- BIG NEWS:
- Terrorism
- |
- Barack Obama
- |
- Bill Clinton
- |
- Health Care
- |
Only a 'Madman' Would Oppose All Gun Control, Says Gun World Editor
Read More:
Ar-15, Assault Rifle, Assault Weapons, Gun Control, Gun Lobby, Gun World, Jan Libourel, Jim Zumbo, Mel Tappan, Urban Rifle,
Politics News
According to Jan Libourel, the editor of Gun World magazine, "Nobody but a madman would oppose some sort of gun control laws."
Libourel is no gun grabber in disguise. The statement, in a column titled "Panic Attack," comes after his personal observation, "It is true that the Democratic Party has for decades been much more receptive to punitive, repressive and unreasonable gun control measures."
But in the pro-gun world where everything -- from word to deed -- is seen through the gummy lense of the slippery slope, his comments may well be taken as an act of betrayal. Ask Jim Zumbo, described by the Washington Post in a February 2007 article as a "mustachioed, barrel-chested outdoors entrepreneur who lives in a log cabin near Yellowstone National Park...[and]...spent much of his life writing for prominent outdoors magazines, delivering lectures across the country and starring in cable TV shows about big-game hunting in the West."
And how did Zumbo end up in the Post? Earlier that month he had written in his blog the following criticism of assault weapons and the men who love them:
"Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity...As hunters, we don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them....I'll go so far as to call them 'terrorist' rifles."
In a community that cheers on the destruction of those who stray from the true path, Zumbo's world quickly collapsed: canceled television shows, lost endorsements, and a whole lot of hate mail.
So why does Libourel run the risk of traveling the Zumbo Trail? Because a significant portion of the pro-gun organizations and individuals that comprise the activist core of gun ownership in America do oppose "some sort of gun control laws." In fact, they oppose any sort of gun control laws.
And they don't consider themselves crazy.
Libourel's Quisling rating then ratchets up a few more points when he has the audacity to call into question the pro-gun myth of the modern-day 'citizen soldier.' You know, the heavily-armed guy who in his grandiose dreams is linked to a heritage that stretches from the Revolutionary War to the Wolverines of Red Dawn -- and is only seen by the rest of us when he snaps and his last "patriotic" act ends up on the evening news.
Noting the reported increases in sales of assault rifles like the AR-15 in the wake of President Obama's election, Libourel writes:
"I suppose the people rushing to buy up AR-15s 'before it's too late' are counting on the anti-gunners' being magnanimous enough to ban the future sale of such rifles yet leave existing owners in possession of theirs. Either that, or they are planning to hide them in anticipation of an armed uprising or social breakdowns. Although I was certainly no fan of the Clinton administration, I had to wonder about those 'patriots' and 'constitutionalists' who advocated arming themselves back then with an eye to overthrowing the lawfully elected government! Although I didn't much care for him, Bill Clinton was elected president under the United States Constitution, fair and square."
Libourel then goes on to question those who would follow the logic of "survival guru Mel Tappan," whose "shtick" was that they:
"should prepare for the inevitable social breakdown or nuclear war by acquiring a 'retreat' in a remote rural area where you could essentially live off the land and arm yourself to the teeth with state of the art high-firepower weaponry so that you could blow away any 'looters' who had the temerity to trample your Jerusalem artichokes! (I guess you would have to have a keen nose for trouble to effect a retreat to your retreat before the social blowup or the nukes started falling...) I suppose for defending an isolated ranch or farmstead from the concerted attack of a criminal gang one of these rifles would have considerable merit. The same would hold true if one anticipated in engaging in house-to-house fighting in some sort of urban warfare, as taught in the 'Urban Rifle' courses at the sundry shooting schools. However, being an old-fashioned, low-tech sort of guy, I always felt that a plain old short-barreled 12 gauge pump gun or autoloader was all the urban defense gun I'd ever need. In most urban jurisdictions, it would be pretty hard for a civilian to plead necessary self-defense if he engaged in a shootout at ranges greater than the 35 yards or so at which buckshot is effective."
In a world viewed by many of his readers in black and white, Libourel has staked out a little island of gray. It remains to be seen whether he's exiled to it.
Loading comments…
Most Popular on HuffingtonPost
SaJHwCn0l3r6GHOTedX6frJa3eyF04p4i2QY0wtRfvNYvzJJ6VufWI1MWCEQ65ysvqUEwU65ybc0T4h5GdhpoWfRvxQqlIl3
7xjEawVab%2FQ1AMDnOyPo7ocjxHO5wKmRjTWDiR%2FAcshLskkGuRqqkQ%3D%3D
1 of 2
HuffingtonPost Reporters
qe5KBQ8sxtUXPTTQpECTMTB4gfISx03r
xTA9rYd67xi5Kadw1Ip0kA%2F3n5pbvciz
1 of 2
Don't Miss HuffPost Bloggers
1 of 3
Huffington Post Apps and Feeds
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I'm always puzzled by Americans and their love affair with guns. Always seems like everybody is afraid of everything.
Still, having said that a gun is a lethal weapon and so are many other things. We generally accept that law abiding citizens have a responsibility to act appropriately with such things, not ban them.
I have no problem with guns being available to responsible people. That would mean:
1. Background checks for all purchases which might entail waiting for a weapon. I don't believe that the rare 'urgent' situations override the downside of handing out weapons fast to anyone.
2. Training - I need a license to drive, I need a license to own a gun. I should have to qualify, learn safety, learn how to use it properly.
3. Storage requirements - Too many guns are stolen, too many kids are shot. Your storage must be locked.
4. Consequences - Violations of storage, misuse, etc. mean you lose your license. If you can't be responsible you shouldn't have one
5. Huge consequences for anyone going around the rules, meaning illegal firearms, criminals, etc.
Given those points, I don't care if you have an AR15 or a Glock 9mm. They both kill me dead when used by irresponsible people for nefarious purposes.
3.
You're far too reasonable and making way too much sense! You're one of THEM! :)
Ack!
Wait...which them? Gun toting crazies them or left wing liberal nut_bars them?
1. Fine, as long as everyone has access to NICS. Currently Josh wants all sales to go through FFL dealers while at the same time advocating putting them out of business through lawsuits.
2. Partial As long as that license is valid in every state, I also don't need a license to OWN a car, just operate it on public roads.
3. No. That completely defeats the home defense purpose.
4/5. Laws like that are already on the books. They're not enforced. 80%+ of murders are committed by individuals w/ prior criminal records.
On 4/5 then let's get enforcement going.
On 2 - yes a national license should be all that's required.
On 3. - Sorry. Paranoia about home invasion can't justify 3,000 deaths a year of kids. Somebody has to fix this, I don't care how. Either guns that only fire for the owner, or trigger locks that are quick to remove. Something. It's that or any owner who's gun kills a kid because it wasn't stored properly goes to jail for life.
That's just part of being responsible, figuring out how to keep them out of the hands of criminals and kids.
Why do people think that gun crimes (esp. gun murders) are out of control, at record highs and a they are in danger of getting killed or injured by guns. Go to the Dept of Justice Bureau of Statistics and you will find that the opposite is true. The actual number of gun murders is down since the 1970's -yes actual number down and at the same time the population has gone up about one nundred million. So that means the ratio of gun deaths has actually gone down. To me that says the gun laws on the books are working and the media is sensationalizing the gun deaths that are happening. They do this to make it seem the situation is out of control because they have political agendas of their own.
I am an American & I'm puzzled by the love affair with guns. Very good post. I don't see how anyone can disagree with such sensible rules.
Because some of them are not sensible.
"3. Storage requirements - Too many guns are stolen, too many kids are shot. Your storage must be locked."
Yet Josh Sugarmann advocates that I should go to prison if someone breaches my locked driveway gate, my locked exterior door, my locked interior door and my locked gun safe in order to steal my gun.
If there was a 7 day waiting period, would it magically solve all the problems, of course not...
But Steve McNair would not get shot until tomorrow if we had a 7 day waiting period.
Show where waiting periods have solved ANY problems.
We'll wait.
I just did????
Explain how Kazemi, a 19 year old waitress at Dave and Buster's, would have gotten her hands on an illegal handgun.
I'll wait...
She could have very likely come to her senses during the past week and Steve McNair would be ALIVE today.
People have been killed while "waiting" for a firearm they had purchased for defense. It is extremely rare for a firearm to be used in a crime within 15 days of purchase. "Cooling off" periods can cost as many lives as they might save and are largely ineffective.
Excellent point. A judge could be allowed to circumvent the waiting period when he grants an order of protection.
Problem solved.
Your right, he'd get shot eight days from now, unless he got stabbed, or poisoned.
Curious...
Why are the same people who argue that there can be NO restrictions on the 2nd Amendment usually the same ones who argue FOR restrictions on the 1st Amendment?
And we'll wait while you point out where that has been mentioned by any pro-gun posters here......
Ready.....go!
I don't have to limit my arguments to the 3 of you...
Have you ever heard of the GOP?
They vote against any and all restrictions on guns, but they spent how long investigating Janet Jackson's....then trying to raise the fines that are already in place for the speech they already banned.
Hell, I'ld like to see any evidence of this from anyone.
Who here said anything about that? You cite "the GOP" as a whole in an attempt to cast blanket derision.
Good thing I'm not a Republican, myself, then.
I personally think it is ridiculous to pick and choose from the Bill of Rights. It is not a buffet sampler.
Why is the 2nd Amend a Republican vs. Democrat issue? Looking at it objectively, the Democrats should be the ones pushing for greater individual freedom, while the Republicans push for laws that "are tough on crime".
Not long ago that was the case. The high water mark of the anti 2nd Amend was when Warren Burger wrote his essay calling the 2nd Aendment "the biggest fraud" ever pulled on the American people. Burger was a law and order Justice appointed by Republicans.
Thereafter, LIBERAL academics, such as Sandford Levinson, began examining the historical contextof the 2nd Amendment and concluded that it wasan individual right. Levinson's work, "The Embarrasing Second Amendment", began a new look at the 2nd by mostly liberal law school academics, culminating in the eventual defection of even Lawerence Tribe.
So why is there this apparent reversal in what would seem the natural philosphies of the political parties? I believe that this philosophical reversal has more to do with pandering to constitutiencies than anything else. Many opponents to the 2nd are from inner cities because they experience more gun violence than their rural counterparts and have little understanding for or see any use for a gun. The big city is also a portion of the Democratic constintuency. Conversely, in the rural areas, people often times grow up around guns, are hunting enthusiasts and will own several guns. These rural areas are also likely to be strongholds of the Republican Party.
I've carried weapons for a large part of my life. I was a soldier, per se. I believe in gun control. I believe that giving someone the right to own a handgun with no training and no background check is asking for trouble. I do not carry a handgun with me at all times like some people I know. The state I live in, Tennessee, has just passed a law that would allow gun owners with carry permits to enter a bar/restuarant with a loaded, concealed weapon. This is like pouring gas on a fire. Sooner or later someone is going to get burnt.
And that pesky 2nd amendment thing just gets in the way.....darn it
...of common sense and basic human decency....
YES....ALL THE TIME.
"The state I live in, Tennessee, has just passed a law that would allow gun owners with carry permits to enter a bar/restuarant with a loaded, concealed weapon."
Hum, crucial to substantiating your argument, you fail to mention why the other 30-some (or is it 41? someone please help me out here) states which already allow CCW in bars/restaurants have not gone up in flames with all that "gas on the fire."
Because the "more guns = more crime" canard has been debunked over and over again.
Try again.
41 states allow concealed carry in establishments which serve alcohol. No problems so far.
" I was a soldier, per se."
Exactly how does that work. Sounds a lot like being kinda pregnant.
"I believe that giving someone the right to own a handgun with no training and no background check is asking for trouble. "
No one is giving anyone anything. You already have that right.
There are a number of other states that allow concealed firearms in restaurants, some without the restrictions that Tennessee kept (no drinking!). Can you cite all the examples of mayhem that have resulted from this? Can you cite 2 examples of this? How about if I cite one example that might have turned out differently if a firearm had been allowed into a restaurant. Google Suzanna Hupp, and read her story.
I live in Memphis. I enjoy my beer at the Buffalo Wild Wings. Noone is going to open fire just because they have a firearm, particularly seeing as how drinking while armed is not allowed!!
Semper fi
Perhaps too this person is thinking that accepting more reasonable and incremental regulation as to types of gun weapons and access may be preferable to perhaps overreacting laws hurting all legal gun ownership. No one needs a military class weapon to defend their property or go hunting. No one needs a cache of weapons, that far too often leads to misuse, theft by criminals and others put in danger. I do hope this person is seen as reasonable, but far too many Gun Rights First types are blindly absolute to the 2nd Amendment ignoring the dark side of that belief.
so lets get specific, what is a "cache of weapons"? More than 2? More than 10? and who decides?
Many may consider the 1st ammendment also has a dark side as some speach could be considered "dark". Does this mean we should curtail free speach?
We curtial free speech all the time...
The free speech equivalent of a guy being able to walk into and then out of a store with an Ak-47 would be, say, a 3 way sex scene with a man, a woman, and an armadillo on PBS.
No one NEEDS a color TV, a brand-new Blu-Ray player, or a car, really. If you're basing your argument on what people "need", it doesn't matter what the desired item is, if there's no "need" for it, then they shouldn't have it at all, right?
What is a "military class weapon"?
Both my Enfields (M1917 Enfield and an SMLE4) and my Garand are first rate hunting rifles and my SKS is a first rate defensive carbine for a farm. ranch or cabin--so milspec firearms DO have a legit civilian use
"No one needs a military class weapon to defend their property or go hunting."
But we do if we want to be in that "well regulated Militia"... Or do you concede that the right does not depend on the introductory phrase?
Josh, Thanks for a great post and a good laugh.
"Libourel's Quisling rating then ratchets up a few more points when he has the audacity to call into question the pro-gun myth of the modern-day 'citizen soldier.' You know, the heavily-armed guy who in his grandiose dreams is linked to a heritage that stretches from the Revolutionary War to the Wolverines of Red Dawn -- and is only seen by the rest of us when he snaps and his last "patriotic" act ends up on the evening news."
That's a great line.
About Libourel and whether he'll be isolated by the other gun enthusiasts, I think it works like this. Just like in any group, you've got reasonable people and unreasonable ones. You've got many who are passionate and some of them are biased by that passion. Of the pro-gun folks I've gotten to know, I'd say only a small percentage fall into the two extremes of reasonable and unreasonable. You've got those rare individuals who can consistently put forth their position calmly and thoughtfully. On the other extreme you've got the ones whom Josh calls the "pro-gun myth of the modern-day 'citizen soldier.'" In the middle you've got the majority, many of whom are passionate, some are even a little biased.
Libourel would fit into the first category; reasonable gun owners who are not afraid to say the truth as they see it.
Can Josh or anyone else provide a link to this supposed article by former South African Jan Libourel?
Don't know where to start with this guy.
The use of a 12ga in urban arena during times of stress is often awkward and undesirable. Take one example of when a person noticed two scoundrels trying to steal his generator. A shotgun would result in two injured and one damaged generator. A few shots placed to miss drive off the actors unharmed and leave the item intact. Same for use in one's residence. One doesn't need bouncing pellets in one's own home, not to mention collateral damage.
Right tool for the right job.
His artificial scenarios and unrealistic presuppositions force bizarre conclusions. Try again. The reality of how people behave in times of stress are well known. One can presume it can't happen here, or one can prepare to the extent they feel it can happen. Some preparation is prudent, to be sure. Firearms or no? - a matter of personal choice.
