Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ChicagoHebrew
I don't want to sound like Rosie O'Donnell (I strongly believe that "For every Jew, a 22"-- and fervently support gun rights), but you don't need an armor piercing bullet to defend your home, go hunting, or form the citizen's militia that defends against government oppression. About the only thing you need armor piercing ammunition for is killing cops.

First off, unless I'm mistaken, that quote ("For every Jew, a 22") originated with Kahane, who is by most accounting a somewhat less than stable hothead. Or was, that is. The point being that quoting it will not gain you much traction, and will only serve to paint you into a rhetorical corner.

Secondly, it's absurd at face value. It rhymes, yeah. That's the entire extent of its merit. The only things a .22 are good for are a) learning to shoot (on the cheap)/plinking; b) hunting squirrels and similar non-kosher small game; c) mafia-style executions (try persuading your legislator of that as a valid reason!); and d) pissing off a violent attacker.

Now, that out of the way, we're faced with the agitprop du jour.

The term "armor-piercing bullet", as defined by the legislators, outlaws all centerfire hunting ammunition, as well as the sabbotted shotgun slugs the poster above me mentioned. Most likely it'll also outlaw "traditional" shotgun slugs too, since they'll probably kill the wearer even if they don't "pierce" the vest. They pack a hell of a wallop at close range, even though they're useless at anything approaching "rifle distance".

Please don't buy into the propaganda -- either Kahane's or Feinstein's. Use your head, and see past the definitions game.

Did you know that in Feinstein's early "assault weapon" drafts, she had all "repeating arms" defined as "semi-automatic weapons"?

Do you see how the game is played?

First, you demonize a term -- and then, you apply it willy nilly, regardless of any rational application. If it applies legally, then it is moot whether or not the "legal definition" is absurd.

In case you're wondering what's the difference between "repeating arms" and "semi-automatic weapons", it's simple. If you're discussing anything other than a single-shot firearm, it's a "repeating arm".

The old single-action cowboy revolver? "Repeating arm."

Grampaw's old Winchester 30-30 lever-action? "Repeating arm."

That pump or bolt-action deer rifle? "Repeating arm."

I'll shut up now. Hopefully you've had an "ah-hah!" moment. Drop that Kahane tripe, don't try to sound cool using silly stuff, go to the range, meet some people who know what they're talking about, learn to shoot largebore handguns and centerfire rifles, and above all, don't get snowed by the antis with their ever-present word games. They'd redefine the ground out from under you if they ever figured out a way to pull it off.

44 posted on 02/27/2004 1:17:42 AM PST by Don Joe (We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]


To: Don Joe
In California, if you possess an unfired cartridge and the firearm that can fire it, you have a "loaded gun". The cartridge need only be in your immediate possesion, not inside the magazine, chamber, cylinder or any part of the firearm. Further, a simple magazine is considered a "gun" by legislative definition. If you load a magazine, you possess a "loaded gun". Take either of those legislatively defined "loaded guns" onto a public street and you are potentially a felon.
179 posted on 02/27/2004 4:18:11 PM PST by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson