Qualifies for free shipping from Amazon.
Posted on 12/14/2007 5:07:40 PM PST by holymoly
I asked this question last week of the candidates for President now campaigning in Iowa, and I think that for most of the American people [pdf] the answer is clearly “no.”
In the last ten days, two states in the heart of the country have sustained mass shootings by people armed with military-style assault rifles – two attacks with assault weapons in less than a week. One shooter attacked a mall full of employees and Christmas shoppers in Omaha. The other attacked a church in Colorado.
Together, they left twelve people dead.
Yet today assault weapons remain perfectly legal to buy in gun stores and gun shows across the country, in unlimited quantities. Perhaps even more shocking, the type of bullet many assault weapons fire (7.62mm full metal jacket) can penetrate four categories of police body armor [pdf]. There is no legitimate reason the public should have this kind of access to military-style assault weapons.
It’s also frustrating that when a UPS employee raised concerns on September 13 about the “multiple boxes” of ammunition the Colorado shooter had delivered to his postal box, police officers said there was nothing illegal. No limits on the number of guns; no limits on ammunition; very minimal limits on the type of guns – no wonder we have problems.
Since the terrible shootings last week, leading newspapers are joining the call. Here is a sample of what they’re saying.
The New York Times: “Until recently, the nation did have a law designed to protect the public from assault rifles and other high-tech infantry weapons. In 1994, enough politicians felt the public’s fear to respond with a 10-year ban on assault-weapons that was not perfect but dented the free-marketeering of Rambo mayhem. Most Americans rejected the gun lobby’s absurd claim that assault rifles are “sporting” weapons. But when it came up for renewal in 2004, President Bush and Congress caved to the gun lobby and allowed the law to lapse.”
The Philadelphia Inquirer: “The troubled 19-year-old in Omaha used his stepfather’s AK-47-type assault weapon to unleash 30 rounds of gunfire on innocent victims, and then killed himself. Who needs a gun like that around the house?”
The Washington Post: “The AK-47 assault rifle that an Omaha teenager pilfered from his stepfather was among the guns outlawed under the ban on assault weapons that Congress and President Bush unwisely allowed to lapse. Why that kind of gun should be so easily available to someone as troubled as that 19-year-old is unfathomable. Eight people shopping or working at a mall died as a result.”
To protect ourselves and our police [pdf], these weapons of war should be kept out of the hands of civilians.
I have (attempted) to post a response there. Whether the moderators will allow it remains to be seen. It was difficult to formulate a response, without referring to Helmke as a loathsome, reprehensible, despicable, dishonest sack of human excrement. But I managed. Somehow.
Here's my (attempted) response:
The firearms available to U.S. civilians are not "the types of guns we use in Iraq".
The firearms sold in the U.S., such as the AR-15, are semi-automatic ONLY. That means, when you pull the trigger, they fire one round (bullet) and one round ONLY.
The weapons used by our military are selective-fire. This means they are capable of BOTH semi-automatic AND fully-automatic fire.
Automatic weapons have been strictly regulated in the United States since passage of the National Firarms Act of 1934.
One does not simply walk into a gun store, and purchase an automatic weapon, as the dishonest Mr. Helmke would like you to believe.
Helmke states:
"...two states in the heart of the country have sustained mass shootings by people armed with by people armed with military-style assault rifles..."
Assault rifles, by definition, are selective-fire. ("Assault rifle" comes from the German "Sturmgewehr". The term, and it's defintion, are derived from the first "assault rifle", the "Sturmgewehr 44".)
The firearms used in the most recent attacks were semi-automatic only. They are not "assault rifles". Referring to semi-automatic rifles as "assault rifles" demonstrates a noted lack of veracity.
Helmke further states:
"...the type of bullet many assault weapons fire (7.62mm full metal jacket) can penetrate four categories of police body armor..."
The same is true of ALL center-fire rifle ammunition.
All classes of body armor are rated to stop certain calibers of ammuntion.
Class III & Class IV body armors are rated to stop rifle rounds (.308 Winchester & .30-06, respectively).
The other classes ("I" through "III-A") do NOT stop rifle rounds. These classes of body armor are not INTENDED to stop rifle rounds. They are rated to stop certain calibers of hand-gun ammunition, only.
Banning ammunition capable of penetrating certain classes of soft-body armor would mean a ban on ALL rifle ammunition.
If this is Mr. Helmkes' goal, I wish he would state it openly, and honestly, and without the hyperbole and misinformation.
Heck, yes! I wanna M-242 for my SUV. Hooah!
The Brady bunch is doing their blood dance right on cue.
The Mall was a GUN FREE zone, no concealed Carry even with a permit, and a massacre happened. The church shooting was stopped because a good lady was armed.
Yes, the public does get those. You of course are not the public. You are a private citizen.
Heck, yes!!
If I could have the M-16A2 I used in the Army, I would be a happy camper!!
Uh..only to look at, of course!
Actually, the question should be revered: should American citizens be allowed to have the same weapons Iraq citizens have tradionally been “allowed” to have (even during Hussien times) and have today. Iraq has long been known for each and every household having a weapon (usually, a gun).
Juz wondering...
Good thing she doesn’t mention my 4 shot BAR 300 winmag
I want a PPSh-41. I've got a ton of 7.62x25 I bought for my Tokarev, and it's taking much too long to shoot it all up.
;o)
“The Mall was a GUN FREE zone..”
Is that a correct statement?
Qualifies for free shipping from Amazon.
For people that respect others,yes.
Yep, a couple of VN era Stoners (Stoner 63, MK 23 Mod 0) would look good in my gun case. ;-)
Yeah, What you said!
Perfect Response!
Moles in the backyard, that's why...
YES, YES, YES. Nowhere in the Constitution does it put a limit on the types of Arms I can have. America is free because of wealthy men who stored up all sorts of weapons that would make a lieberal or a RINO pee their pants.
Unadulterated manure.
Usually a rifle, a Russian AK-47. Iraq was a Russian client state for quite a while.
Spooky bump.....
“Helmke attended Yale at the same time that former President Bill Clinton and Senator Hillary Clinton [sic] and was an acquaintance of each.” Per Wikipedia.
Yet again these newspapers ask the wrong questions. You don’t need an AK-47 to go hunting or to protect your house. But you do need one to protect yourself from your government. When people CAN own AK-47s and the like, the government will be nice and pacified. When that right is taken away we will see more Ruby Ridges and Wacos.
The government that fears that its people could get ticked off and decide to violently overthrow the government (perhaps with heads on pikes) is a government that is going to tread lightly. A government that doesn’t fear that can do anything it wants.
This question has a simple answer; which is based upon the very reason that We The People have been endowed by God with the individual Right To keep and Bear Arms.
The Public should have ready access to the use of the same level and quality of Firearms that the various Agencies of the Federal and State Governments have potential contingencies and intent for use against said individual members of the Public.
You must be mistaken. That cant be right. The killer took a gun in the mall and murdered 8 people. Everyone knows murderers will not violate gun free zone laws, otherwise those gun laws would be pointless dribble.
I was in Nam, (not a grunt) what are the Stoner 63 & MK 23?
Loved shooting the M203, over-under!!
What’s the range on that rifle? If you are within four miles of town you could hole about forty buildings with one shot if you miss the gopher.
The concept is known as a balance of power.
You stole my thunder, and are correct but left some thing out...the Constitution says that we have the right to keep and bear arms...it does not say however, how many or what type of arms...the purpose of which was in the event the “guvmint” needed an attitude adjustment
Now there's a name I haven't heard in a while...
Makes me think of Hellarys back side...((((full body twitch))))
I think it’s about 2000 meters. I don’t actually live close to town but I could sure trash a couple of my neighbor’s houses all right...if I got the elevation juuuuust right... ;-)
What is interesting is when the Brady Campaign was still doing business as Hangun Control Inc.(1981), they put out a statement that they had no interest in controling long guns, only handguns.
At that time you could get new full auto registered firearms, imported AK-47s and a whole slew of semi-auto military style rifles not abailable today.
Check out Wikipedia under Stoner.
You have my nomination for the most informative homepage of any current or past FReeper.........Nice job!
I’ve bookkmarked it for future references...........
Ah, and therein lies the answer. We obviously need the use of the same caliber of weapon that our "guvmint" plans to use against us. The Right would otherwise be meaningless...
Wonder if I could get a fully loaded Abrams ???
Sure would clear the traffic outta the way...= )
Oooooh - dot's nice.
And, parked in your driveway, it would keep the neighbors quiet! ;-)
Hell yes! That would be nice. But unfortunately we can't, so the question is a dishonest one meant to take advantage of public stupidity and the stupidity of some presidential candidates (whose answer to the question is a good indication of what they know about anything at all.
In Sweden(?) everyone has a Military automatic "assault" weapon in their closet issued them by the government. Yet you don't see anyone getting shot up with them. Proof that guns don't kill people, criminals kill people, and the criminals in that country aren't issued that military assault rifle.
The guns used in these latest shootings were not "military assault rifles", so again the author is dishonest and misleading his readers. He again misleads his readership by suggesting these special "military assault rifles" shoot special bullets that are available to the public which can penetrate bullet proof vests. Again, if this dishonest person had any intention of being truthful he would have researched this at least a wee little bit, and found out that the bullets used by the Millitary are full metal jacketed bullets in accordance with UN rules of war. The reasoning behind this is so the bullet causes less damage to internal organs because it does not expand, "mushroom" like a regular hunting bullet, therefore increasing the chances the enemy combatant will survive being shot. He will be out of action, hurt, perhaps (hopefully) be sidelined for the duration of the conflict, but live on to tell stories about it.
These bullets are not available to the public.
Yep, good post #1. You should see the looks I get from leftists and other hoplophobes when I explain that an assault rifle is not a “high power” rifle. It is better described as a “mid power” rifle designed more for close quarter battle.
jw
Don’t look like he need a Viagra, huh?
We had lower crime rates when you could order anti tank weapons, anti aircraft weapons, and ammunition through the mail, than you had after the 1968 gun law preventing most citizens from obtaining them easily was passed.
The Brady bunch lies, and because of the complicity and ignorance of the drive-by media, they get away with it.
That's quite a compliment. Thanks.
Now, if I could only get the MSM to visit it, and educate themselves... Lol.
I've shot hundreds of those things over the past 15 years, but they just keep popping up. They must have a direct tunnel from China or somewhere.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.