His characterizations of persons who purchase firearms for times of social stress are completely inaccurate, comical and pathetic. It isn't clear why he even bothers to say such things. He's hallucinating is all I can figure.
Let's see if Sugarmann is right about many gunowner rights advocates opposing ALL gun laws.
Which of the gunowner rights advocates (who post here regularly) oppose laws making it illegal for violent felons to own guns?
There are plenty of laws on the books, most of which I agree with and support.
If anything, current laws aren't enforced enough. Proper enforcement fo laws (and linking the NICs check to the mental health database) could have stopped shooter James Buford and the VTech massacre.
disarming violent felons is an example of laws that ONLY the proRKBA people support
Eek!
None of the gunowner rights advocates (who post here regularly) seem to oppose laws making it illegal for violent felons to own guns!
Could Sugarmann be WRONG about many gunowner rights advocates opposing ALL gun laws?
Jay--so far--the ONLY people I see advocating going after the criminals are the proRKBA people
Assault weapon bans are illogical, because so-called assault weapons such as the AR-15 bear almost no resemblance--functionally--to the real assault rifles on which they are cosmetically modeled. An AR-15 looks a lot like an M-16 but it is not one. It is not capable of fully-automatic fire. Functionally, it is exactly like every other semiautomatic weapon that has a more "traditional" appearance, the kind normally used for hunting. The only functional difference is the pistol grip on the AR-15 and similar "assault weapons." It would make more logical sense, if you want to ban a type of gun, to just ban all semiautomatics, regardless of their outward appearance.
Aside from that, it is not true that the pro-gun people oppose ALL gun laws. They just oppose NEW gun laws because they think there are plenty of gun-restricting laws already. I can't imagine where the author got the idea that anyone really is against all gun laws! Did he simply not do his research, or he's assuming all the pro-gun people are evil? Who is living in a "black and white world" now? It seems to me tha the anti-gun people are themselves living in such a world.
To the commenters who assert that only a tiny fraction of gun owners want NO restrictions on gun ownership -- show me a statistic, please. You know, a poll or something. Oh, and let's not include those who think the only plausible restriction is on felons -- I think that's kind of a no brainer for a lot of folks.
To those who insist on kvetching that a semi-auto (e.g., AR-15) cannot be called an "assault rifle" -- aside from the fact that full-auto conversion kits are about as hard to get as .22LR ammo, the key definition of an assault weapon (to me, at least) depends on what the round is designed to do. If it is optimized for killing people at short-to-medium range, it is NOT a hunting weapon, whether you want to call it "assault weapon" or "murder weapon" or "self-defense weapon".
FWIW, I have guns, and I don't think there is much point in an "assault weapon" ban because it's fundamentally unenforceable. What I'd like to see is ammo-ID, but I'm afraid the NRA disagrees. Why, I wonder?
Oh look, another "I'm a gun owner but..." post.
"aside from the fact that full-auto conversion kits are about as hard to get as .22LR ammo,"
Oh really? Care to prove that assertion?
You wonder why people don't like 'ammo ID"? Perhaps it's because the technology is not proven, it's easily defeatable, would cause ammo prices to skyrocket, and is a defacto registration.
Are those enough reasons or would you like some more?
"aside from the fact that full-auto conversion kits are about as hard to get as .22LR ammo"
Bzzzzt! Incorrect!
"the key definition of an assault weapon (to me, at least) depends on what the round is designed to do"
That would mean the ammo is the assault weapon, since "assault weapons" fire the exact same ammo as other firearms and they all fire a wide range of types of ammo.
"If it is optimized for killing people at short-to-medium range, it is NOT a hunting weapon, "
Most hunting occurs at short to medium range and there are several animals in the same approximate weight range or body size as humans.
"What I'd like to see is ammo-ID, but I'm afraid the NRA disagrees. Why, I wonder?"
Um... because its dumb.
