Posted on 10/17/2002 10:31:48 PM PDT by scripter
I guess it was inevitable that a few extremists would attempt, as they always do, to exploit the tragedy of the Washington, D.C.-area shootings to promote a new grab for guns.
Last week, Rep. John Conyers, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, and three of his colleagues urged the Federal Trade Commission to investigate the marketing of military sniper rifles to civilians, noting that such a weapon may be involved in the recent Washington-area shootings.
Conyers of Michigan and his pals claimed in the letter to the FTC that sniper weapons are different from standard hunting rifles because they are designed to strike a target from a distance.
"Their accuracy and range capabilities make these weapons among the most dangerous available today," the lawmakers said. "They can hit targets accurately one mile away and can inflict damage to targets up to four miles away."
Conyers noted that the FTC did a study of entertainment industry marketing practices and violence after the Columbine school shootings in 1999. In other words, he suggested, if the FTC can mess with the First Amendment, why not the Second?
What's wrong with this picture? So much, it's difficult to know where to begin.
First, though, the idea that "military sniper weapons" are different from standard hunting rifles because they are designed to strike at long range is ludicrous. All rifles are designed to be accurate at long range. That's the purpose of a rifle. Any rifle is reasonably accurate at 100 yards to 400 yards. No one suggests the sniper or snipers at work in the Washington area is or are firing from longer ranges than that.
Second, almost any civilian hunting rifle would make a far better sniper weapon than one using the .223 cartridge employed by the Beltway Sniper. This cartridge has good accuracy only to 100 yards or so. It would take a good scope and exceptional marksmanship to hit targets at 400 yards. A good hunting rifle would make a deadly sniper weapon at 400 yards or further.
Third, once again, we see government power grabbers suggesting that the only legitimate civilian use of rifles is hunting. Is that why we have a Second Amendment in this country? I don't think so. That's not what the founders had in mind. They weren't worried about hunting animals. They were concerned that our civilians would maintain the right to hunt down criminals in and out of government who would deprive them of their basic, inalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
By the way, it's not just the Congress-critters misusing this sniper issue. Listen to the latest missive from filmmaker Michael Moore about his new work, "Bowling for Columbine."
"This is not good news for Junior [President Bush] and Company," he writes. "Not when they are trying to drag us into another war. Not when a crazed sniper is exercising his constitutional right to own a high-powered rifle."
High-powered? Who says it's high-powered? And what does that mean? These people are either hopelessly ignorant about firearms or purposely deceitful. Or maybe it's both.
There is no evidence that the Beltway Sniper is using some special weapon. He's sure not using special ammo. He's using some of the most common ammunition used for target practice because it's so readily available and inexpensive.
Nevertheless, the gun grabbers are prepared to ban new classes of weapons as the solution.
You might think the deadly shootings in the Washington area would get thinking people to reconsider the way the government has turned our schools, our communities and even some cities and states into unprotected "gun-free zones." They have made these places safe for bad guys who don't care about the law. There's no one around to return fire.
You might think the deadly shootings would get responsible government officials to realize they can't protect and defend civilians from terrorists like this. They have removed the ability of the people to defend themselves. All the government can do now is run around and plead with the gunman or gunmen to give up. It's a joke.
You might think the gun grabbers would skulk away quietly in the face of these incidents – having created the environment so conducive for a mad sniper.
But, no, the insanity continues. Bad guys aren't being blamed. It's the guns that are at fault.
Guarranteed to get the vote out come November.
You might think as well that the deadly shootings would get responsible citizens to realize the government officials can't protect and defend civilians from terrorists like this.
They have removed the ability of the people to defend themselves.
That may have been the object.
Every one of the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights - free speech, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms - are legal rights set up to define and protect our natural liberty. Those who are attacking man's individual, inalienable rights on the legal front, i.e., with more 'gun control,' are either closet tyrants or outright ignorant. Regardless, in America they are always Liberal Socialist Democrats. They have to a man forgotten that men are free and that there is no factual way to transfer individual free will to another party. It can't even be controlled by brute force. Brute force, the only real power of government, can effect solely the way in which free will is exercised. Nothing short of death prevents an individual from exercising his or her free will.
Too many Americans have forgotten (or have never been taught) thier magnificent history, their superior form of government, and their responsibility under liberty.
Congressman Billybob
We do! It's the irresponsible citizens that don't get it. The ones who know no sense of duty to their fellow man. The ones who figure the most they should stick their necks out is to use some of their monthly free air-time to make a cell call to the police while wedged firmly under the rear axle of Chevy Astro.
The stealth registration program slithering under the name of "ballistic fingerprinting" is quite another matter. There is a real danger here that antigun publicists are going to be able to accomplish de facto registration by (1) demanding all guns be "fingerprinted," and (2) demanding that all private sales go through a background check. The combination of those two "sensible" steps will generate a database of all firearms and all firearms owners in the country. And this will be misused.
Ummm, no. Good article, but this is just wrong.
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.