Utah Guns Forum banner
1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This is a few days old, I'm surprised no one has posted it yet. I guess I can understand the occasional anti-gun rant when some legislation is pending, but this is just out of the blue, and really inflammatory propaganda. This is Utah, the "reddest" state in the country, and I still have to read this crap in the local newspaper!?

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_8923928
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,195 Posts
Yes, I read this the other day when it came out however, I was on my way to work and unable to comment then.
You are right though, this is nothing more than an inflammatory piece of tripe, not even worth the paper it was written on. The obvious goal was to excite the public with inflammatory language which makes it look like cops are dying everywhere because of hunting rifles and other military style weapons.
I looked at this again after seeing it posted here and double checked it, there are 47 thumbs down on it. So obviously the Trib is getting some type of "feedback" from the editorial.
The article itself is a jumbled mass of inadequate antiquated abusive slander with minimal, at best, truth to it. This is nothing more than a work of fictitious lies set down to incite the mentally unstable liberal crowd to stand up and cry foul during an election year. It is set down only to draw votes for anti-gun candidates as we draw closer to County & State Caucus meetings.
Nothing more than lies and abuse, the same we usually see from this liberal bastion of abuse and regurgitated tripe called the Tribune. I would laugh at it, if so many idiots out there weren't so gullible to this puke. Itd sa good thing it is an "Editorial," because they know it has no truth to it, but they canget away with it when used in this format. :roll: :ack: :nilly:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,616 Posts
I like this rebuttal from lurpy:
4/14/2008 9:13:00 PM

Good lord, where to start? First off, the SKS is not an "assault rifle" even by the Brady Campaign's definition--it's a top-loading, ten-round, fixed-magazine rifle with no pistol grip and a standard stock. Secondly, define "high velocity, "military style" and "quick succession." "High velocity"? Yeah, bullets go fast. It's cause there's an explosion behind them and they're pushed through a small tube. Even lower velocity pistol rounds like the .45 ACP are often supersonic, and pretty much all rifle rounds are. "Military style"? So, it looks bad? Here's a lesson: a Ruger Mini-14 semi-automatic rifle is the same gun whether it has a fixed stock, a ten round magazine, and no bayonet lug, or has a folding stock, a thirty round magazine, and a pistol grip. Aesthetic features don't change the function of a weapon. "Quick succession"? Semi-automatic means one round per pull of the trigger. It's not a machine gun; you still have to aim. There is no difference between a semi-automatic hunting rifle and a semi-automatic "assault rifle," but the anti-gun lobby would have us believe that somehow pistol grips and bayonet lugs make a gun more dangerous. EDIT: Oh, and as for cops, 82.1% stated that they do NOT support an "assault weapons" ban (San Diego Police Officers Association, May 5, 1997). Also, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics Survey of State Prison Inmates (1997), only 2% of convicted felons who carried a firearm had anything definable as a "military-style semi-automatic gun."

As for the assault weapons ban itself, here is what the Brady Campaign's website lists regarding the 1994 ban. Many of these same items were put in the attempted resurrection of the ban by Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY). My thoughts are in parentheses:

"The 1994 law also prohibits manufacturers from producing firearms with more than one of the following assault weapon features:
Rifles
* Folding/telescoping stock (Irrelevant. A folding stock has nothing to do with a weapon's lethality.)
* Protruding pistol grip (Trust me, it's just as easy to shoot someone with a rifle that doesn't have a pistol grip. This is simply another aesthetic qualification of an "assault weapon.")
* Bayonet mount (Yeah, those drive-by bayonetings are a real problem.)
* Threaded muzzle or flash suppressor (A flash suppressor is actually just a piece of metal on the end of a barrel that diffuses the gases and explosion which create the flash into different directions, away from the shooter's line of sight. This allows a shooter to fire a weapon in low light without being blinded.)
* Grenade launcher (grenade launchers were banned in 1934 by the National Firearms Act, the same bill that made fully automatic weapons so tightly restricted. This was simply put on the website to make people think that grenade launchers would be legal if the AWB was repealed.)
Pistols
* Magazine outside grip (Irrelevant. A magazine extending past the grip on a Colt 1911 might contain 10 rounds. A magazine in the grip on a Glock 17 can contain up to 17 rounds.)
* Threaded muzzle (Irrelevant, since silencers are illegal anyway except with BATF registration)
* Barrel shroud (Purely aesthetic. A barrel shroud diffuses heat from the barrel, making it so that a pistol can have a longer barrel and the shooter does not burn their hands. It's a safety feature, but it does make the gun look "meaner.")
* Unloaded weight of 50 ounces or more (Also purely aesthetic, and if you think about it, rather backwards--a larger, heavier pistol is much more difficult to conceal. Most handgun murders are committed with small, lightweight, easily concealable pistols.)
* Semi-automatic version of a fully automatic weapon (Vague enough to ban many semi-automatic pistols, but also irrelevant. Glock makes a fully-automatic pistol for police and military, as does Beretta. Both are close to their civilian designs. Colt does not make a fully-automatic version, but a semi-automatic 1911 is just as deadly as a semi-automatic Glock or Beretta.)
Shotguns
* Folding/telescoping stock (See "Rifles.")
* Protruding pistol grip (See "Rifles.")
* Detachable magazine capacity (A detachable magazine does not make a shotgun deadlier.)
* Fixed magazine capacity greater than 5 rounds (Most hunting shotguns have a smaller capacity than that anyway.)"
Later on the website, there is a section that states:
"Opponents of the ban argue that such weapons only 'look scary.' However, because they were designed for military purposes, assault weapons are equipped with combat hardware, such as silencers (These are illegal unless you register with the BATFE; the website is horribly misleading), folding stocks and bayonets (which have no relevance to a weapon's lethality; nobody gets killed with bayonets), which are not found on sporting guns. Assault weapons are also designed for rapid-fire (except that they are semi-automatic, just like many, many sporting rifles and shotguns) and many come equipped with large ammunition magazines allowing 50 more bullets (actually, there are very few weapons that accept magazines of more than 30 bullets, and the 50+ capacity magazines that do exist are quite expensive) to be fired without reloading.
...Standard hunting rifles are usually equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines (Not true; even bolt-action rifles generally have 5- to 10-round fixed magazines).
...A pistol grip on a rifle or shotgun, which facilitates firing from the hip, allowing the shooter to spray-fire the weapon. A pistol grip also helps the shooter stabilize the firearm during rapid fire and makes it easier to shoot assault rifles one-handed. (This is honestly my biggest beef with the whole site. YOU CANNOT SHOOT ANY RIFLE EFFECTIVELY FROM THE HIP, OR ONE HANDED. Go look at some news footage of US soldiers. Do you see them resting their weapon on their hip while firing? Or shooting one handed? No, you don't. They put the rifle to their shoulder. They use both hands. They do this because you cannot shoot a rifle any other way. I have tried to fire my "assault rifle" from the hip to see if it is effective. I'm a pretty good shot, but I got no closer than two feet to a target that was 25 feet away shooting from the hip. ****, I'd rather the criminals thought they could fire from the hip--I'd much rather have someone shooting at me from the hip. Even if they managed to hit me by sheer luck, it'd probably be non-fatal. Look at every mass shooting. Any time that the shooter has attempted to "shoot from the hip" it has resulted in more wounded than dead, if anyone was killed at all. The really deadly shootings are the ones where the shooter had firearms training, often military, as in the case of Charles Whitman's shootings at the University of Texas clock tower [incidentally, none of Whitman's weapons would be banned by the assault weapons bill]. The "shooting from the hip" idea is purely myth.)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,616 Posts
This one is well-written too, from wordsmatter:
4/15/2008 3:06:00 AM

I'm a proud, card-carrying member of the ACLU. I advocate a strict separation of church and state, teaching evolution in our schools and the right of gay people to marry.

That said, this particular Trib editorial is nonsense and I’m deeply dismayed by the ignorance of firearms and ammunition revealed by its authors.

Good grief, where to begin? Is there space for an adequate response? Probably not.

The “670 hunting firearms” exempted in the old “assault weapons” law were functionally identical to, and most were far more powerful than, the firearms targeted by the law.

Just how “quick” is the “quick succession” of bullets fired this editorial proposes should be banned? All semi-automatic firearms fire one bullet per pull of the trigger. We’re not talking about full-auto machine guns here, just ordinary semi-automatic rifles of the type that have been around for a century. Lever action and pump action rifles can be fired virtually with the same speed.

How about “military style” as a standard for regulation? What, there’s a fashion police for firearms? Is a bullet fired from a rifle with an ugly plastic stock really more dangerous than the identical bullet fired from a rifle with a lovely polished maple stock?

How fast is too fast for a “high velocity” round? If the ammunition used in the miserable SKS is the benchmark for “high velocity” beyond which ammunition is banned, then you’re banning everything used by legitimate hunters.

Look, I’m not a hunter, and my view of hunting is that if you feel the need to hunt it ought to be done the way God intended â€" barefoot (preferably naked) and with nothing more sophisticated than a sharp stick.

But is hunting really the basis for a citizen’s right to own a firearm? The most casual review of the writings of the authors of the Bill of Rights makes it clear that the answer to this question is a resounding “no.”

Are semi-automatic rifles really the weapon of choice with today’s criminal? As if. Crimes committed with rifles of any kind are few and far between. They’re too expensive, too loud and too visible. You just can’t do the bad-boy-strut with a 34” long, eight-pound rifle tucked in your waistband the way you can with a handgun. Cops tend to notice such things.

Great. Now I’ve pissed-off people on both the left and the right.

Is this a great country, or what?
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top