Posted on 01/02/2013 3:29:20 PM PST by neverdem
Politician after politician have joined the television talking heads in calling for a new “assault weapons ban” patterned after the ten-year Clinton ban that was allowed to lapse in 2004 after Justice Department and private studies concluded it had no impact whatsoever on murder and violent crime rates and had become a symbol of wrong-headed governmental attempts to restrict firearms ownership in this country.
California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein has called for reinstituting the old Clinton ban to outlaw the sale, transfer and possession of such guns in the future while grandfathering those already in the hands of private parties. Others, like New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, have gone so far as to suggest “confiscation” or forced “buy back” programs “to get these weapons off the street.” In the last week dozens of commentators, reporters and politicians have said they support the 2nd Amendment, but would support an “assault weapons” ban because such weapons aren’t used for hunting and have no purpose other than to kill people.
While such suggestions reflect a simple minded and narrow understanding of why the founders included the Second Amendment in our Bill of Rights, they also suggest that those making them neither understand the nature of the firearms they would ban, their popularity or legitimate uses.
Those who would ban what they like to call assault weapons like to portray them as automatic weapons designed for use on the battlefield simply because they look cosmetically like their military counterparts. In fact, they are semi-automatic firearms that are designed and built not for the military, but for the civilian market and function differently than their military counterparts. Were our soldiers outfitted with ARs, they would be at the mercy of every army in the world.
The more than three million Americans who currently own AR-15s must wonder if any of these people know what they’re talking about. These guns are not cheap, but they have been the best-selling long arm in this country for some years. Those three million people didn’t buy have purchased them just to look at or because they are planning to use them to kill their fellow citizens.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation has surveyed the purchasers of AR-15s. The AR-15 is the most commonly used rifle for marksmanship training and competition. Nearly 90% of those who own an AR-15 use it for recreational target shooting; 51% of AR owners are members of shooting clubs and visit the range regularly. The typical AR owner is not a crazed teenage psychopath, but a 35+ year old, married and has some college education.
The popularity of the AR can be traced in part to the fact that it is a semi-automatic version of the rifle used by the men and women of the military. Nearly half of AR owners are veterans, law enforcement officers, or both. It is a configuration they are familiar with and enjoy shooting. My daughter, for example, served two tours in Iraq, one in Afghanistan, and only owns one gun — an AR.
AR 15s are good for hunting. Some buy an AR for home defense and about six percent of buyers are either collectors or varmint hunters. The standard AR is illegal in most states for deer and big game hunting because it is not considered powerful enough to reliably put down deer-sized or larger game, but is used for coyote, wolf and feral pig hunting in many states.
So the evidence tells us that although Sen. Feinstein and her friends may not know it, millions of Americans buy these guns because they like to shoot them and use them lawfully. The fact that a half dozen out of more than three million have been misused after illegally falling into the hands of crazed killers does not seem to be a reason to ban the popular gun according to most Americans asked in a recent USA Today poll.
These guns are not the weapon of choice for this nation’s criminals or killers. Indeed, the FBI found that in 2010, the last year for which data is available, more people were beaten to death than killed with all long guns including these so-called assault weapons.
It is true that the Supreme Court has left the door open for “reasonable” restrictions on firearms sales. There is good reason, for example, to keep guns out of the hands of felons, those who have been adjudicated as mentally incompetent, or unsupervised children. However there is no evidence whatever to suggest that a ban on the AR 15 or other semi-automatic firearms can be constitutionally justified just so politicians can say they have done something to satisfy the natural public desire act in the face of a tragedy like Newtown. A renewal of a juiced up version of the old Clinton “assault weapons” ban would no doubt make Sen. Feinstein and her friends feel good and deny millions of law abiding Americans the right to own and enjoy a gun protected by the Second Amendment,, but would do absolutely nothing to prevent future tragedies.
This year my 12 Y/O Grandson used it to get his Elk, at over three hundred yards he hit one lung and the heart exactly what he aimed for. It fell like you had dropped a paper weight. That is plenty good enough. Most battles are fought at much closer range than hunting distances.
It legal in Wis, Texas just for a couple
“What would you recommend in it’s stead?”
Depends on the situation,papertyger.
My father used a B-17 bomber. My great-great-great-great uncle used 12-pound cannon against the British at Sullivan Island in Charleston Harbor. Sometimes one finds that an M1917 .30 caliber works well to kill Imperialist Jananese.
Assess the situation, determine what you need and go get it wherever it is.
Hope that helps.
From what I read about the Sandy Hook shootings they were done with handguns. The AR-15 rifle was found in the shooters car.
So the .223 wasn’t used in the shootings.
Sometimes I read the exact opposite version of that scenario. Who knows why it is so hard to get the definitive information or why they are obscuring it.
Bwahahahahahahahaha!
While I'll freely admit I don't own an AR (not of fan of DI), I have shot them. The ergonomics, customizability, and usability of the platform are nothing short of spectacular!
I can think of nothing I'd rather carry into an unspecified engagement (provided it was one of the newer gas piston variants).
It is just a matter of time until you snap after getting subliminal messages from the NRA.........
What? You don't think that's an assault weapon? Just wait till I take the safety off (as you can see, it's on) pull the hair trigger and spray some of this yellow stuff in your eyes.
I'm certain you will feel you've been assaulted.
Please note this is a semi-automatic assault weapon, the most scary, lethal and dangerous kind.
I’ve read two articles on this. Sorry, no link. Both cited the medical examiner as the source. One said all the kids were shot with the Bushmaster. The other said all the kids were shot with the Bushmaster and Lanza used a pistol on himself.
I understand that the Army decided that a wounded enemy soldier placed more strain on the enemy’s resources than a dead one — hence the smaller caliber. Wounding a deer is frowned upon by the state hunting officials (and by most hunters).
That’s right — in fact, it is the pistol grip and, to some extent, the suppressor which give the AR’s that super-powerful effect that scares liberals. ;>)
It is very wasteful and less accurate to fire full-automatic, but it is useful for providing suppression (or ‘covering’) fire to support an assault.
You can use them for deer in Texas.
I could be wrong. I’m only human. But a few of the reports I read said that the Bushmaster was found in the trunk of his car. I’ve also seen video of a cop pulling a rifle out of his car. It could be a different rifle of course.
I had a good link to an article that laid out the series of events and had links to the videos and audio reports given by the cops and reporters throughout the day. It was posted on FR someplace. That is where I found it actually. But I can’t find it among my yahoo messages so I’ll have to have my friend send it back to me. It could just be bunk but it’s got some very interesting items to think over.
I guess I’m a skeptic when it comes to getting a straight answer out of any agency while this president is in office. He’s tried too many things to get favor behind him and his party to get gun control through. Also to win the election.
I say again, with a 1:8 barrel, the 223 can shoot 80-grain bullets and that makes it a totally different animal for the purpose of hunting.I still wouldn’t want to try to kill a moose or an elk with it but anything short of that it should kill pretty easily. Something like that would also be ideal for hog hunting where you’re trying to kill enough hogs to actually be doing a farmer some sort of service and you’d be using a semiauto rifle with a 20-round magazine.
I had no idea one could do that. It would be totally cool to do cheap target practice with the 22LR and then load with .223 with no loss of applicable muscle memory. How much does the optional hardware cost? What about magazines? What is involved in making the switch?
Why do these liberals want the public disarmed?What is the real agenda here?
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.