to buy it. In many places you cannot buy one even if you do have a license. I hope that helps debunk some popular stereotypes.

Thirdly unless you actually know anything about guns, like anything else, you should refrain from forming opinions about them. The fact of the matter is, the assault rifle is a mid-powered firearm. The AK-47 round fires a 7.62mm round, which is not designed foremost to kill. The round has less hydrostatic shock than other projectiles, and was designed to tumble. Unlike high power rifles the projectile does not necessarily kill, and the reason for this is purposeful. A wounded comrade will draw others into the field of fire where they too can be shot. Yes that is ugly and evil, but that’s what war is about.

I can assure you that a harmless looking .30 caliber lever action carbine used for hunting is by far more lethal and has greater penetration (through walls or car doors) than the 7.62mm or its smaller NATO counterpart the 5.66. It can also fire almost as quickly as the semi-automatic AK 47. High powered deer rifles dont have the same scary appearance, and that is why they are not targets for a ban. To be quite blunt, the semi-auto AK47 has little use for hunting or for self defense, and I don’t know why anyone would want one. At close range a relatively harmless looking .38 Special revolver is probably more lethal than many “assault rifles” (which is why police used to carry them).

I don’t expect anyone to change their minds about gun control based on this information, but if you are going to try to ban something at least have a clue what you are talking about first.

“,,,President Obama has said nothing to suggest he will take on gun-rights enthusiasts…”

Hello? Did you miss Obama in Mexico talking of attacking gun owners rights? Did you miss both Obama and Hillary supporting the UN’s so-called Treaty on Small Arms?

He very well IS taking on the gun issue but the media is NOT covering it, nor is it in the classic sense of discussing it in Congress.

I USED to take this group as reasonable dependable source of info, even though heavily biased. NO LONGER will will I make that MISTAKE!

I’d rather not have a crazed elephant stick a gun up my democrat and blow my ass off. When was the last time anybody had to defend himself or herself against a wild “injun” in the bushes? It’s been a while since I’ve seen a wild redcoat hiding in the bushes either. Ted Bundy was a wild elephant who spent to much time lurking in the bushes doing weird socially unacceptable things. Was he meant to be a human bullet with Democrats names on him?

Pink Pistols? You can’t make this stuff up. (Can’t they at least get married?)

So they’re excercising their right to peaceful assembly and free speech. Big deal. What’s this got to do with hatewatch?

Dear Alan;
You state “In today’s United States, there is zero reason
why anyone who is not in the military, law enforcement,
or private security should be permitted to own a firearm.

The reason is:

The Constitution of the United States of America

Articles in Addition to,
And in Amendment of,
The Constitution of
The United States of America

Article II

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.

Is that reason enough?

Is this article not clear enough?

I think people need to read the Constitution of the
United States, and familiarize themselves with what
is in it.

If they did, there would be no talk of a handgun ban.

I live in Northern Virginia, and I wondered for years,
how does Washington, D. C., have a handgun ban?

Thankfully Americans do seem to be waking-up to the fact that a government that wants to take their God-given right to protect themselves is not a government that has their best interests at heart. Remember, governments have killed more innocent men, women, and children than all criminals and “gun nuts” combined. Our founding fathers understood this, that’s why they ennumerated the right to keep and bear arms among the bill of rights.

Over 676,000 people have been killed by guns in the
U.S.A. since John Lennon was shot and killed on
December 8, 1980

From a sign in Times Square, New York City,
commissioned by Yoko Ono;
December, 2000

This is a true story. Yesterday, 2-3-2010, a bountyhunter in Hemet, Calif – according to KABC TV, went to his cousin’s house acting as (pretending) an ICE employee. The bountyhunter handcuffed his cousin’s wife, and deported his cousin’s wife back to the Philippines – the news story was called “Phony Deportation.”

According to the news, the bountyhunter forced his cousin to buy the one-way ticket for the Philippines. The bountyhunter was able to bypass TSA without any problems because he wore an ICE shirt, an ID, handcuffs…but he is facing charges for being able to board the plane with a firearm, and “phony deportation.”

Other than Mr. Pratt’s appearance I don’t see why this is an item for Hatewatch. Second Ammendment supporters may not all be chasing “phantoms,” but rather acting on the anti-gun control momentum that the article mentions.I count on the SPLC to keep me informed about the radical right, but this article concedes that anti-gun control sentiment has become fairly mainstream. I don’t hear an articulated threat in this article. Why are we supposed to be concerned? I’m sorry, but this seems to be a case of misplaced alarmism at least as great as that espoused by the individuals that the article seeks to demonize.

LOL at leftists caring about rapists and murderers doing harm to people. you are the ones who make us LESS safe. all you do is wring your hands about how many people are in jail, or about laws like 3 strikes. because of both technology and tougher sentencing and enforcement, crime levels in the US have hit record lows. and on top of that, there are more people legally owning guns right now than ever before! explain that one to me, mr. progressive?

and leftists aren’t trying to control people? they do nothing BUT control people, that’s what their socialist wetdreams are all about. just look at the california state government if you don’t believe me. here, they want to limit free parking for cars virtually everywhere, they want to make you use only a certain kind of lightbulb, they even want to make people check their tire pressure regularly or face fines (and even jail time). and don’t forget all the uselessred light cameras that are becoming more and more common. leftists are the KINGS of control.

I think all y’all might be missing the point.

The point isn’t gun control.

The point is that an armed mob is descending on Washington this April 19th.

April 19 is significant to the Klan Nazis. Waco. Oklahoma City.

This could get weird.

I think that defiance is a result of economics. I think that this applies to all social classes from the top to the bottom and in between. I think that defiance is a product of evolution and that the gluttons above usually have the upper hand. Normally, the clean end of the stick defies and destroys the funky end. However, once in a while, the captive “animals” break free and defy, eat and destroy their tormentors. There is a problem in that the tormented can easily become the tormentors themselves. Without some sort of liberal influence,instinctive defiance appears to be the rule. I’m concerned that this state of affairs is more than acceptable to many denizens of the upper class caverns.

The 2nd amendment march will probably be the most peaceful march on DC ever, because it will be composed of law abiding gun owners. And we all know it is illegal to carry concealed or open in DC.

Snorlax has it right. it’s the “hillbillies’ and “cowboys” who go to gunshows and wave firearms around with no regard to bystanders, it’s self-styled experts who talk about muzzle break and kill power, it’s so-called ‘hunters’ who stop off at the liquor store on the way to ‘deer camp’ and buy 2 or 3 cases ‘half-price to hunters,’ and yes, the militias and klans nearby who fly skull and crossbones and confederate flags and put up signs saying Enter at your own risk. None of these are responsible gun owners, most of whom have never gone running to their neighbor waving an SKS carbine around saying “look what I just bought for $50, What is it?”

Responsible gun owners have nothing to fear, and we can tell very quickly whether we would trust a person to go armed in our presence. Those who insist on flaunting their bigger ‘gun,’ usually suffer from smaller brains and it’s that we need to be concerned about.

Current state and local laws often allow gun ownership. You may have them if you wish, why do you insist on waving them around in public?

To those of you that say there is not reason for private ownership of firearms, or a specific type of firearm I would ask this. What reason do you have to deny me a right guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States of America.

Are you worried that people will be killed with firearms?

If so consider that modern firearms have been around for several hundred years, and yet people have been killing one another since the beginning of recorded history.
Countries with some of the strictest gun control laws still have problems with violent crimes.

I would also ask who you think would be affected by a ban on private firearms ownership.

I certainly would be. Although I am not a criminal. I don’t purchase firearms for illegal activities. I own firearms for target shooting, hunting and personal protection.
Those that wish to have a firearm to aid them in going out and committing rape/robbery/kidnapping/murder are already breaking the law, so does it really matter if they buy an illegal gun. I certainly don’t think so.

If the goal was to truly protect society as a whole the legal system would reflect that. Our problems do not come from a lack of laws, or to many freedoms; they come from our unwillingness to appropriately punish those who break the laws. There are some states in the United States that mandate as little as five years in prison for murder. That’s five years taken from your life, for ending someone’s life. This hardly seems like enough of a deterrent to crime in my mind, and apparently many murders agree with me, because murder still occurs on a much to frequent basis.

One final thought to leave you with, is it better to spend our nations time, money and energy on limiting the freedoms of law abiding men, or should we spend it on dealing with those that have already shown a complete disregard for the laws of this nation

Gotta love liberals!

leftists aren’t trying to control people? they do nothing BUT control people, that’s what their socialist wetdreams are all about.

Michael, who passed the Patriot Act? Leftists?
Who wants this national ID crap? Leftists?
Who worships people in uniform? Leftists?
Who supports liberal unconstitutional wars? Leftists?

Tom,

I agree with you there. Even to buy a gun from a gun dealer anywhere in America you have to be law abiding — you even have to declare whether or not you smoke marijuana. If DC says no guns, I think you can expect there will be no guns, and this is good.

There are loopholes though. Once the gun is purchased at a dealer it can be sold freely without a background check. One caveat: if you knowingly sell a gun to someone who can’t own one in Texas at least you go to jail for up to 20 years. That’s a pretty strong deterrent.

But I do think if local communities don’t want handguns or carbines or bb guns or spitwads they have every right to ban them and I support it. My community says guns are ok, and that should be respected too.

Also the culture of death that goes along with some gun enthusiasts is sickening. To be honest with you I hate my guns. I wish I didn’t have to have them.

I am not sure why this would be on the Hatewatch list since this people are exercising they freedom to protest… it might not make sense for them to march but it is their freedom. And as Tom said it will be a peaceful march.

I will see your post:

Over 676,000 people have been killed by guns in the
U.S.A. since John Lennon was shot and killed on
December 8, 1980

From a sign in Times Square, New York City,
commissioned by Yoko Ono;
December, 2000

And raise you this…

Since 1994 562,712 people have been killed by motor vehicles.

I still have an additional 14 years of data to find. This information is from the Fars database.

Bottom line is the proof is out there than gun control does not work. England was recently determined to be the most violent nation in the EU. Per capita they have more violent crime than the US, and they don’t have guns.

^[1]

^[2]

Another fact that is overlooked is gun ownership is up in the United States and crime is dropping and has been for over 10 years now.

^[3]

^[4]

^[5]

Finally, utilizing FBI crime statistics and checking against a locations right to carry, shall issue laws, you will find the facts support gun control does not work.

But I digress, I am using factual data that can be corroborated and not emotional diatribe. And the anti-gun people cannot stand to use logic and facts as it completely destroys their goal and argument.

@Snorlax who wrote,

The point is that an armed mob is descending on Washington this April 19th.
——————————————————

I hope these patriotic Americans drag the treasonous stooges, that run our government, down to the National Mall, strip them bare, put them in stocks, and cane their asses. And then I hope they go after the stooges’ bankster/media boss masters and do the same to them.

Another point that has not been discussed is money.
During the activity of the “Brady Bill” a GREAT DEAL OF MONEY was mande.

Who made it? Gun manufacturers and especially middle men gun dealers. Glock magazines which cost about $4 to produce were selling for as much $100 (a Magazine is called a “clip” by some people).

My point is a very simple one. The laws are in place.
MORE restrictions will make a great deal of money for firearms retailers as it ALREADY HAS via the “panic buying” that has occurred after the President was elected.

There are possibly MANY reasons why he has not enacted or signed into law Federal legislation….most likely he has much more important things to do. We are in a Major Recession, close to a depression. The dollar has lost it’s strength as has the country lost it’s manufacturing strength.

No matter WHAT “side” of the gun control issue you are on, one thing is for sure…..guns are objects. They don’t go away. They are similar to chemicals. Chemicals do not make an addict, a WMD, etc…they simply exist. The action on the part of an individual is the basis for what takes place. In the UK they became so enamored with such legislation they were close to serializing edged objects like knives & swords.
That simply is ridiculous. What’s next cricket bats?
The essence of the violence problem is complex. Mexico City has a very interesting murder rate. They are BLAMING this upon the USA. But the cartels are using weapons that are NOT sold OTC! They are using MILITARY fully automatic weapons and small area weapons (hand grenades) procured from their own military stock piles.

ONE of the reasons why gun control has such appeal is that it’s safe, fast, easy legislation. HOW MANY firearms laws do separate States have? How many does the Federal government have? If anyone has an interest, the book containing those laws is available from the BATFE and it’s about one inch thick with perhaps over a thousand laws.
WE HAVE the legislation. We happen to be a VERY violent nation and the problem won’t go away becasue firearms don’t go away. They already exist. Does ANYONE really believe that the violence issue will be dealt with by MORE laws?
REALLY? And if so WHY?

The violence issue needs to be dealt with at it’s core. With only a tiny percent of the population committing the level of violence we see today – the answer does not arise from MORE legislation. It is a very complex set of issues that start at education, opportunities for earning potential other than dealing dope, & a substantial look at what we do with violent offenders.

In California, many years back they voted out a Supreme Court member who supported letting “people” out of prison after 7 years for committing murder.
They also got so sick of the same small % of people committing violent crime that they (in effect) said “you do this over 2 times and you will NOT be part of Society”.
I am NOT making some point about the Constitutionality of the “Gun Issue” as a separate and distinct agenda but rather what would address violence as a whole in our nation.

IF you have a book of laws & still a segment of society commits heinous acts; the logical way to address this is not with MORE laws but to examine why this has reached this point and what NEW can be done to stop it. IF you are doing the same thing over and over (firearms legislation) and NOT getting results perhaps a different method needs examination.

Should children, criminals, mentally ill people have access to firearms? Of course not. But one cannot stop access at this point in any manner through legislation anyway! WE ALREADY HAVE THE LAWS IN PLACE!
When would those laws stop? With the registration of claw hammers and kitchen knives? That is the end result of addressing the OBJECT rather than the behavior. Our “War on Drugs” has been such a damn failure, it should come as no surprise that Prohibition would have taught us something.

This has NOTHING to do with Democrats, Republicans, or any political agenda but rather – human behavior!

The United States (it is estimated by the BATFE) has 1.6 firearms per human being living here. The guns exists! They are NOT going to go away because someone enacts another law. Drugs exists to such a great extent in the USA that Boxcars can be filled with them. These are OBJECTS – dealing with an OBJECT is NOT the way to cope with dysfunctional behavior. Anyone who believes that must believe that the “War on Drugs” & Prohibition stopped addiction or alcoholism. The analogy is clear!

Damn Carter! You screwed up! You used facts again! How dare you! Seriously though you are correct on each count and each count CAN BE validated with factual information that is NOT based on emotional diatribe.

Bottom line gun control does not work.

I for one wish these nuts would stop talking about the Constitution. These people are not endowed by the Constitution to interpret Constitutional law. I highly doubt that these militias, were they to have their way, would protect the civil rights of all in their care. There is a lot of discrimination and injustice in the US, but most of the time you have a fighting chance at airing your grievance, even when you are accused of terrorism or sedition and the feds have you dead to rights.

Not to mention these morons can’t seem to figure out that the Founding Fathers, according to their own words, intended the Constitution to change with the times- otherwise blacks and women would not have civil rights. Plus the standard military weapon of their day isn’t so intimidating nowadays.

“The blade itself incites to violence.”

Homer

Ruslan,

A six foot musket is pretty intimidating. Of course, only when weilded as a club.

@ Ruslan who wrote,

“I for one wish these nuts would stop talking about the Constitution. These people are not endowed by the Constitution to interpret Constitutional law.”
——————————————————
For an egalitarian wack-job you certainly do sound elitist there. The fact is that the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) is about 12 or 13 pages long. It is an extremely short document. It was intended by its framers to be easily understood by all citizens and it is. You don’t need to be specially “endowed” to understand it.

The 2nd Amendment recognizes “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” because the Founders understood that the biggest threat to the well-being of any people is always their government.

It wasn’t included in the Bill of Rights to protect your right to hunt, or to target practice for sport, or even to defend yourself against criminal attacks by your fellow citizens. That right was recognized so that American citizens could protect themselves against tyranny.

“Nicki Stallard, a transsexual gun rights activist who is active in Pink Pistols, a gay gun rights organization.”

Sure sounds like the hate-filled ‘radical right’ to me…

“Anyone with a criminal record or other dubious background shouldn’t be allowed to have a gun.”

They’re not. Might want to read a law book before hopping on your keyboard.

“A Black gun nut by the name of “Chris B.” was seen prowling about in the crowds with an AR-15 assault rifle on his back.”

It’s funny because if you watch the footage of Broughton at the protest, all I see is a well dressed man standing chatting to fellow protestors with a rifle slung on one shoulder. Where exactly was this ‘prowling’? An AR15 is not an assault rifle, and why do you mention that Chris is black? Talk about fear mongering and hate, a dark skinned prowler supposed to be more scary than a pasty white counterpart?

“As an outsider( ie Briton) I for one fail to see the point in this continuing obsession with the “right to bear arms”- once when in Philadelphia(where I spend Thanksgiving with my cousins), I once wandered into a sporting goods shop and was dumbfounded to see an AK-47 Kalashnikov assault rifle for sale(NB this type of firearm has no demonstratable hunting or sporting usage) and was heartily relieved to return to a country where such deadly weapons are emphatically NOT for sale!”

As a fellow Briton, I can assure you that you most likely did not see an AK-47 Kalashnikov assault rifle in a sporting goods store. Such weapons are heavily regulated at the Federal level requiring anyone wanting to own one to fill in a whole lot of forms, sign their life over to the government, undergo an extensive background check, wait months and months, and shell out a heck of a lot of money. What you probably saw was simply a lookalike. Same appearance, different function. Such rifles are used for hunting and target shooting (there are available very popular versions specifically designed for hunting). Of course hunting and sporting are not the only legitimate uses a firearm can be put to. Saving a life is one other. Kalashnikov-style rifles are indeed for sale in the UK, I have shot them myself.

“The point is that an armed mob is descending on Washington this April 19th.”

If so, then that would seem to be a fact squarely in contradiction of the effectiveness of gun control. It is illegal to carry guns in DC, so either this is untrue or gun control obviously doesn’t work.

What makes a protest march a mob?

Seems to me this ‘story’ has as much place on Hatewatch as a KKK member buying some groceries. It has nothing to do with hate, it’s just something that somebody intolerant happens to be doing, that millions of other people do too: express support for gun rights. That’s not a hateful thing, even if you think it’s wrongheaded.

Sorry but the Federalist papers actually clearly define many of the intents and reasons for various aspects of the Constitution. We are a Constitutional Republic and so therefore the Constitution is a very valid piece of the debate.

You don’t need to be a lawyer to understand what the founding fathers meant. You simply need to be able to read and comprehend English. If you don’t like the Constitution or our form of government then you are free to exercise the right to leave.

