Gun Nuts
The art of our necessities is strange,
That can make vile things precious.
--King Lear, Shakespeare
_____________
First, the amount of hatred for Barack Obama is palpable, and the vitriol is not contained -- it overflows. Frequently heard was the assertion that Obama would ban assault weapons, pistols and ammo. The T-shirts show a new level of defiance: "Liberals are Posing as Americans," "Infidel and Proud of It."
But best of all were the featured celebrities, look-alikes of Sarah Palin and George Bush holding assault rifles. Since this crowd is so concerned about their assault rifles and the ban they imagine Obama will impose upon their ownership, Ranger feels like setting the record straight.
First, a definition.
The first assault rifle was the StG 43 or 44 variant, along with the MP 43 and 44. These evolved into the AK 47. All assault rifles are selective fire, meaning they are automatic weapons. They are full auto, but they are not machine guns. (Machine guns are belt-fed, open-bolt fired, crew served and are not individual weapons; assault rifles are.)
StG is an abbreviation of Sturmgewehr, or "storm rifle," which became assault rifle in English. They use lower intensity, intermediary cartridges, meaning they lack in power and range, but are excellent for assaulting objectives when a heavy volume of fire is called for. Assault rifles are shoulder-fired individual military weapons.
There was a ten-year assault rifle ban, from 1994-2004, but contrary to the name, the weapons targeted were not assault rifles but rather look-alikes, which lack the selective fire feature. Again -- all assault rifles are selective fire.
So, the U.S. government denied the citizens the right to own bad ass looking weapons with high capacity mags and which fire in a semi-automatic mode. But the hypocrisy is weighty: IF one wishes to own a real full auto assault rifle, one need only pay a $200 fee and purchase a Federal Tax Stamp and voila, it is legal to purchase a fully auto weapon, to include machine guns. It has always been that way, even during the "ban".
So why the phony ban? If you can own the weapon provided you plunk down $200, it is a violation of the constitutional concept of rights, as one must pay to exercise their rights. The $200 is the issue, and not the ban, which never was.
As so often in our society, the simulacra stands in for the actual. It looks like we ban assault weapons, but we do not really. What is actually being banned is a full, unfettered access to our 2nd Amendment rights via a "gun tax."
The gunnies are so terrified that an "assualt weapons ban" will be implemented. They do not care that the economy is crumbling beneath them -- just don't take away their stupid damned rifle. They fail to see the intricacy of what is actually at stake.
Their argument is always, "What if we need to rebel?" It is Ranger's experience that no one ever became a rebel who was a fat ass in tree bark.
You cannot revolt if you are watching the Super Bowl XLIII but you sure can stroke your rifle, even if it's a little one.
Labels: 2nd amendment, assault weapons ban, gun tax
posted by rangeragainstwar at 4:17 PM
37 Comments:
I always used to get a laugh out of these guys.
I would tell them, sure, fine, go ahead and fort up in there with your little 240B or M-4 or whatever you have. And the squad from the National Guard armory will supress your sorry ass with area fire until I can lower my #2 gun into direct fire mode and put a killer junior into your damn living room.
These individuals don't get it that it's not the rifles, it's the riflemen. And the autorifleman covering the riflemen. And the light machinegunner covering the autoriflemen and the riflemen. And the grenadiers and the 50-cal on the track covering everyone.
They watch their spray-and-pray Rambo movies and think it'll work.
Maybe we're lucky that these goobers are down in the shallow end of the gene pool...
me too on the laughing part. a solid convention on the teams was that most of the time we operated in single fire mode. very rarely did we go into rock and roll.
the first and most practical reason was that we were often not in sight of each other. if we heard autofire we could safely assume it wasn't one of us.
it also reduced the amount of heavy ammo we had to hump. too many times while loading up there were those "socks or ammo?" questions. i solved that dilemma by stuffing mags into socks.
a standard long arm on the teams was a single guy with an m60. fired from the shoulder. never from the hip. a standard retort to anybody doing a "john wayne" was two hands for beginners.
i wasn't big enough to hump a 60 all by myself. i made up for it by becoming an artist with a thumper.
"Too many times while loading up there were those "socks or ammo?" questions. i solved that dilemma by stuffing mags into socks"
Packing this way would cut down on the noise of clanking metal, too, right?
MB,
I used to carry c rat meat in a sock tied to my webgear.Also I carried only extra bandoliers in my ruck,no extra mags.Also I never carried a pistol.
jim
I used to be one of those, and then one day for some reason I can't remember why...I joined the Marines.
2 months later, I was EPTE medically discharged, thank you so much obstacle course, and went home.
