Brady/MMM: Will the NRA Tell the Truth about Military-Style Assault Weapons?

Join Together ^ | 12/3/2004 | Brady Campaign

[TERMINATTOR]

"This is not a gun you go deer hunting with."
Lawrence Keane, senior vice president and general counsel National Shooting Sports Foundation New York Times, 11-23-04

"They can be used for hunting. They are not any more
powerful, and they're not... you can hunt anything. People
hunt everything from deer to any type of game."
Wayne LaPierre, President
National Rifle Association
Hardball with Chris Matthews, 9-8-04

Washington, DC - The SKS rifle apparently used by the hunter to kill six other hunters in Wisconsin wasn't banned under the Federal assault weapons ban that expired September 13, but it should be banned for civilian use. Designed for use in war, even the gun industry admitted yesterday that it's not intended for hunting.

It may, in fact, be the first time the official spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation has admitted that any military-style semiautomatic assault rifle is inappropriate for hunting. Lawrence Keane, senior vice president of the group, went further, and even told the New York Times that the SKS isn't a humane weapon for hunting deer. "The reason the SKS is not used by hunters, Mr. Keane said, is that it is designed for combat soldiers and is therefore underpowered for killing an animal like a deer with a single shot, the goal of good hunters," The Times wrote. "'The ethics of hunting are you don't want the animal to suffer needlessly,' Mr. Keane said."

Prior to the expiration of the assault weapons ban, the industry's spokespersons were unified in describing these types of weapons as perfectly normal for use by hunters. It was one of the industry's main arguments for letting the ban expire.

Since the ban's expiration, high-profile crimes involving assault weapons have already become more commonplace. Plano, Texas police are searching for members of a bank robbery gang that have opened fire on police with AK-47s, and that same weapon is believed to be the weapon of choice of a killer or killers who have shot eight people in West Palm Beach, Florida.

[dimmer-rats stealvotes]

Yeah. Those weapons are not for deer hunting, all right, but they're for defending your family against those two-legged critters who have them and are after you. Anyone with a brain understands that outlawing any weapon only makes the law-abiding citizen vulnerable to that weapon. Why do idiots think that passing gun laws that restrict law-abiding citizens will get guns out of the hands of the lawless? They somehow have a propensity to ignore laws;hence, the reason they are lawLESS. If I am being attacked by an assault weapon, I certainly do not want to try to defend myself with a peashooter. Why is that logic so hard to understand?

[rockrr]

I was ready to make a similar comment, and then I decided to do a quick Google.

I couldn't find any published quote by Mr. Keane. I should have suspected - the likelihood is that the anti-gunners are also the LIARS (why should they change now ;'}

[Gandalf_The_Gray]

Isn't it possible that this guy was just hunting and returned fire against other hunters who shot at him out of anger, saving his life by virtue of the fact that he was in better position?

Wisconsin Hunter Shooting Threads and Links - Thread One

Read some of the background before posting such asinine garbage. He shot eight people, some multiple times, most in the back, including a woman and a teenage boy. All but one were unarmed and he was shot first. Vang is a stone cold pathological killer. He has a history of domestic abuse and has had trespassing citations since he started deer hunting in Wisconsin.

Regards,
GtG

[joesnuffy]

The 7.62X39 Com Bloc round has nearly identical ballistics to the round that has taken more white tailed deer than the next two most popular deer hunting cartridges combined...

The Win 30-30...the caliber of the popular lever action...seen in countless cowboy movies.

There were probably a few thousand rifles chambered in that caliber in the WI woods that day
and hunters armed with them...yet none of them killed any human beings except that scum bag murderer Vang

Low life scum bag dirty rotten crazy sons of beaches have been murdering people since Cain killed Abel...

Sometimes they herd them into camps and kill them by the millions..sometimes they kill their own parents with axes..or kill their spouses with poison...

Murder is as old a crime as mankind...and will be with us as long as man is around...or at least until the Lord Jesus comes back and frees us from our nature...

Naturally the real reason the gun grabbers want to take away firearms is because an armed populace of decent hard working tax payers who know their rights under the US constitution might fight their commie asses when they make their final push to try and take our nation away

Guns in the hands of its free citizens scare the heck outta of totalitarians..they want to disarm us and conquer us so bad they can taste it....

And are looking for any and every excuse and seize upon any lie...to get people to give up their freedom and to force or coerce their neighbors to give up their guns for the gun grabbers..

[Kevin OMalley]

I stand corrected. I didn't have time til now to look into it.

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

Text of the Second Amendment
"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."

Anyone who actually reads AND understands the 2nd Amendment will see that there is no need or authority for any type of gun registration and there is no need for anyone to have to apply for a license to carry a gun.
Any political party, politician, judge (etc), organization or individual who trys to convince you that:
1) you must register a firearm
2) you must pass a background check
3) you must wait (x) amount of days before you can get your firearm
4) you need to have a license to carry a gun
is either uneducated about OUR rights as citizens
OR is actively working to undermine OUR country.