So I think the real moron would be the one you see every morning in the mirror. Many of us have actually researched and studied our nations history. And many of us know how to read and understand our native language. For every argument you anti’s attempt to bring up, there is either a sound piece of factual data or historical data that debases your prose.

If you want to really know what the intent of the Constitution was by the founding fathers that penned it… start reading the Federalist papers. These are memoirs from many of the most prominent signers of both the Declaration of Independence AND the Constitution. And in that you will find that many of your interpretations and beliefs are incorrect and founded on emotional pretense and false hope.

But if you wish to continue on the path of ignorance the perpetual laughing stock of those that have taken the time to actually learn the subject matter, please by all means do so. After all we all need a good laugh now and again. And you and your ignorance is providing a great deal of laughter for us.

I’d like to add to my comments above, that any government that tries to take its citizens guns is intending to tyrannize them. There is simply no legitimate reason, for a government, ever, to infringe upon its citizens right by taking their ability to protect themselves from the excesses of that government.

Gun advocates frequently talk about the 2nd Amendment “right” as though it were unrestricted, and the NRA frequently leaves out the militia clause, #3. At least the individual above cited it in entirety, but not even the Supreme Court is willing to give credence to the implication of the amendment as written.

As with many fanatics, these people choose to cherrypick the laws they are willing to abide by. These “Constitutional scholars” have apparently not read the Federalist Papers and other contemporary writings, or related law on other ‘freedoms’ mentioned in the amendments. I’m thinking about not yelling fire in a crowded theater because it is your unrestricted “right.”

And some people are correct when they say gun control doesn’t work. Well, at least not for the pimps, addicts and drug dealers who are responsibile for most of the gun crime is this tourist town. But then they don’t abide by any laws, do they?

@Rusian,
Actually, they do have the right to interpret the Constitution as they see fit. Part of the 1st Amendment is that anyone can read any book or paper they want, and say whatever they want about it. You have no obligation to listen, but that does not mean they don’t have the right to speak.

How and why those nuts are marching is beyond my ability to justify. However, I am a disabled Texan and celebrated when the “Castle” law was passed which permits people who are in their homes to shoot to kill invaders. Further, I am getting ready to get a “carry” permit. That’s lawful in Texas, too.

I’m not thrilled with the way our government works all the time, but our government is WAY better than any other form of government that I know of. At least I don’t have to worry about someone arresting me in the middle of the night because I don’t agree with the government at times.

The nuts who are marching, the “Tea Baggers” who are screaming about the non-existent tax increases, and the rest of them…let’s give them an island in the Pacific to run themselves into the ground. In the meantime, with all of its warts, with all of its defects, I love this country but will fight to the death those who would destroy it.

would six million jews have died from the holocaust if they had been armed?

This is sad, pro-gun owners want to blame the Patriot Act on “Leftist.” Hehehe! No, LOL! The Patriot Act was signed into law under Dubya. It was signed into law 2001!

It’s interesting that the GOP, Rightwingers, Conservatives screw things up, do things that anger the public at-large, then they lie, outright lie to their followers that the Left, Liberals, Democrats did it!

I am like totally sure! Then you want to go around stating, “Oh, it’s my RIGHT.” Maybe you need to listen to George Carlin a bit. He couldn’t have said it any better when he said, “if something can be taken away from you, it was never a right – it is a privilege.”

Yes, children and teens should not have access to guns, but they do! Whether they have stolen the gun from home – either on their own, or a gangmember/neighborhood thug intimidated them into stealing it from home – to the so-called neighborhood thug that have these younger ones committee crimes with guns under the guise “they won’t do time because they are minors” to you can make money…it happens.

Yet, no one is taking into account the weapons that kill the gunowners families every year, either by accident – whether thinking it was a prowler, kids getting ahold of the weapon, or the murder-suicide…..and just because someone is licensed through profession doesn’t mean they should all have guns either – you have the officers of the g-damn law shooting people 10-50 times – meaning the people received 10-50 bullet holes, meaning, overkill! They are supposed to shoot to disable most times – however, minorities face being killed rather than disarmed/disabled. Which makes me think, these gun holders are actually cowards when it comes to facing any type of threat/danger.

“Bottom line gun control does not work.” – by Glock G20 10mm

I wish it would. Anybody crazy enough to nickname themselves by their favorite gun NEEDS gun control. And medications.

Obviously they are not enforcing the laws against loonies owning guns. They need to start.

Responsible gun owners are okay, but they’re obviously the minority of gun owners in the US.

I don’t think it is a coincidence that April 19th is a red letter day for Reich Wingnuts.

Waco. Oklahoma City.

These gun nuts think it was ok to blow up the Murrah building. They advocate the violent overthrow of the US government .

And they’re gonna try it in April.

Really unbelievable. I’m an Oklahoman overseas studying in the UK. I have owned guns (registered, trained and certified) most of my life. I’m a woman, and center-left. I’m studying human rights. I’m all for social welfare policies. I agree that 04/19 is a horrible date to choose to march. And, I agree that my fellow liberals need to give gun control a break – I don’t need you to tell me how to defend myself, and neither do the rest of us who choose to own guns. And for the UKers who are posting – you all don’t have it so well figured out. You are more than free to decide what to do here in your own country – but you haven’t curbed killings – you’re just opting to do it in a different way now.

And to Skinnyminny re George Carlin. Your life can be taken away by any other human being. Does that make the right to life only a privilege?

Yeah, we don’t need guns, even if the 2nd amendment confirms the natural right to self defense. And so what if every mass murdering dictator disarmed citizens to make the massacre smooth. With enough hope and change, the government will take care of everything from cradle to grave, crime will be eliminated, we’ll all have green jobs, the climate will be cooler, and we can all just hold hands and sing Kumbayah over tofu-shakes.

For SPLC true-believers: the above is referred to as “sarcasm”.

IF we are to address the violence issue in the USA then we MUST deal with FACTS and not emotionalism. I believe deeply that we have a serious problem and that it must be faced by both & all sides of the political spectrum.

How many people knew that a sworn POST certified policeman’s or sheriff’s primary job is NOT TO PROTECT PEOPLE? It is to ENFORCE THE LAW! That means that their first duty is to come home at the end of their shift and enforce the written elements of legislation. Call a sheriff when you’re in danger and they will come; HOWEVER they are NOT there to take a bullet for you like the Secret Service is with the President. And they wont. They will protect themselves first. That’s not putting anyone down……that’s a fact.

How many people know the actual statistics of firearm accidents as compared to other forms of accidents?

How many people believe that when a sheriff uses lethal force; his job is to STOP THE THREAT? That has NOTHING to do with the number of shots fired. That has to do with stopping the threat to his life or others. If it takes a certain # of shots, that’s what it takes. They are NOT trained to shoot to wound – EVER!. There is no such thing. That’s what Taser’s and batons are for.

How many people have ridden in a patrol car for a few nights? I am NOT putting anyone down…..I am simply stating that we need to stop the emotionalism.

A firearm used for self defense is an object. IF you have a thug who at 25 years of age and 250lbs wants to kill a 70 year old 160lb man, should that man have the ability to protect himself or NOT? Is a woman who does NOT want to get raped by 3 convicts and uses a firearm to stop the threat a COWARD??

The NEXT time your life is REALLY threatened and you call 911 see what happens. In some places YOU ARE PUT ON HOLD!!!

Now….we have a very serious violence problem in the USA. Guns per se’ are NOT the answer.
Guns cannot think or decide issues, or make judgment calls. Guns in untrained or unthinking hands are a nightmare….That’s also a FACT!

Approx 3% of the population are responsible for the very serious REPEAT violence in our country. But the interesting thing is that some of the elements of the inmate population do NOT come back to prison! WHY do some come back and back until they die in prison? Why do some never repeats crimes?

When we address these issues we may START to make inroads into the problem.
A politician’s job is to get re-elected. Making issues that appeal to emotionalism is a damn good way of getting votes; especially when the focus is an OBJECT not human behavior that is complex and needs very disciplined thought and action to succeed.

On the MAJORITY of the points I have outlined, even the VIOLENCE POLICY CENTER, one of the most anti-gun political action committees in existence, agree!

Inmates with certain levels of education do not appear to commit the majority of crimes of violence (or recidivism).
When tested: those who have serious deficits in intelligence appear to be those who resort to violence on an on-going basis. What does that tell you?

IF WE CONTINUE TO DIVIDE OURSELVES THROUGH POLITICS on important issues like violence in America, nothing will be accomplished! When we let politicians push our “emotional buttons” we end up calling each other names and re-electing the jerks who have done virtually NOTHING to help the average working man or woman.
Those who point to OBJECTS on BOTH sides of the political spectrum just want to get re-elected. The Right seems to like DRUGS as an object of attack and the Left seems to like Firearms as an object of attack.
BOTH SIDES HAVE DONE NOTHING – NOTHING AT ALL to IMPROVE the problems that plague us by using these emotional techniques.

THINK! PEOPLE, THINK! Stop reacting with emotionalism and button pushing to issues that make a difference!

***As with many fanatics, these people choose to cherrypick the laws they are willing to abide by.***

What makes gun rights supporters fanatics? Which laws are being cherrypicked exactly?

***These “Constitutional scholars” have apparently not read the Federalist Papers and other contemporary writings, or related law on other ‘freedoms’ mentioned in the amendments. I’m thinking about not yelling fire in a crowded theater because it is your unrestricted “right.”***

Are you arguing that freedom of speech is not a right? Seems odd to put the word right in quotations.

The first amendment says that Congress shall “make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” Congress has made no law to prohibit the shouting of “fire” in a crowded theatre. This is a common law offence that pre-dates Congress, it is not an exception to the Bill of Rights.

***And some people are correct when they say gun control doesn’t work. Well, at least not for the pimps, addicts and drug dealers who are responsibile for most of the gun crime is this tourist town. But then they don’t abide by any laws, do they?***

No they do not. Criminals do not follow laws, which is one reason why the gun control experiment in my country (UK), in other countries like Australia, and certain US states has singularly failed.

***This is sad, pro-gun owners want to blame the Patriot Act on “Leftist.” Hehehe! No, LOL! The Patriot Act was signed into law under Dubya. It was signed into law 2001!

It’s interesting that the GOP, Rightwingers, Conservatives screw things up, do things that anger the public at-large, then they lie, outright lie to their followers that the Left, Liberals, Democrats did it!

I am like totally sure! Then you want to go around stating, “Oh, it’s my RIGHT.”***

What does that have to do with anything? This is not a march against the Patriot act. This is not a march exclusively for “Gop, Rightwingers, Conservatives.” Many independent, Democrats, libertarians, progressives/leftwingers/liberals will be there, I am sure.

Is it your argument that if a person (or group, even) blames the wrong person for a bad law, they forfeit their rights?

***Yet, no one is taking into account the weapons that kill the gunowners families every year, either by accident – whether thinking it was a prowler, kids getting ahold of the weapon, or the murder-suicide***

This is most certainly taken into account. Most anti-gun sources give the number of gun homicides as the total number of gun deaths. Which is deceptive. There are arguments that gun control might reduce the number of murders. But few people want to ban hunting, which is where the vast majority of accidental gun deaths come from. If guns are kept legal for hunting, as most everyone seems to agree they should be, those accidents are here to stay. Equally, few people seriously argue that gun control would reduce suicides unless we’re going to ban rope, medicine, bridges, tall buildings, buses, the combustion engine, razor blades and so on. The main argument is over murders, so the most relevant figure is the murder/gun murder figure.

“you have the officers of the g-damn law shooting people 10-50 times – meaning the people received 10-50 bullet holes, meaning, overkill! They are supposed to shoot to disable most times”

There is no such thing as “shooting to wound”. It is neither practical, reliable nor safe to shoot someone in, for example, the leg or arm. Officers are trained to shoot center of mass (center of the upper torso) as this is the easiest spot to hit with the minimal chance of shots going wide, and where the heart and lungs are located – some of the most ‘man stopping’ parts of the body.

The idea of overkill too, is largely irrelevant. It often takes multiple hits to stop an individual, and criminals often face multiple officers. If six cops confront a man with a gun, and he points it at them, they are likely to all fire – why wouldn’t they? There’s no guarantee their buddy is going to stop the guy. So if each fires 2 shots, and they all hit, he ends up with 12 holes. 3 shots and you get 18 holes. You can see how in certain situations people can end up being shot many many times. If a dangerous individual is still standing, there is no such thing as overkill. Shooting an incapacitated individual would of course be unacceptable (murder, or criminal mutilation of a corpse, depending), but I’m not aware of any such cases.

In any case I fail to see how taking away guns from police officers would improve anything.

***Which makes me think, these gun holders are actually cowards when it comes to facing any type of threat/danger.***

Because anyone who doesn’t like going up against someone bigger, meaner and better armed than them is a coward. That’s why every brave soldier or police officer has taken on the enemy bare handed, why firefighters put flames out with their bare feet instead of hoses, and why skyscraper window-washers don’t use safety lines. Because they’re brave.

No wait, that’s not brave. That’s stupid.

***Anybody crazy enough to nickname themselves by their favorite gun NEEDS gun control. And medications.***

Why? Some people enjoy shooting. Some people enjoy driving cars or bikes, some people enjoy flying planes, some people enjoy cooking, some people enjoy playing tennis or baseball. Would you prescribe medication and restrictive laws to someone with a handle such as Corvette, Harley, Cessna, Old Hickory, Slazenger or DeMarini?

***Responsible gun owners are okay, but they’re obviously the minority of gun owners in the US.***

Obviously. Lowball estimates put the number of gun owners in the United States at 43 million. There are about 9,000 gun homicides in the US each year, so each year at least 99.998% of gun owners don’t kill anyone.

***These gun nuts think it was ok to blow up the Murrah building. They advocate the violent overthrow of the US government .

And they’re gonna try it in April.***

Now who’s a paranoid conspiracy theorist. If there’s an attempted violent overthrow of the US by these gun rights groups on April 19th, you look me up and I’ll give you ten million dollars. In flying pigs.

@White Pro-Union French “Islamofascist” Appeaser

“Michael, who passed the Patriot Act? Leftists?
Who wants this national ID crap? Leftists?
Who worships people in uniform? Leftists?
Who supports liberal unconstitutional wars? Leftists?”

what does “worshipping” people in uniform have to do with anything? and the patriot act was voted in with the help of plenty of democrats. and a national id card? who has seriously proposed that in recent time (other than maybe wishy-washy guiliani). if i’m not mistaken, we have a liberal democrat supporting the war in afghanistan. LOL. nice try, though.

i’ll take people who worship those protecting our country over those who worship the environment and animals.

@skinnyminny

“This is sad, pro-gun owners want to blame the Patriot Act on “Leftist.” Hehehe! No, LOL! The Patriot Act was signed into law under Dubya. It was signed into law 2001!”

who blamed the patriot act on ayone? it was a fellow leftist that brought that up, no one else.

“you have the officers of the g-damn law shooting people 10-50 times – meaning the people received 10-50 bullet holes, meaning, overkill!”

spoken like a true “progressive”. LOL.

“They are supposed to shoot to disable most times”

wtf? they’re supposed to shoot when their life is threatened. when you shoot, it’s usually to kill. you obviously no nothing about policing. go post on change.org, where your fellow leftists will agree with your idiocy.

Speaking primarily to adult-age males, ( at a suggested age of say, 25 years or older ), and while you are, of course under no obligation to state your answers–consider as you may the following points as pertinent to the discussion:
1. “Are you aware that it’s your Moral Obligation personally, and Duty as a Citizen of your respective State, and additionally as a Citizen of these United States–to individually provide arms for defense of self, family, other persons, property, possessions, State and Nation as required?”
That the aforementioned Moral Obligation and Duty has existed for all Freemen since the 1600’s–when the first Colonists from Great Britain brought arms with them aboard their ships, and immediately upon arrival to the shores of this continent formed from among themselves an Armed Militia for their defense?
2. Are you aware that most State Constitutions have provisions enumerating it to be a ‘right’ of the citizens of that State to keep and bear arms?
3. Are you aware of the existence of a PREAMBLE to The First 10 Amendments to the Constitution as Ratified by the States December 15, 1791 which contains the following passage, citing the purpose and intent for writing and ratifying the initial amendments to the U.S. Constitution?
PREAMBLE Congress OF THE United States.
“THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution..”
(For those previously not aware, you have now so been informed. )

Having said all that, three simple points of inquiry.
A. Which of the two is the greater threat to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness–a common criminal with a gun, or a legislator armed only with a pen?
B. What purpose might there be to individuals exercising their ‘right’ of free speech to remind those in the Federal government of the law written via the IIA which specifically prohibits any act on the part of those within the Federal government which could even be construed as an ‘infringement’ on this ‘right’–a ‘right’ which predates and preexisted all forms of American government? (And most especially in view of the irrefutable fact that the Federal government has been in violation of the terms, agreement and law written via the IIA into the legally-binding contract called the U.S. Constitution since the 1930’s, all-the-while ‘phantom’ lawmakers chronically continue their attempts to enact additional unconstitutional ‘rights-violating’ legislation?)
C. For those voluntarily unarmed, victims-in-waiting, having avoided your Moral Obligations and Duty as previously stated–what ‘reason’ can you cite for valuing your opinion so highly, yet through inaction or refusal to provide yourself with the most viable tool yet invented, have effectively relegating the entire worth of your own Life to no more than that of a 10cent bullet?
In hopes to possibly save the emotionally-contentious, perpetual adolescents some unnecessary mental gyrations, here’s a hint:… nowhere to be found is a logical, rational reason for adult males to not own at least one firearm– at absolute best there are only excuses.

Any Questions?

Sarah Palin was just on TV, telling her Reich Wingnuut faithful that the US needs “another revolution”.

I fear this armed march on Washington is precisely that.

Armed overthrow of the US government by gun nuts.

Take away their guns and the gun nuts will still try to overthrow the government on April 19th…with sticks and stones.

Guns are just a tool that makes it easier to kill people.

The problem isn’t the guns, it is the squirming psychotic brains of the Reich Wingnuts holding those guns.

We don’t need gun control…we need psycho control.

“This is sad, pro-gun owners want to blame the Patriot Act on “Leftist.” …The Patriot Act was signed into law under Dubya.
..It’s interesting that the GOP, Rightwingers, Conservatives screw things up, do things that anger the public at-large, then they lie, outright lie to their followers that the Left, Liberals, Democrats did it!”

Absolutely true. FOX “News” has been caught several times trying to put a D after the names of crooked Republicans when they got caught. They did this when Toe Tappin’ Larry Craig got caught, they put a D after his name on the TV screen. He’s a Republican.

I have also heard Reich Wingnuts try to claim Bush wasn’t responsible for the first bailout. He was. Dubya signed it into law in 2008.

How do you know when Reich Wingnuts are lying? Their lips are moving.

“Actually, they do have the right to interpret the Constitution as they see fit. Part of the 1st Amendment is that anyone can read any book or paper they want, and say whatever they want about it. You have no obligation to listen, but that does not mean they don’t have the right to speak.”

They have the right to speak, but their interpretation of the Constitution is not legally binding. The Constitution clearly lays out the powers for interpreting the Constitution and the drafting of laws according to it.

Expatriate – in a sense, yes, the right to life is a privilege! Just look at some of the states that execute prisoners – Texas ring a bell? Their right to life is decided by someone else!

Scott – Okay, now we’re getting somewhere. Next time I see on the news that a suspect ran from the police stating “he was scared,” I guess I will have to take the suspects word, especially since you indicate the police is not suppose to disable, but to shoot in the obvious “RED” zones – center mass.

Again, why some men tend to think weight/height matters, is beyond me. Yes, the bigger guy, if he hits you, chances are, he’ll knock you out. But wait, the smaller guy always have more energy and a greater advantage because he’s quicker. I suggest you get out into some of the “bad” neighborhoods. You will find sometimes the ‘meanest’ and perhaps ‘baddest’ guy is the most dangerous guy which almost always points back to the “little guy” – wouldn’t you think, this guy has the reputation to protect, and he learned the hard way – not to be a victim of the bad guy any longer.

To say a person is dangerous because he’s big is a little discriminatory, don’t you think? My experience, sometimes the big guy is a ‘teddy bear.’ The little guy in my experience was always the nasty guy with ‘hangups.’ Again, if you have to use deadly force every time you make a ‘judge-by-the-coverbook’ then maybe you need to move to isolated areas away from the general public.

Michael, I guess that’s the reason some police/sheriff departments went to less-than-lethal force because of what you’ve just described. Sounds like this is good reason, because obviously this is nothing more than pure “trigger-happy” cops. Another reason, the taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for multi-million dollar lawsuits, because a cop is scared of a ‘criminal.’ Meaning, he’d rather kill the suspect than wound him.

Scott, btw, what happens when you have all these officers and the suspect doesn’t have a gun? What about the ‘suspect’ that was shot in the transit station – the officer claimed he thought it was a ‘stun gun.’ I must say, you wonder why the public doesn’t trust police/sheriff when it comes to them defending why they used deadly force! Should I believe, although I dont like it, that suspects go on ‘car-chases’ putting innocent bystanders/drivers at risk because they are afraid of the police? Should the police be blamed when a suspect kills himself in order to not be taken into custody and states ‘he will not be taken alive?’

Now, a serious question must be answered then, do we (taxpayers) need the police if they are not “To Serve and Protect,” anymore? Why do they have that motto on police cars? I’m guessing that maybe we don’t need them if they are not going to take a bullet. I’m not saying they should, but, they sometimes do, that’s part of the dangers of the job.

As far as criminals having a low IQ – wrong! Ted Bundy was extremely intelligent. BTK was also not low on the intelligence scale, yet, these were violent criminals. Profiles do not always hit the nail on the head!

As a gay NRA member in the Fabulous Flyover, I say the existing laws should be enforced more strongly before even THINKING about passing any new ones. Criminals don’t obey laws!

skinnyminny said,

on February 5th, 2010 at 10:49 pm

Yes, children and teens should not have access to guns, but they do!
————-

Sorry if I seem to be in chronic disagreement with everybody, but again I must object. Why shouldn’t kids or teens have access to guns if they are mature enough and learn the rules of safety?

I personally believe the sport of target shooting is an excellent activity for youths because it teaches them discipline, responsibility, mental acuity (because 2 or 3 hours concentrating intensely and by yourself is required in competition), emotional control, good eating habits (salt and sugar mess up your eyesight), and provides a role model for responsible gun ownership.

Shooting is an olympic sport as well in various forms. How are junior athletes supposed to compete if they are not allowed to have firearms? I would be much more concerned about the risks of teen driving than teen gun ownership if parents are doing their job.

Again I keep seeing more and more cliches that don’t stand up to the facts.

It couldn’t be more incorrect to say police are supposed to wound not kill. First of all, when in a firefight, adrenaline takes over. This is true for everybody, I don’t care how macho you think you are. Nobody is immune. Time compresses, your vision blurs, sights and sounds are altered, and absolute panic can take over. It can be extremely confusing. The only thing that enables someone to function in a situation like this is training. Quite frankly if you don’t train regularly with your weapon, it probably won’t do you much good anyway.

Not only are cops NOT trained to wound when they need to use their guns, they are trained to kill. They are taught to fire at the center mass, which is easiest to hit and the most likely to cause immediate blood loss. Pain can be psychologically overpowering for some, but it will not stop a determined assailant, one who has been shot before, or someone out of their mind for whatever reason. The threat can only stopped through an instant and dramatic drop in blood pressure, i.e. passing out, and to do that it requires a fatal wound to the chest or head.

Anyone who has read my posts here knows I am no fan of the police, whom I consider generally violent and racist, but even so, if we as citizens are asking them to put their lives on the line, we can’t expect them to defy the laws of physics or behave in ways that make no sense for the physiological stress of a firefight.

***Scott – Okay, now we’re getting somewhere. Next time I see on the news that a suspect ran from the police stating “he was scared,” I guess I will have to take the suspects word, especially since you indicate the police is not suppose to disable, but to shoot in the obvious “RED” zones – center mass.***

Er… ok? I’m sure most people who run from the police run because they are scared. Why else would they run?

***Again, why some men tend to think weight/height matters, is beyond me. Yes, the bigger guy, if he hits you, chances are, he’ll knock you out. But wait, the smaller guy always have more energy and a greater advantage because he’s quicker.***

I’m not going to get into the intricacies of hand to hand self-defence, but even assuming you were right then I would simply flip my original statement and say “smaller than you” instead of “bigger than”. But I know that if a 100 lb girl is going toe to toe with a 220 lb man, I’m betting on the latter coming out on top. Regardless of how quick she is, you have to be huge for muscle to slow you down significantly (or else American football players and Olympic sprinters would all be spindly) and a 100 lb girl simply will not have the strength to grapple with or effectively strike a 220 lb man.

***To say a person is dangerous because he’s big is a little discriminatory, don’t you think?***

I never said big people were dangerous. Big (and I don’t want to get sucked into size specifically here, it could be any kind of physical advantage e.g. speed, strength etc) people have a greater capacity for, amongst other things, using their body to cause harm than people who are less big. All I was saying was that there is nothing cowardly in using tools to give yourself an advantage when attacked. Even if a 220 lb man attacked you and you are 230 lb, it’s not cowardly to use a tool to make (saving) your life easier. And it’s especially not cowardly if your attacker has a physical advantage over you.

***Again, if you have to use deadly force every time you make a ‘judge-by-the-coverbook’ then maybe you need to move to isolated areas away from the general public.***

Who said anything liket that? You’re making silly straw man leaps from “the weak are not cowardly for using tools to save themselves from the strong” to “big people are all dangerous and should be shot on sight,” which is obviously not even remotely what I was saying.

***Scott, btw, what happens when you have all these officers and the suspect doesn’t have a gun?***

Clearly 9,999 times out of 10,000: Not much. That other 1 in 10,000 times, yes, a person gets killed needlessly. Sure. Reverse the situation: cops never have guns. A handful of lives are saved from fewer accidental cop shootings, but many many more would die (not to mention loss of property, quality of life, injury etc) from the imbalance of power between law enforcement and criminals.

You could make the same argument about anything. Sometimes people are killed by ambulances. But ambulances save many more people than they kill, so it’s worth keeping paramedics equipped with ambulances.

***Now, a serious question must be answered then, do we (taxpayers) need the police if they are not “To Serve and Protect,” anymore?***

I don’t support tax-funded policing, but that’s entirely off-topic.

***As far as criminals having a low IQ – wrong! Ted Bundy was extremely intelligent. BTK was also not low on the intelligence scale, yet, these were violent criminals. Profiles do not always hit the nail on the head!***

Two individuals do not a population statistic make:

Men are taller than women. This is true. SOME women are taller than SOME men. And SOME men are shorter than SOME women. But ON AVERAGE men are taller than women.

Someone named Scott, Glock something or other, and others hiding behind nicknames have questioned my post concerning the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Why do I call gun advocates ‘fanatics?’ By dictionary definition fanatics exercise ‘irrational zeal,’ I do not believe that right to keep and bear arms is under significant threat unless you are in certain categories of named persons, such as convicted felons, mentally defect or similar, or unless the the weapon is in certain categories such as explosives, body armor, high caliber sniper weapons(?) and the like. It is idiotic in the extreme to see Charlton Heston and other idiots holding aloft a black powder rifle and shouting ‘from my cold dead hands.’ To the best of my knowledge, black powder weapons have not been mentioned as needing to be banned. In short, who cares? Did this modern day Don Quixote have touch with reality, actually know the law? His rights were not threatened ergo irrational idiotic zealotry.

Secondly, someone demonstrated risible ignorance as to the reference about ‘shouting fire in a crowded theater.’ That was not a reference to any Congressional law, but to a statement by a Supreme Court Justice in support of an opinion that rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are not necessarily ‘unrestricted rights.’ Absolutists may claim if it says so in the Good Book it’s the absolute word of whatever, but there is some significant body of law, opinion, essay and rational thought that discusses the principles, mores, and social conventions that impact upon our Constitution, The Bill of Rights and two centuries of law that govern our society. One probably needs more than a 6th grade education to understand that the Founding Fathers were rational men operating in good faith and intended us to use good judgement and informed opinion to make good decisions in regulating our evolving society.

