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

Helmke also posted this propaganda to the Huffington Post (here).

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.



1 posted on 12/14/2007 5:07:42 PM PST by holymoly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-44 next last
To: holymoly

Heck, yes! I wanna M-242 for my SUV. Hooah!


2 posted on 12/14/2007 5:09:26 PM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: holymoly

The Brady bunch is doing their blood dance right on cue.


3 posted on 12/14/2007 5:10:52 PM PST by Nachoman (My guns and my ammo, they comfort me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: holymoly
" One shooter attacked a mall full of employees and Christmas shoppers in Omaha. The other attacked a church in Colorado."

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.

4 posted on 12/14/2007 5:10:54 PM PST by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: holymoly

Yes, the public does get those. You of course are not the public. You are a private citizen.


5 posted on 12/14/2007 5:12:18 PM PST by RightWhale (anti-razors are pro-life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: holymoly

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!


6 posted on 12/14/2007 5:12:44 PM PST by PROCON (Merry CHRISTmas!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: holymoly
There is no legitimate reason the public should have this kind of access to military-style assault weapons be subjected to liberals.
7 posted on 12/14/2007 5:12:48 PM PST by SIDENET (Hubba Hubba...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: holymoly
Hell Yeah!!

I Want That "SAW" Thingy !!!!!!
8 posted on 12/14/2007 5:12:58 PM PST by cmsgop ( MURTHA: 'I think the 'surge' is working'...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: holymoly

Good thing she doesn’t mention my 4 shot BAR 300 winmag


10 posted on 12/14/2007 5:14:25 PM PST by Minnesoootan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: holymoly

Yeah, What you said!

Perfect Response!


16 posted on 12/14/2007 5:18:17 PM PST by Randy Larsen (I'M WITH FRED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: holymoly

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.


18 posted on 12/14/2007 5:19:31 PM PST by vpintheak (Like a muddied spring or a polluted well is a righteous man who gives way to the wicked. Prov. 25:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: holymoly

Unadulterated manure.


19 posted on 12/14/2007 5:19:51 PM PST by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: holymoly

“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.


23 posted on 12/14/2007 5:23:14 PM PST by Unknowing (Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: holymoly

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.


24 posted on 12/14/2007 5:23:37 PM PST by burzum (None shall see me, though my battlecry may give me away -Minsc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: holymoly
"Should The Public Be Able To Get The Types Of Guns We Use In Iraq?"

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.

25 posted on 12/14/2007 5:23:39 PM PST by Nova
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: holymoly

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.


34 posted on 12/14/2007 5:32:49 PM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Only infidel blood can quench Muslim thirst-- Abdul-Jalil Nazeer al-Karouri)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: holymoly

You have my nomination for the most informative homepage of any current or past FReeper.........Nice job!

I’ve bookkmarked it for future references...........


36 posted on 12/14/2007 5:34:05 PM PST by Hot Tabasco (Visions of sugarplums dancing in your head are probably caused by bad drugs.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: holymoly
I always kind of wanted one of these...
39 posted on 12/14/2007 5:37:13 PM PST by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: holymoly
"Should The Public Be Able To Get The Types Of Guns We Use In Iraq? "

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.

42 posted on 12/14/2007 5:41:50 PM PST by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: holymoly

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


43 posted on 12/14/2007 5:41:53 PM PST by JWinNC (www.anailinhisplace.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: holymoly
Hemke willfully ignores history. When those types of guns were fully legal to own, we had lower crime rates than after they were made hard to own.

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.

45 posted on 12/14/2007 5:43:57 PM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-44 next last

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