How Did the Founders Understand the Second Amendment?

CONGRESS in 1866, 1941 and 1986 REAFFIRMS THE SECOND AMENDMENT
The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment right to keep and bear firearms,
originated in the United States Congress in 1789 before being ratified by the States.
On three occasions since then--in 1866, 1941, and 1986--
Congress enacted statutes to reaffirm this guarantee of personal freedom
and to adopt specific safeguards to enforce it.

ON THE DAY BEFORE Thanksgiving 1993,
the 103d US Congress brought forth a constitutional turkey.
The 103d Congress decided that the Second Amendment did not mean what it said
("...shall not be infringed") and passed the Brady bill.
How the Brady Bill Passed (and subsequently - "Instant Check")
When the Brady Bill was passed into law on November 24, 1993,
the Senate voted on the Conference Report
and passed the Brady Bill by UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

[Eastbound]

""'The ethics of hunting are you don't want the animal to suffer needlessly,' Mr. Keane said.""

Okay, I'll just have to use a Barrett or Smith .50 on both people and animals. What's ethical for animals has to be ethical for people too, right? Yeah, that's logical. Wouldn't want some perp to just lay there and moan if I don't shoot him through the heart on the first shot. I'll take my AK along for squirrels and rabbits. It's the ethical thing to do.

[doublecansiter]

As what? A wheel chock?

[endthematrix]

Send her packing, if she isn't already!

[epow]

Translated by any sane person,

Aha!! I just knew there had to be a trick.

[epow]

There was an old lady of legend up in northern Quebec who used to get a moose ever year with a .22 rimfire.

My grandfather (born 1879) killed a deer with a .22 rifle back in the 1890s, and that was when the .22 rimfire was still loaded with black powder. I certainly wouldn't try that even if it was legal, which it isn't in any state I know of.

I have read that there are many Eskimo and Aleut hunters in the far north who regularly take polar bear, walrus, caribou, and other large animals with puny little rounds like the .22 Hornet or something similar. Their secret is to get in real close and shoot for the brain. Getting in real close to a polar bear armed with a rusty old .22 Hornet would take a lot more guts than I have.

[SirLurkedalot]

MOLON LABE...period.

[Smokin' Joe]

It may, in fact, be the first time the official spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation has admitted that any military-style semiautomatic assault rifle is inappropriate for hunting. Lawrence Keane, senior vice president of the group, went further, and even told the New York Times that the SKS isn't a humane weapon for hunting deer.

I guess the argument can be made against the .30-30, bowhunting, and a host of other methods of killing game. Shot placement, shot placement, shot placement. That is what matters, for anything from a .22 to 7mm mag and up.

"The reason the SKS is not used by hunters, Mr. Keane said, is that it is designed for combat soldiers and is therefore underpowered for killing an animal like a deer with a single shot, the goal of good hunters,"

Oh. It is OK to kill people with, but not Bambi? SAY WHAT???

The Times wrote. "'The ethics of hunting are you don't want the animal to suffer needlessly,' Mr. Keane said."

Time for Mr. Keane to step down.

[Smokin' Joe]

Lawrence Keane should have kept his pie-hole shut.

Lawrence Keane should get a new job.

[Smokin' Joe]

If he was misquoted, let him set the record straight. If not, good luck with the job hunt.

[Smokin' Joe]

Isn't it possible that this guy was just hunting and returned fire against other hunters who shot at him out of anger, saving his life by virtue of the fact that he was in better position?

Ummmmmmmmm...NO. Only one of the hunting party this guy attacked was armed. Otherwise, the story might have had a different ending.

[Smokin' Joe]

It takes a high neck shot, (preferably from inside 50 yards) which either hits the spine, opens the throat, or misses. Works best on small deer. A quick drop, an easy trail, or no joy. Just in case you are ever in a survival situation with mouths to feed and only have a .22 rimfire. Most modern rounds will do just fine.

I would never advocate this for 'normal' hunting practice, though.

[R. Scott]

Haven't you heard? PETA has gone after the bow and arrows gang too.

Will AIM be resurrected and go after PETA?

[Wonder Warthog]

"I should have suspected - the likelihood is that the anti-gunners are also the LIARS (why should they change now ;'}"

Truth!

[Beckwith]

"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."

It should be remembered that the British government and army at the time represented the lawful governing body of the Colonies. Because the colonists saw the government was unjust, they rebelled.

The founders saw that any future American government could become or threaten to become unjust. So they set their descendants up with the same rights to keep and bare arms for the simple purpose of balancing any government's natural acquisition of more and more power.

A militia is composed of civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army. The left's argument that militia, as stated in the 2nd Amendment, refers to the National Guard is a false argument. The National Guard, particularly after Clinton's 1993 Reduction in Force (RIF) made the Guard an integral component of the regular army. It is Clinton policy that has resulted in so may National Guard and reserve personnel being in Iraq.

My last observation is, what part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" don't the lefties understand?

Infringe: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.