I have bothered to educate myself. I have bothered to serve my country. But I still live within 20 miles of people who burned a cross upon the lawn of someone they didn’t like. I live within 20 miles of the headquarters of a hate group listed on this website. I live within 200 miles of a serial abuser of children, justified by some idiosyncratic interpretation of biblical privilege.

In my jurisdiction, you have the right to keep and bear arms, for hunting and for personal defense. In most other jurisdictions you have the right to bear and keep arms. To my knowledge, no federal agency is attempting to take away that right. If you insist otherwise, you are irrational, and have an ulterior motive, and I will resist you with every breath in my body. You may deny it, but you continue to be aligned with right wing, militia, christian militia hate groups and I have no use for you, or any others who would deny the rule of law or the general conventions of the society you must unfortunately live within.

I accept the 2nd Amendment but in its totality. It applies to me as well, a point you often forget. If you threaten or seek to intimidate me with your “gun” or “cowboy six-shooter” I will use the judgement which the Constitution refers to, the good judgement of reasonable men. That means I do not have to stand here and take it. I’m probably a better marksmen than you, as were the Minutemen. If you wish to hunt, go ahead. If you seek to intimidate or threaten, get back into the deep woods and stay there.

You should also understand that I sign my name in full for the same reason John Hancock signed his, large and proud. I do not hide behind pseudonyms or cutesy ‘gun’ acronyms. Or behind masks and robes. Unfortunately, gun nuts and militia ‘soldiers’ do not feel the same willingness to stand up to the rightness of the so-called “opinion.”

I realize that I didn’t express an important point on this issue. If there was a legal — and by this I mean Constitutional — way to strip the guns out of the hands of what to my mind at least are obviously dangerous right wing fringe groups, I guarantee you I would pursue it. But I don’t see how it can be done unless these groups can consistently be shown to be scoffing at the law by their mere presence, such as with anti-gang laws. Rhetoric and hate speech is strongly indicative of criminality, but doesn’t prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

So I believe the best way to deal with these fringe groups, who by the way are an insult to the Constitution and our national values as a whole, is to watch over them like hawks, document each and every infraction or event, and vigorously pursue all legal channels to disband them whenever possible.

I hope this isn’t interpreted as a condemnation of free speech. Racists have the right to assemble peaceably, but they do not have the right to incite violence or disregard for our nation’s laws and order. Civil disobediance is an acceptable tool for social change, but armed civil disobedience can become indistinguishable from a simple affront to the democratic rule of law. Government by consent means consent of the majority, not consent only when you get your way.

Scott & Beholder,

That’s what causes police/sheriff departments to come under Federal Court Decrees, shoot to kill mentality.

As far as weight, again, please don’t underestimate every woman. Just because a man weighs more, doesn’t mean a small woman can’t take him down if she uses/hits the right pressure points.

Now again, with this shoot to kill mentality. It was a smaller guy who knocked out Suge Knight! The prisoner that caused the rauckus in Georgia was calmed down by a woman! The Nightstalker – Richard Ramirez was captured and suffered a little neighborhood/street justice from the good ol’ citizens from East Los Angeles! No, most of these instances didn’t have weapons, yet, they didn’t need to use a gun/firearm to take down, obviously, dangerous people.

Again, it’s about people. Knowing how to deal with people. Knowing when to use a gun – is the person intoxicated, mentally challenged…..is the person armed! But then again, how many shots….and to say that you automatically kill – there goes the argument about rights – this person didn’t have a right to a speedy trial – yet, the cop had to right to be judge, jury, and executioner who will face a trial.

With the shoot to kill mentality, you alienate the community you’re supposed to serve. The public lose trust/faith in you. Too many shootings and you are under scrutiny from the federal government. My argument is you can’t treat every incident the same. Ted Kaczynsky was profiled as a young white male, the DC Sniper was profiled the same – again, as I stated, ‘profiling does not ALWAYS work.’

***Someone named Scott, Glock something or other, and others hiding behind nicknames***

Er, Scott IS my real name. If you click on my name on the left there you can see my surname also. In any case, how is using an internet pseudonym ‘hiding’? It’s almost universal convention and has precisely nothing to do with the validity of one’s arguments; a man with a pseudonym isn’t wrong when he says the sky is blue. Using your real name on the internet is hardly anything to brag about.

***Why do I call gun advocates ‘fanatics?’ By dictionary definition fanatics exercise ‘irrational zeal,’ I do not believe that right to keep and bear arms is under significant threat***

In my country many types of guns are impossible to obtain, and all types of guns are extremely difficult to obtain, costly and severely restricted to the point where self-defence is almost impossible and hunting and target shooting are so unpopular that even if you do want to take up either, it is very difficult (lack of ranges etc, not to mention the legal problems) and expensive. Guns in my country are not only under threat from further restriction, they are virtually prohibited as it is.

***unless you are in certain categories of named persons, such as convicted felons, mentally defect or similar, or unless the the weapon is in certain categories such as explosives, body armor, high caliber sniper weapons(?)***

Felons and mental defectives are banned from possessing firearms under Federal law. Explosives are Federally regulated and very difficult to obtain. Body armour is not restricted as far as I am aware, and I can’t say I’ve heard any significant calls for restrictions on it. But body armour is not a firearm… I’m not sure what a high-caliber sniper rifle is. Could you define that?

***It is idiotic in the extreme to see Charlton Heston and other idiots holding aloft a black powder rifle and shouting ‘from my cold dead hands.’ To the best of my knowledge, black powder weapons have not been mentioned as needing to be banned. In short, who cares? Did this modern day Don Quixote have touch with reality, actually know the law?***

The rifle that Charlton Heston held had just been presented to him as a gift. He can hardly be blamed for which gun he got! Besides, you’re taking him too literally. He was holding a gun, the specific gun isn’t relevant. The exact phrase isn’t even very relevant. Would Heston really rather die than give up that gun? Maybe, maybe not, it doesn’t matter. He was just expressing a determination to protect gun ownership in a poetic way.

***His rights were not threatened ergo irrational idiotic zealotry.***

Heston was speaking at the NRA convention is 2000. Six years previously Congress had passed the so-called assault weapons ban. Four years previously, in 1996, and one year later, in 2001, President Clinton issued executive orders to restrict certain kinds of firearms from being imported, and ban others.

The administration was also using the threat of lawsuits to force Smith & Wesson to alter their gun designs and business practices.

Clinton was pushing vocally at this time for further restriction on firearms, this being a year after the Columbine massacre.

Specifically though, Heston was trying to garner opposition to Al Gore’s presidential run which was starting at that time, and/or to dissuade Gore from following through on his anti-gun policies, should he be elected. The expanded quote is “I want to say those five words… especially for you Mr. Gore. So… From my cold dead hands.”

Gore was on the record as supporting the licensing of all handguns, mandatory trigger locks on all guns, ‘gun free zones’ around all schools, banning guns from places of worship, a three-day waiting period on all gun purchases, a one-gun-per-month limit on purchases, raising the legal age for handgun purchases from 18 to 21, keeping the ‘assault weapons’ ban in place, banning low-cost guns, requiring guns to incorporate so-called ‘smart gun’ technology (which doesn’t exist yet), and essentially banning private gun sales (requiring private gun sales to do the same background checks that gun sales in shops require, which would be impossible for private sellers to do).

It’s not even just what Gore publicly wanted. As the comments on this page have shown, Heston’s fears, and those of most gun owners are well justified. Gore is certainly not alone, but many have even more extreme views, wanting even more restrictive and illiberal laws such as those in my country. Allan Aardman above, for example, wrote: “there is zero reason why anyone who is not in military, law enforcement or private security should be permitted to own a firearm. ”

So no, not irrational.

***Secondly, someone demonstrated risible ignorance as to the reference about ’shouting fire in a crowded theater.’ That was not a reference to any Congressional law, but to a statement by a Supreme Court Justice in support of an opinion that rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are not necessarily ‘unrestricted rights.’***

None the less, the illegality of shouting fire in a crowded theatre is nothing to do with the Constitution. It was illegal before the Constitution was even written and the Constitution never changed that because it (or rather, the first amendment) only restricts the making of laws by Congress, not the enforcement of existing common law. It was not an accurate metaphor for the case in hand (banning the publishing of anti-war leaflets during WWI).

The Supreme Court ruling you are referring to, from where that quote originates, was overturned in 1969.

***But I still live within 20 miles of people who burned a cross upon the lawn of someone they didn’t like. I live within 20 miles of the headquarters of a hate group listed on this website. I live within 200 miles of a serial abuser of children, justified by some idiosyncratic interpretation of biblical privilege.***

What has any of that got to do with guns?

***In my jurisdiction, you have the right to keep and bear arms, for hunting and for personal defense. In most other jurisdictions you have the right to bear and keep arms. To my knowledge, no federal agency is attempting to take away that right. If you insist otherwise, you are irrational, and have an ulterior motive, and I will resist you with every breath in my body.***

Irrational is not a synonym for wrong. Saying the sky is blue or that drinking spring water is illegal is not irrational, it’s just empirically incorrect.

How do you know anyone has an ulterior motive whenever they say something that’s not true? Maybe they’re just mistaken?