Sold the carbine, got my surgeries, and voila, got my life back on track...which didn't involve hanging with the nut jobs or gun shows.
Now, for me, it's black powder, rendezvous, plinking metal targets, and deer hunting.
But the funny thing is...I don't belong to the NRA, sorry if anyone here does, but after looking down the barrel of an SKS being held by a very angry young man ramped up on meth. I'm convinced beyond liberalism/socialism/whatever-ism that not everyone should have access to a gun.
BTW, thankfully, that angry young man got the help he needed, and from what I learned of, he's off the drugs, and is leading a good life.
Thank G-d for that little miracle.
sheerahkahn,
I wish for you a very good life.
i usually carried a pistol. they came in handy when it was time to slink a tunnel.
Socks were great, MB. They drove our 1st shirt crazy, but screw him as he was usually running the main company CP back in the rear.
Black powder is great too, Sheera. Back home on the east coast woods, we used to use a shotgun with slugs for whitetail. Too many people in the woods, or just beyond the woods, for a high power rifle. I never understood the need for semi-auto when hunting.
sheeerahkhan,
Lisa and I argue the point of gun ownership frequently.Your point about the SKS is taken but we can't pick and choose who gets what right and who gets denied rights.We all served to protect everybodies rights to include criminals and terrorists.
Either we believe in America or we don't.There's a good argument that combat exposed and haedened vets shouldn't have guns.Think about that one.!
I shoot big bore cartridge BP single shots of the 1870/80/90m timeframe.I even have a steel buffalo on my range.I have 60 acres in dirt Floida so my range is for all arms except auto wpns.
I no longer like kill your neighbor weapons.
Thank you Lisa.
Life is good for me, though I will confess, as Mike will probably understand this more than anyone else, that I'm happier in the mountains.
Don't know why that is, but it is.
Sometimes memories just creep in which remind me of why I'm there in the concrete jungle and not wandering the hills and dales.
Still, doing my absolution for humanity in the biotech field has helped with my overall sense of being happy with myself.
But the mountains do call to me.
Anyway,
My intention was not to start an argument, and believe me that was the last thing on my mind, but rather to indicate what my perspective has, which is based on my very subjective and very biased opinion, led me to conclude that not everyone should have access to a gun.
If you think about it, we as a society protect our animals far more than we do our children or our neighbors (or ourselves).
For me, and I want to emphasize this is just me, my opinion, nothing more, is that I find nothing wrong with a state licensing for gun ownership, much like the licensing for driving.
We just don't let anyone have at it with cars...no, the person who wants to drive a car must meet certain standards of competency.
For me, I see nothing wrong with applying that same level of standard to gun ownership.
Anyway, my intention is not stir the pot, but to give my opinion for whatever it's worth.
sheerahkahn,
Needless to say, your p.o.v. is absolutely valid, and much welcome. I am with you -- there should be state licensure for gun ownership.
While I respect Jim's position, and his liberality for a military man, his strict constructionist position on this matter is slightly off, IMHO. I am glad he does not belong to the NRA and generally estranges himself from the gun nut crowd, but he should recognize the Constitution is an elastic document. Rightly so, as the Founders could not forsee every eventuality.
I think I understand your call to the mountains, but I am glad you have found a place here, too.
sheerahkhan,
I've been thinking about my reply to you but I'm constantly returning to Lisa's reply that I'm off on this one.
There is no documentation that the founding fathers in an era of extremely slow change ever envisioned or planned for the document to be fluid.The only people that espouse this position are those wanting to limit your rights for any reason.
The 1st amendment didn't anticipate nasty large scale porn on the internet or in magazines BUT the concept still stands.Freedom of speech.
The 2nd didn't anticipate assault rifles but that doesn't change the words and concept.If one wants to quibble then firearms are not even mentioned in the 2d.It says to own and bear arms.We know what they meant by their writings.I have a friend that served 19 mos in Fed Pen for having an auto weapon.In reality this is not what got him in trouble but it's the charge that still hangs around his neck.IF HE'D PAID 200$ FED TAX HE'D BE A LEGAL CITIZEN TODAY.Is this the intent of the FFS? Any body can buy an auto weapon- his offense was not paying up.
The 4th didn't anticipate telephones, computers etc but the theory holds.Anything else allows NSA/CIA/FBI to listen in and violate our right to privacy ala Patriot Act.This is not my idea of America.If we want a fluid document then we go to the FFs concept and pass an Amendment to the shooting match.Remember amendments-this adds modernisation to our political constructs and does it legitimately w/o reading tea leaves.
Now back to you and Lisa-Why do you folks wolf on gun ownership restrictions but never question the Govt having these toys?Just this week I read that Armed Robbers convicted types are being inducted into the service as volunteers-how can they be allowed to have guns in their hands but my friend after 26 years service can't?This is insane.Why would we want to train up people already showing their criminal proclivities. Sp/4 Granier at Abu G had restraining orders on him and should not have been around weapons as dictated by federal law-but hey !!I for one do not like Waco/Ruby Ridge scenarios.
In short I don't like somebody/anybody inside my perimeter calling me slightly off on a topic.As a writer and blog person I try never to say this and always try only to point out alternate ways of thinking.Truthfully I'm more than a little miffed right now b/c I feel emotion is ruling what should be a cerebral discussion.
I understand your position and do respect it and feel you correctly stated your position.
HRUSKA
Jim,
The Bill of Rights are the original constitutional amendments, which recognizes the fact that even shortly after the amazing Constitution was written, it needed some tweaking, some clarification. That process continues.
Your strict construction is one stance, and a respected one. I just happen to disagree.
You don't argue against duck stamps or drivers license tests or fees, but seem to have an issue with the absolute right to gun ownership. It is this particularity that has not convinced me.
Lisa: "....but he should recognize the Constitution is an elastic document. Rightly so, as the Founders could not forsee every eventuality."
I do not agree. Note that the Bill of Rights constiutes the first ten AMENDMENTS to the Constitution, duly adopted through the legitimate process of the day. The way it has worked since then is that if one wishes to change a provision of the Constitution, one goes through the process of AMENDING the Constitution, not INTERPRETING it.
I'm with Ranger here. And, IMO, equating drivers' licenses, fishing licenses, et al, to gun ownership is a red herring. The Founders didn't see fit to protect the right to drive a carriage or go fishing, but they did so with respect to gun ownership. There was a reason for that and I wonder why folks such as Lisa, who would go to the barricades to defend porn peddlers—as she should, of course—don't think gun owners deserve the same consideration.
I'm not an NRA member. Haven't hunted since Vietnam days. I don't even like venison. Due to my particular background, I'm principally a handgun, shotgun and automatic weapons guy, which is pretty consonant with my life view. I can afford to buy my meat at the supermarket, but I can't defend myself with a checkbook.
It's my sense that my interpretation of the "right to bear arms" is pretty consistant with that of the Founders. It's inconceivable to me that those incredibly smart and farsighted men didn't want me to be able to defend myself, my family and my community. I somehow doubt they would have given much of a shit whether the state went after some money by making me get a fishing license.
The problem many latter day liberals have with our Founders is the fact that they weren't latte-sipping nice guys. They were tough guys. They kicked the preeminent world power out of here, not by being nice, but through force of arms on the part of the citizenry. Is it such a stretch to believe that they just might have WANTED an armed citizenry? I don't think so.
Publius,
I believe the hunting issue is also a red herring.The FFs wanted the citizenry to own military weapons to defend the communities and to rebel.They stockpiled military stores at town level.THE CONSTITUTION 2AMD IS NOT ABOUT HUNTING BUT ABOUT KILLING PEOPLE.
The people of America always had arms in their homes that were superior to the military arms of the day . This was true until Miller v US 1939. We can still buy M1 rifles thru the DCM and they are killing machines with no hunting use.
We don't charge poll taxes but we must pay to exercise our gun rights- this is stupid and contrary to the original intent.
The disconnect that we can't talk about and is hush hush due to political correctness is that we have a race and drug dealer problem that is worsened by guns in the hands of gang bangers.This is not my problem-we must focus on legal ownership but this is the big fear of most people..
The statistics should also be examined and i might do so in a future article but how many people are gunned down by law enforcement every year vs the number of citizens killed by gun crazies.Whatever the figure it pales to insignificance compared to tobacco related deaths/drunk drivers AND DOCTOR INCOMPETANCE which accounts for 100,000 deaths annually. The AMA suppresses these facts and i'd like to point out they are highly licensed and regulated but their mistakes are still dead.
Thanks for your unemotional support.It's always refreshing to hear a logical voice.
jim
Well, hmm...this really has turned into an interesting dicussion...so...again, my two cents.
As I see it, there is no reason why you, Jim, shouldn't own a F16.
The constitution, as far as I can read it, says you can have one.
Now, I know thats kind of an odd thing for me to say, but hear me out.
Not anyone can just hop into an F-16, there is a whole load of education, and flight experience that must be met before you'd want to go out and get your kicks and giggles from buzzing the birds and bees.
Wouldn't do to turn into an expensive yard dart, now would it.
But here is the thing I would say...of course the constitution says you can have one, but we, that we would be your neighbors, friends, family, et al, expect a certain level of competency at flying an F-16 before you donned the flight suit, and took off to the wild blue yonder.
Reason being...well, really, I would perfer you calling ahead to join us for dinner rather than "dropping" in, unexpectedly...with your new ride.
Same with guns of any sort...a level of competency needs to be demonstrated before one can use it.
Now I know, a certain group of people say, "hey, people want to kill someone, they will find a way, gun or no gun."
And I agree with them.
But herein is the hobgoblin to that argument...accidental shootings.
Happens every year.
My cousin was shot accidentally, I was nearly shot accidentally (long story short, the guy's rifle had a hair trigger on it, and I never saw it, all I saw was the yard long divet the round left about four feet away from me...yes, I stopped hunting that day, and went and drank a six pack...nerves, don't you know.), and of course kids and guns.../sigh
Anyway, my point is that I see nothing wrong with people owning guns, as long a they are licensed to do so...which means that it also says to whomever, that the individual has shown a basic level of competency, and in a civil suit, or court of law can not claim ignorance of "oh, gee whiz, I didn't think it was loaded."
I hope that clarifies my thinking, and if not...hell, who wants a beer?
Publius,
Dear God -- now I'm a pornographer! Not! I love our Bill of Rights, and of course, we have the right to bear arms.
You hit on it: the state wants to get "some money by making me get a fishing license." So, we must get licenses to operate certain things, or engage in certain activities. Why should I have to pay to enter state parks? But I do.
It is quaint to think one can protect themselves from the government, but Ruby Ridge and Waco says otherwise. As Jim admits, no matter how powerful a weapon we can own, they can own better (tanks, RPGs, etc.)
Sheerahkhan,
I agree that the CON allows one to own arms. Since arms are what arms control are about and this equals nuc wpns then this should be my right. But we accept that the state has absolute control over death and violence therefore we accept strictures.
On guns since i've disarmed my nucs it's my til death do us part belief that if govt agents can have something then so too should the citizenry.Otherwise we're serfs.
Does the Con. define firearms qualifications? Have you read my comments completely and with an open mind?
jim
jim
"The issue here is Monkeys!!!"
Gus Grissom in The Right Stuff.
Man I have to laugh. Having lost the election and with no leadership to speak of.. The wing nutters go back to the tried and true... Paranoia and Fear...OBAMA wants to take away our guns BAWAAAAH!!!
There is much teeth gnashing and chest beating over this "serious issue" on some of the SO Websites and the Ranger Listserver...
I cry myself to sleep at night over these poor dears and the evil threat that faces them.:(
Anything to hate...Any reason to whine...and no where near the truth...
That's the GOP's mission statement for 2009.
WIlliam Hazen
Sheer, how do you go about licensing a fundamental constitutional right? Does the Washington Post have a government license to publish?
Follow my logic here, Sheer. He who has the licensing power can choose to deny that license, for whatever reason. That may be OK with drivers' licenses and hunting licenses, but how about a fundamental right? We call those first ten amendments the Bill of RIGHTS for a reason.
Lisa, you know where I was coming from, and it wasn't from the standpoint of you being a pornographer. Although, come to think of it, there's money in it... Agreed, defending oneself against the government is kind of a quaint notion these days, but one never knows. OTOH, it seems every violent criminal in this country has no problems laying his hands on a weapon. To me, a weapon is a shot at leveling the playing field. Note I gave up hunting years ago. I only have firearms for one reason. They're for killing humans.
Hazen, I have a hard time following you. Do you have a position here?
Spot-on, Ranger Hazen! Distraction, deflection and delusion seem to be the coin of their realm.
"Sarah in 2012!" Yikes.
Publius,
I'm humble, but a little money wouldn't be a bad thing...
I can't help but think you yank my chain, at times! That may be simply a consequence of the fact that you are so closely aligned in thought with Jim.
I am a strong defender of our constitutional rights. I can see the slippery slope that ensues when states truncate exercise of those rights, as we see with the erosion of access to abortion, for instance. I am not convinced that gun licensing qualifies. The argument that the "other side" will always get them is irrelevant.
Lisa,
re your reply to Publius.
Constitutionally the state should be the correct venue for gun laws.But the problem is that the Federal guvment is restictive in their policy and laws.The fact is that the Fed really doesn't like the inconvenient fact that we are armed.
What does-shall not be infringed mean? If the second amendment means what it says then why do we have to pay 135$ to carry a weapon?
jim
Publius said:"Hazen, I have a hard time following you. Do you have a position here?"
