Freedom And Guns
A few coincidences in the spate of news about guns, violence and freedom:
* You've got your US Second Amendment Freedom to own, carry and sell firearms.
* The major supplier, of late, being the once-obscure (but no more, post-Newtown) Freedom Group:
In recent years, many top-selling brands — including the 195-year-old Remington Arms, as well as Bushmaster Firearms and DPMS, leading makers of military-style semiautomatics — have quietly passed into the hands of a single private company. It is called the Freedom Group — and it is the most powerful and mysterious force in the American commercial gun industry today.* Then you've got your in-chaos, DC-based Tea Party group FreedomWorks - - not to be confused with Freedom Group - - where former US House of Representatives Leader Dick Armey showed up recently and tried to seize control - - true story, not from The Onion - - and was accompanied by a gun-toting aide.
Exercising, was the aide, his NRA-protected, Second Amendment-guaranteed freedom to carry a firearm - - but not one of Freedom Group's many brands because it does not yet own a handgun line.
Yet.
Freedom Group manufactures and sells a number of well-known so-called "long gun" brands - - Winchester, Remington, Marlin - - and the now-infamous Bushmaster, whose military-style, semi-automatic military-style rifles were used in the DC sniper, Newtown grade school, Portland shopping mall and upstate New York firefighter mass shootings, according to media and law enforcement accounts.
Freedom being just a word for nothing else to looe, only in song.
20 comments:
And then you’ve got your knee jerk liberals who don’t understand that a semi automatic rifle is not a fully automatic rifle. This is like saying that a steak knife is modeled after a bayonet. The majority of firearms sold to sportsmen and for self protection are semi automatic, especially handguns, and just because a rifle may look like something the military uses, it functions completely differently.
And yes, we are more free by owning firearms which give us the ability to protect ourselves and others.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.
From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
If Guns Kill People, Then Pencils Misspell Words, Cars Make People Drunk, And Spoons Make Rosie O'Donnell Fat
If Guns Kill People, Then Pencils Misspell Words, Cars Make People Drunk, And Spoons Make Rosie O'Donnell Fat
The lapse in Nonnamuss logic is that of those four examples, only one is doing the thing it is designed to do. Now for the tricksy part: can the nonnamuss gun fetishist identify WHICH ONE?
And then you’ve got your knee jerk liberals who don’t understand that a semi automatic rifle is not a fully automatic rifle.
So?
Full autos are already under tight controls (not full ban, no matter what you say) and the number of killings with full auto weapons is negligible. So gun regulation can, in fact, be effective.
And yes, we are more free by owning firearms which give us the ability to protect ourselves and others.
But the rest of us are less free, because your supposed freedom is killing some of the rest of us.
I recognize, of course, you don't care and that you view your unrestricted right to your gun fetish as over ruling every other concern.
"Yes dear - people with killing machines are very efficient at killing people. It's really easy with killing machines that will slaughter one human in less than 3 seconds. On the other hand dear- people with knives have a real hard time being efficient killers. They have to stab the person, slit it's throat, cut its wrist. It's a tiresome procedure and it takes so much time. Much easier to use those killing machines. Dear - I can kill 20 people in less than a few minutes. And when I'm done I can go to the woods and practice shooting pumpkin heads. Watching them explode using my killing machine is such a treat. The point is dear that without this killing machine - killing would be so much more difficult. I'm glad the NRA helps me become a more efficient killer." (A fictitious killer's conversation with his wife or mother.)
What ever happened to those FEMA camps that Obama was supposed to have opened so as to imprison gun owners? I know it was just a crazy, paranoid fantasy, concocted by the gun lobby to spur sales, but the more I see the written comments on the internet from paranoid, raving, gun fetishists, I sort of wish it were true.
The first time I heard about the evil government conspiracy to take away firearms was in 1960. Why don't you guys try coming up with some new material, just to relieve the monotony.
@Gareth,
So now you wish gun owners were locked up?
And you wonder why 2nd amendment supporters a bit nervous?
Really there is not much difference between a Ruger(.22) hunting rifle and a Bushmaster AR(.223) in operation. Both are semi-auto.
How would you ban/restrict one without affecting the other?
To RD: You continue to post misleading comments.
There is a world of difference between the .22 (for the purposes of this debate, the .22 long rifle) cartridge and the .223.
The .22LR, though in several variations, is smaller, lighter, and delivers far less energy at impact than the .223, which tends to be longer, heavier, with a less-rounded point, as initially formatted as a military round for the M-16.
You can hunt deer and smaller game with a .223. With a .22LR, unlikely, unless you are after squirrels.
And yes, both the Ruger and many .223 models are semi-automatic, but a Bushmaster with a big magazine is going to do a lot more damage than a .22 Ruger semi-auto.
Do you see any .22 semi-autos in the video games that are now being pushed to help market guns to young people?
Why haven't the spree and mass killers used .22's? Because they also want something bigger, more deadly, and snazzier than grand dad's old .22 rimfire rifle, or even a Ruger .22 semi-auto.
I thought firearms were illegal in DC.
@Anon @ 3:29 (and how I wish the funded-trolls would pick a nym so we can tell 'em apart)
What I am curious about, is how do you think it will go if the US Gubmint decides to take the course of 'rounding up and extermination'?
Is your arsenal going to slow down a Bradley Fighting Vehicle? Is your Bushmaster going to matter to a drone? Is a military assault team going to be deterred by your bedside Glock?
Paranoid fantasies aside, the idea that a home gun cabinet makes a difference to government sponsored violence really should be rethough.
Of course, if you would like to discuss the idea that the Patriot Act, the Homeland Security Theater apparatus, or the American Overseas Killing of Brown People, then feel free.
James Rowen said...
To RD: You continue to post misleading comments.
Heh.
Also an interesting coincidence about guns:
nationwide, there are about 100 homicides as a result of burglary per year. Compared to 18,000 suicides by gun.
Source: http://www.thenation.com/article/171879/we-fear-each-other-when-guns-themselves-are-real-danger#
I have a 25 round ruger .22 mag as well as a 100 rd. drum. They are both fun to shoot and take to the range.
That Ruger .22 in the hands of a criminal or mass killer could cause as much carnage as a .223 could.
Don't kid yourself with velocity statistics. Look at the real world scenarios.
If the Lanza would have had a .22 with a hi cap magazine he could have done the same thing. Which is why banning certain weapons will not be effective.
What Lanze had is what mattered.
"What Lanze had is what mattered."
Until the next time something like this is done with another type of weapon and you decide that you want to ban that as well.
Again, to my longstanding point.
What would banning AR-15s do to stop this from happening again? Nothing.
What would banning hi-cap magazines do to stop this from happening again? Nothing.
It is also illegal to kill someone, so why would a mass shooter obey a gun law?
Should we model the "War on Guns" like our "War on Drugs?" Ban them for a few years and then let society complain about how unfair the ban is and watch as they try to legalize guns again.
What makes anyone think that a restriction/ban on certain weapons would be ANY more successful than a ban on drugs?
What would banning AR-15s do to stop this from happening again? Nothing.
What would banning hi-cap magazines do to stop this from happening again? Nothing.
You have nothing upon which to base those statements. And since the absence of those kinds of things post-regulation would never be able to be discerned, it is in the realm of trying to prove a negative, which is usually indeterminate at best.
You know, other than the data from countries with stronger gun control regulation, who show markedly fewer gun deaths overall, and a drastically smaller number of gun massacres.
Or perhaps the data from this country, where Class III weapons are strictly regulated and deaths due to the use of those weapons is largely non-existent.
@zombie,
The talk this time, as last is to grandfather all of the previous weapons.
Open your eyes, even countries that ban guns altogether have mass shootings.
And despite your ramblings, ARs are not the reason for mass shootings and banning them would not stop mass shootings and yes I will prove this right now.
There were mass shootings long before ARs came around so what would you have wanted to do about this problem back in the 1920s, 30s and 40s?
Thinking that a ban or restriction on ARs will do anything but make some lefty feel good is just being completely ignorant of the facts.
There were mass shootings long before ARs came around so what would you have wanted to do about this problem back in the 1920s, 30s and 40s?
LOL. What do you think the Class III weapons restriction was actually aimed toward? Hint: it was the fully automatic gun nicknamed "Tommy". And because of that effective regulation, there are virtually no killings done with automatic weapons.
You're hysterical. Nobody is claiming that regulation will eliminate every mass shooting or killing. As I said, the countries with decent gun regulation simply have FAR FEWER weapons-related deaths. Read for comprehension, not to move goalposts.
Post a Comment