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and the US Postal Inspection Service actively work to enforce Federal gun control laws with regards to possession, manufacture and transfer. US Customs and Border Protection, US Border Patrol, US Coast Guard and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement all actively enforce gun control laws with regards to importation. And many different Federal law enforcement agencies such as the Hoover Dam Police and US Park Police actively enforce gun control laws with regards to possession.

Why we should only be concerned with Federal agencies I do not know. Is a fear only rational if it is of the Federal government? Most gun control laws are State, local and municipal laws. Many sub-Federal jurisdictions have very prohibitive laws such as California, Illinois, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Maryland and New York City.

***You may deny it, but you continue to be aligned with right wing, militia, christian militia hate groups and I have no use for you, or any others who would deny the rule of law or the general conventions of the society you must unfortunately live within.***

Are you saying that anyone who is aligned with a “christian militia hate group” (whatever one of those is) is wrong about everything? I’m going to assume that these christian militia hate groups do not support a ban on breathing air. I’m guessing you don’t support such a ban either. So, since you are aligned with those christian militia hate groups, are you wrong too?

***If you seek to intimidate or threaten, get back into the deep woods and stay there.***

Who is intimidating or threatening anyone?

***You should also understand that I sign my name in full for the same reason John Hancock signed his, large and proud.***

I suppose James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton were cowards then?

So when unable to argue from fact the liberals attack on emotional charge… isn’t that right Snorlax?

SkinnyMinny, I think you may have misunderstood my point. Shooting to kill is not the goal. The goal is to stop the threat. However, when police have to use the level of force requiring firearms, it is an inescapbable conclusion that the only way to stop an armed assailant immediately is through massive loss of blood pressure. So it’s not a shoot to kill mentality, but a stop the threat mentality. Unfortunately, that also means generally fatal injuries to the chest or head for anyone stupid enough to fire on the police. But I don’t see that as summary execution. Police officers enforce the law, but they also have a right to their own physical integrity and self defense. Law enforcement officers have to go before a grand jury like anybody else if there is evidence a crime was committed in the line of duty. But do you really want them to try to put a choke hold on assailant when he’s got a weapon pointed at YOU and obviously prepared to use it?

Glock I’m a liberal and take umbrage at your remark. Snorlax has as much a right to his opinion as you do yours, and getting ugly over it just detracts from anything meaningful you have to say. I mean it is possible to debate an idea without attacking someone’s entire personality just because they disagree with you. By the way Glocks are plastic toys. I like Kimber.

Beholder, you need an education on ballistics.

“The AK-47 round fires a 7.62mm round, which is not designed foremost to kill. The round has less hydrostatic shock than other projectiles, and was designed to tumble.”

This is nonsense. Projectiles are not designed to “tumble,” such design would ruin any accuracy. Projectiles do “tumble” under the right conditions, but they are NOT designed to do so.
This myth goes back to the silly myth about the 5.56mm M16 round.

The 7.62x39mm round is plenty capable of killing human targets within its effective range.

“To be quite blunt, the semi-auto AK47 has little use for hunting or for self defense, and I don’t know why anyone would want one.”

Utter rubbish. The SKS and AK series of rifles are used by tens of thousands of deer hunters every season. You obviously know nothing about hunting.

” At close range a relatively harmless looking .38 Special revolver is probably more lethal than many “assault rifles” (which is why police used to carry them).”

You’re really off the deepend here. This is ballistically ridiculous.
The .38 went away because it was UNDER powered. Most police organizations went to .40S&W, 357SIG and .45 AUTO calibers.
I’ll take the AK over a .38 any day of the week.

Please do some homework before posting this garbage.
Idiot anti-gun wackjobs on the left have no idea that this is all BS.

Beholder,

I agree with you wholeheartedly with your comments @1634hrs. Yet, when you look at some of these militia groups, how can you tell – some have infiltrated various levels of jobs in this country.

I guess we all have different ways of handling disagreements. Actually, that’s law – to be interpreted. I was just making a point about overzealous, and a few other words to describe SOME officers. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have a problem with officers nor am I a lover of criminals. I was just making a point that some do go overboard – example, the 5-year-old black child in Florida, 3 sheriff’s deputies handcuffed and placed her in a car for acting out in school. Now, I am aware there a laws that prevent school officials from certain types of discipline – but come on, 3 deputies! Imagine the percerption this child, and her family will have on law enforcement over the long term. So, again, the point I was making is, it’s about people.

Glock G20 10mm said, “So when unable to argue from fact the liberals attack on emotional charge… isn’t that right Snorlax?”

At least we don’t just go shoot up the place, like you psycho Reich Wingnuts do all the time.

Stop talking to me. I have a freedom to not associate with psychotic criminal nutcases like you.

Don’t go away mad, Glock. Just go away.

“Glock G20 10mm said, “So when unable to argue from fact the liberals attack on emotional charge… isn’t that right Snorlax?”

At least we don’t just go shoot up the place, like you psycho Reich Wingnuts do all the time.

Stop talking to me. I have a freedom to not associate with psychotic criminal nutcases like you.

Don’t go away mad, Glock. Just go away.”

I like how your response to being accused of emotional, ad hominen attacks is to… make more of them. And throw in a bit of libel while you’re at it. Then give up and stomp off in a huff at having nothing more to argue, having been utterly trounced.

As usual, the adults have enumerated the main points of the 2nd Amendment gun rights issue based on fact, citation of appllcable sources and logic. The kids are now practicing their playground tactics, did so, did not, my gun is bigger than your gun. The headline had it right “…march against phantom threat.” Hunting and personal defense weapons are legal in most jurisdictions, if you advocate for more than that, I suspect your motives, particularly when you ally with known criminal elements or advocates of violence or revolution.

I am not sure what ballistics has to do with the 2nd Amendment, but I am sure some child will look it up in their well-thumbed Guns and Ammo magazine and let us know.

Joe you’re getting carried away. Bring an AK to close quarters at your own risk. I didn’t say you could NOT hunt with an SKS, merely that to do so is stupid and cruel. You think a 7.62 is a hunting round? That’s ridiculous. That embarasses me as a responsible gun owner, because it’s exactly the kind of mentality people are talking about here. The round should go to the heart and stop there, not carve a 16 inch loop and go out the other side so you can feel like Rambo as you chase the buck though the bush while it survives. I suppose you would go fishing with a hand grenade if they let you.

And Stephen, look, no need to get sore if this discussion is over your head. Firearms are truly not all the same thing, and there is merit to understanding their differences from a policy perspective. That was exactly my point about Clinton’s asinine gun ban — it shows that a lot of people on the left have their minds all made up without really knowing what they’re talking about. If you don’t want these Guns & Ammo survivalist clowns to lose respect for you because you’re being naive, you ought to at least have some understanding of what we’re discussing and why it matters.

Scott and Glock 1
Snorlax 0

“Stop talking to me. I have a freedom to not associate with psychotic criminal nutcases like you.”

Amusing, he chooses to argue on a public forum then, when losing, all of a sudden, somehow, his right of association is being violated?

Come on Snorlax, RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION?

Lefties like you HATE that right and try to destroy it at every turn.
Claiming your right of association is ridiculous and just adds more proof that your reasoning is faulty.

If you wish to be left alone might we suggest you refrain from engaging in public debate?

Beholder Your first paragraph made sense.

But your 2nd paragraph shot yourself in the foot. I will take your bait (but I’m almost ashamed to) and tell you I am retired military, expert in several military weapons, and can assure you I did not get my knowledge of firearms from Guns & Ammo nor my understanding of public policy from NRA or KKK handouts. And I really don’t care if “survivalist clowns” respect me or not, I just want them to crawl back into the swamp and stay there.

I have stated that hunting and personal defense weapons are legal in most juridictions, and have no problem with that. It is my belief that labeling the efforts of some to control assault weapons, Saturday night specials, machine guns and pistols as “asinine’ or ‘leftist’ is merely an attempt to divert attention from the fact that those weapons are used for illegitimate purposes such as intimidation, terroristic threatening, armed robbery, drive-by shootings. If you defend those activities you are suspect in my eyes and I will watch you until you crawl back into the swamp with your friends or associates.

When I say you I mean those who do such things, not you necessarily. But it might help you and other advocates to look up something called the “Arkansas Doctrine,” which helped define weapons control policy for many years, in many jurisdictions outside the state. It involved a sword cane. That is why I stated not sure what ballistics had to do with the 2nd Amendment/gun rights. I suspect that type of debate has more to do with testosterone than with rational discussion.

I apologize for allowing myself to “take the bait” but perhaps we may both reach a greater understanding.

What? No mention of the Restore the Constitution rally to be held the same day, 4-19-2010? The Restore the Constitution rally will be held at Ft. Hunt National Park and Gravelly Point park in VA along the Potomac. The date is chosen to commemorate the anniversary of the American Revolutionary War, and the location(s) are chosen because the mission of the Restore the Constitution rally has been that it be held at a firearms carry legal location as close to DC as possible.

-Dan Almond, event organizer, ^[6]

***Joe you’re getting carried away. Bring an AK to close quarters at your own risk. I didn’t say you could NOT hunt with an SKS, merely that to do so is stupid and cruel. You think a 7.62 is a hunting round? That’s ridiculous. That embarasses me as a responsible gun owner, because it’s exactly the kind of mentality people are talking about here. The round should go to the heart and stop there, not carve a 16 inch loop and go out the other side so you can feel like Rambo as you chase the buck though the bush while it survives.***

AK-clones and SKSes are generally chambered for 7.62x39mm Russian.