Yes sir I do...Gadfly... Hell Raiser.. Liberal Bastard...Spewer of common sense in the manner of Thomas Paine and the other authors of the "Federalist Papers"
My specific positon on Gun control is simple... There is no "issue". My point was the "issue" is nothing more than a straw man used by the wing nutters to whip up support amongest themselves.
Morale is low and my heart goes out to them...:)
William Hazen
Jim,
That's all I've said all along: the state has the right to levy taxes on licensures. They've gotta make money somehow.
If you want to throw a tea party in town, a la Rick Santelli, let me know. I'm game.
Lisa,
It's not correct to tax a right. Guns should not be taxed.Do we allow poll taxes?And why don't we?
Guns can assuredly be regulated as we see but taxing them is unconstitutional.BTW- I do not accept their regulation-but I must acknowledge the reality.
jim
Lisa and Sheerahkhan,
I've been mulling over our exchanges and the following came to me.
Any asshole in America can vote even if they can't read and never took a Civics or even History class but you guys want gunnies to held to a higher standard when exercising their rights. Poor voting has caused more damage to America than has a gangbangers saturday night special.All the wrongful gun deaths in America don't equal the deaths caused by our phoney wars and uninformed voters support of these wars.
Think about that ;i'll be cleaning my piece.
jim
RAW,
I can picture you swaggering off in high dudgeon now, six-shooters holstered up -- a great American iconic image!
You make a very valid observation. (However, its validity does not subtract from the equal validity of the antecedent, IMHO.)
"Any asshole in America can vote even if they can't read and never took a Civics or even History class but you guys want gunnies to held to a higher standard when exercising their rights. Poor voting has caused more damage to America than has a gangbangers saturday night special.All the wrongful gun deaths in America don't equal the deaths caused by our phoney wars and uninformed voters support of these wars."
Late reading this, Ranger, and I hope you go back to see my comment. Which is: The logic here is overwhelming and this may be your finest construction. Ever.
Ranger Hazen: Thanks. I knew I liked you for a reason.
Publius,
I'll consider expanding this in a future piece.
As for Ranger Hazen-he's our flank security here at RAW.
jim
I hope you do expand this discussion sometime in the future for two reasons...
Our folks are all hot an bothered over having such things as assault weapons...
This "right to own assault weapons" may be contributing to the destruction of Mexico. Smuggled American Assault Weapons play a huge part in the spike of violence in Mexico since the ban was lifted in 04. So much so that the Cartels are destabalizing the country.
One man's "right" is another man's Cop Killer???
William Hazen
William,
Let's don't forget that China is flooding the area with AKs that don't c ome in thru the US.
Also I feel that the Mexican people should have firearms to protect themselves.
jim
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29389404/
http://cbs2.com/national/mexico.us.guns.2.947011.html
"We need to stop the flow of guns and weapons towards Mexico," President Calderon told AP. "Let me express to you that we've seized in this two years more than 25,000 weapons and guns, and more than 90 percent of them came from United States, and I'm talking from missiles launchers to machine guns and grenades."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-guns10-2008aug10,0,3497661.story
"More than 90% of guns seized at the border or after raids and shootings in Mexico have been traced to the United States, according to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Last year, 2,455 weapons traces requested by Mexico showed that guns had been purchased in the United States, according to the ATF. Texas, Arizona and California accounted for 1,805 of those traced weapons."
Sorry Jim but my brief fact check of your claim about Chinese AK's does not really seem to hold water. At BEST they represent only 10% of the illegal firearms being smuggled into Mexico.
Your suggestion that Mexican Citizens would be better off if they had the right to own firearms may sound good but there are plenty of societies where the citizenry don't own guns and they can enjoy life without worring about being shot down in the street or kidnapped.
I suggest that this topic obfuscates the real issue Which is The Drug War has failed and we should shift our emphasis from Law Enforcement and Militerization of same along with punishment to legalization and treatment...
But again that is another topic entirely. :)
William Hazen
William H,
Well i'm caught by fact checking. Good work. I stand corrected.
jim
William H.,
The drug war has failed, and I am with you that we should shift our focus to legalization and treatment.
William,
As usual I thought about this issue last nite.Regardless of presents stats as to who shot John I'll say that the Drug cartels/dealers will find a supply of weapons even if the US stopped producing them.
The new sources will be China,Venezuela, Panama, Isreal, South Africa just to name a few.
Whatever steps the US takes in this matter will only curtail rights in the US. We can't control the world. Obviously the Mexican border is not an obstacle to the drug or arms trade.
That's my last on this topic.
jim
Post a Comment
<< Home