This is available in hunting loads such as:

^[7]

And in rifles specifically designed for hunting such as:

^[8]

And:

^[9]

The latter being a hunting version of the AK type rifle itself, merely cosmetically different.

One of, if not the, most common hunting round in the United States is the .30-30 Winchester. The .30-30 and the 7.62x39mm have extremely similar ballistics. Both commonly fire a 150 grain projectile. With this bullet weight the two rounds have the following velocities:

At the muzzle:

7.62×39: 2200fps
.30-30: 2390fps

At 100 yards:

7.62×39: 1977fps
.30-30: 2018fps

At 200 yards:

7.62×39: 1769fps
.30-30: 1605fps

7.62x39mm is a perfectly good round for hunting. All else being equal it is not significantly more or less humane than .30-30.

Furthermore, the appropriateness of an AK or SKS type rifle for hunting need not depend on the 7.62x39mm round. AK types in particular are available in cartridges other than 7.62x39mm such as .223 Remington/5.56x45mm, .308 Winchester/7.62x51mm and 5.45x39mm Russian – the first two being very common hunting rounds, available in specific hunting loads and have rifles specifically designed for hunting chambered in them. The latter is less common but still suitable for hunting and roughly comparable to the 5.56mm.

Even if the 7.62x39mm were unsuitable for hunting, which it is not, one could simply use an AK type rifle chambered for some other round like .223 Remington.

***I have stated that hunting and personal defense weapons are legal in most juridictions, and have no problem with that. It is my belief that labeling the efforts of some to control assault weapons, Saturday night specials, machine guns and pistols as “asinine’ or ‘leftist’ is merely an attempt to divert attention from the fact that those weapons are used for illegitimate purposes***

You say you have no problem with hunting and self defence weapons being legal, yet you seem to support bans on so-called assault weapons and Saturday night specials. Tell me, what is the definition of these?

I can think of no coherent definition of an assault weapon that is not merely superficial, based on cosmetics, and/or that does not include perfectly legitimate hunting and self-defence weapons.

The definition of Saturday night specials would seem to be the rather subjective “low-cost pistol” definition. Which implies that only the lives of the wealthy are worth protecting and that the less well of have no right to protection. Low cost cars can also be used in crime, should they too be banned and poor people made to walk everywhere? How low cost does a pistol/car have to be for it to need banning? As technology improves and guns become cheaper to produce, will designs that used to lie outside the definition be brought into it and, eventually, all guns become illegal on the basis of being too affordable?

***such as intimidation, terroristic threatening, armed robbery, drive-by shootings. If you defend those activities you are suspect in my eyes and I will watch you until you crawl back into the swamp with your friends or associates.***

Who is defending such things?

Great post Scott!
I didn’t have the time for such detail.

Beholder’s posts just keep proving they know nothing about ballistics or firearms or hunting.

This one is a gem.
“The round should go to the heart and stop there, not carve a 16 inch loop and go out the other side so you can feel like Rambo as you chase the buck though the bush while it survives.”

I WOULD love to see proof of a typical hunting round leaving a 16″ “loop” exit wound.

And this:
“Joe you’re getting carried away. Bring an AK to close quarters at your own risk.”

Look Beholder, I spent 10 years in the service, three in combat areas, have spent my whole adult life hunting and reloading and collecting firearms. I have trained in urban and close quarters combat with assault rifles. I have competed in pistol and rifle matches for years and have won several. I have killed enemy soldiers in combat and killed an armed attacker in a self-defense scenario in Georgia.

I know of what I speak from practical experience.

If you bring a pistol against an AK you are going to DIE if the person handling that AK knows what he’s doing.
In the U.S. about 80 percent of all people shot with a pistol survive, even multiple rounds. Not so for rifles.
The energy delivered by the 7.62×39 round is much higher than any pistol you will be carrying. I will also have the advantage of 20 or 30 rounds without reloading and the ability to shoot you through walls, car doors and windshield glass.

Pistols are underpowered, they give up power to be small and concealable.
They are not invincible and aren’t particularly lethal compared to other arms.
It ain’t like the movies where you shoot someone with a pistol and they go flying and die immediately.

A competent knife fighter at close quarters would scare me a lot more than you with your pea shooter.

Quit kidding yourself, everything you are spouting here is misinformation. Your statements about hunting show us your hunting and firearms knowledge is gained through hearsay and not practical experience.

If you truly wish to be a “responsible firearm owner,” (whatever that means, these words sure do not seem to have a concrete definition) please quit posting myths, exaggerations and outright ballistic, firearms and hunting ignorance.

Joe succeeded in changing my mind. AK-47s should be banned and probably stricter gun controls are the only way to keep nuts like this from getting them.

Snorlax, what evidence do you have that this ‘armed mob’ is a bunch of nazis and klansmen?

SKinnyminny, the last time I checked, a majority of democrats voted for the Patriot Act and the War. Now that the dems are in power why haven’t they even made an effort to end the war and repeal the PA?

The statement that there is no valid hunting purpose for an AK-47 is incorrect. Those who live and hunt in the south have the opportunity to hunt wild boar. This game is one of the few North American game animals that may decide to hunt you. The best weapon for wild boar is a .30 caliber rifle, semi-automatic, large capacity, with iron sights. The AK-47 semiauto clone does all of this for the least expense. An AR-15 costs three times as much and usually is chambered for .223 ammo which is too light for a charging boar. The statement that it has no self defense purpose is also incorrect. If a person needs to defend themselves while outdoors a rifle has a huge advantage in accuracy, power, penetration and bullet size over handguns. Regarding crime, all rifles combined account for less than two percent of gun crimes. E. Zach Lee-Wright.

For Beholder and Snorlaxative, here is a short IQ test:
#1 Water does not conduct electricity (T or F).
#2 Gasoline is not flamable (T or F).
#3 The minimum age to lawfully purchase a handgun in most states of the US is 18 (T or F).
Got your answers marked? In ink I hope. Well here are the answers: All three test questions are true. So, how did you do?? Signed, E. Zach Lee-Wright

Mr. Lee-Wright, your answers while cute are mostly opinion and totally unresponsive to the original headline, or does anyone remember this started over gun advocates marching against a phantom threat.

Few hunters I know would make an AK their first choice even for boar. Drug dealers, illegal militia groups and gang members however buy them in quantity, and as a previous poster pointed out they are really good at shooting through windshields and plasterboard walls. They are also really good noisemakers if you want to burn ammo with a banana clip while playing Rambo, but most deer spook before then, don’t they?

Perhaps (but I’m sure you will correct me) a reason rifles account for a small percentage of crimes is that most engagements apparently take place at 21 feet or less. At that distance, most reasonably well-trained individuals would likely find a handgun more practical, unless fired upon from ambush or drive-by. Also easier to conceal when you walk into the 7-11, etc. If you are important enough to be threatened with assassination at your local Wal-Mart or some other place outdoors, by all means you should move to a state where it is legal and carry the weapon you feel appropriate to fire back at your attackers.
Most of us probably won’t need to do that, even for home defense.

It’s a phantom threat against most firearms and against most gun-owners.

Mr. Manning, in your comment you said you are sure I will correct your beliefs about the reasons rifles account for less than two percent of gun crimes. You then proceed to list some very good reasons for rifles being a minor part of American crime. The only thing I would disagree with is the idea that a person has to be important to be attacked outdoors. Run of the mill folks get shot from time to time and deserve the same opportunities of self protection that “important” people get.

I do wonder about your term “illegal militias”. I am not aware of any of these. What defines a militia as illegal?
If a militia member breaks a law, even an extremly serious law that would not make the militia illegal. It would take a violation of a law against being a militia to be an illegal militia. Do we have such laws?

You say my comments are opinion and not fact. The three IQ test items are absolute fact and are not opinion in any way. The usefulness of a AL-47 type weapon for hunting wild boar is fact and informed opinion therefore is both.

You are absolutly correct that my posts are off of the original topic. Shoot me. Another off topic question is why does the sponsor (SPLC) say that HATEWATCH exists to “keep an eye on the radical right” at the top of this page? Why would they choose to ignore the radical left?? I know of two bombings done by right wing radicals in the US in the past 50 years. I can name dozens that have been done by radical left wing hate groups. Bill Ayers, anyone?

Your turn Stephen.

Signed E. Zach Lee-Wright!

You are right, the term ‘illegal militias” is problematic but you do realize I hope it doesn’t mean battle reenacters. The people I deal with have no problem with the term, and use it to mean an armed group whose stated aim would be illegal if put into practice, ;i.e. overthrow of the government, killing of police, genocide, terroristic threatening, cross-burnings, etc. But semantically you are correct.

Yes, run of the mill folk get shot from time to time but most don’t and automatic weapons probably wouldn’t stop those attacks anyway.

Stringing together random facts (?) is an excellent diversionary propaganda technique but does little to advance the discussion towards any resolution.

In short, you’re boring me, son.

Bored eh?
Please just answer one last question. Why does SPLC choose NOT to keep and eye on the radical left as well as the radical right?? They certainly are as dangerous or more so.

By the way, to fight boredom you might try sounding out my complete name.

Signed….. E. Zach Lee-Wright

Told you. (;- >)

How in Gods name do you justify describing Oathkeepers as an anti-government group?The members only vow to follow The Constitution,the guiding legal document of the government,our government.Of the PEOPLE,by the PEOPLE,for the PEOPLE.All of us.Hardly classifies as anti-government,does it?