Oh, and about "To those who insist on kvetching that a semi-auto (e.g., AR-15) cannot be called an "assault rifle"", the definition of an assault rifle is based on the characteristics of the progenitor of the type from over 60 years ago and spelled out by military and State Dept documents.
And a huge part of that definition says that the firearms are SELECTIVE FIRE--in other words they are milspec machine guns
would that include virtually all handgun ammunition and every rifle caliber below .416 rigby...since most guns are used at short to medium ranges and are designed to kill all animals as fast as possible...not just human beings...as for ammo id...how does that work since i reload my own....
Sorry to say Strangelet but your knowledge of weapons and their intent and use are lacking. Actually most hunting weapons would fall into your definition "optimized for killing people at short-to-medium range, it is NOT a hunting weapon". As deer are about the same weight and size as a human amd most shots are 200 yards or less.
Ammo ID is unproven technology and would send ammo prices through the roof
Really?
Finally a gun nut stands up to the other gun nuts and his name is Liberal...I mean...
HAHAHAHAhahahahah LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL You are so funny!!!! I bet you could get a stand up routine on Letterman.
HINT: Don't quit your day job.
BTW, Jan has said nothing that the "gun nuts" haven't been saying for decades. Wake up.
for left/right...i have a solution for you...lets let the people vote on it...a national referendum on guns...a straight up or down vote....yes to..carrying the gun of my choice anywhere my drivers license is valid....that means everywhere...planes..trains..automobiles...schools...hospitals...everywhere get it...vs. no guns period in the u.s....all manufacturing of guns and ammo is prohibited by law...no exceptions for police...government bodyguards...or soldiers in the u.s...their guns stay locked up until foreign deployment...if the pro-rkba crowd wins this will not add one single gun to the 200,000,000+ already in circulation...it will increase the number of law abiding citizens acting as a deterrent to brazen street crime...if the anti-gun crowd wins guns will slowly disappear from society...any gun the police encounter they can confiscate and destroy but there will be no criminal or civil charges and no searches of individuals or homes or cars or businesses for the express purpose of finding a gun....no hiding in the woods to see if uncle bob is going to shoot a rabbit in the backyard or a deer on the back forty....do you think people will go for it....
Thankfully, we are not doomed to only two insanely extremely choices...
How about this?
You don't need to own an automatic weapon. You can wait a week to get the gun.
No one takes your guns away. Carry where you will...
BUT, the second a person uses a gun in the commission of a crime...they go to jail....FOR LIFE.
So there you go...law abiding citizens get to carry (reasonable) weapons...and criminals go to jail forever...
Well, you're KINDA on the right track. I don't think you'll get any opposition from the "gun nuts" as you say, for putting violent felons in prison for life, and I certianly don't think you'll get any opposition to your suggestion of unlimited CCW.
However, according to the very premise of the 2A, your one week waiting period holds no weight. Shall not be infringed means exactly what it says. It is not contingent upon an arbitrary idea that somehow, a law-abiding citizen magically has less of a chance of turning into a mass murdering zombie if he/she waits 7 days to acquire a firearm. Especially if they already own one.
And I don't think anyone is arguing for automatic weapons. Sure they're fun, but given the fact that they have been heavily regulated since the 1934 NFA and subsequent legislation, and about 98% of the public can't afford one ($5000-$8000 for starters?), I'd be just as happy if Big Daddy passed all the anti-automatic weapon legislation he wanted to as long as they leave me with my commie 7.62 shooters and evil black weapons with the Thing That Goes Up In The Back (tm).
Are you talking fully or semi auto?
Why should I wait a week if I've committed no crimes?
Tell that to CA, NYC, Chicago, etc.
Same.
Many firearm owners on these boards have been proposing similar. You'll never hear that from Josh or the Brady Campaign though.
as my friend odin says..your funny....can you tell me what an automatic look like....cause revolvers function the same way...on pull of the trigger results in one round being discharged.....one gun merely uses the gas generated from the expanding powder to force the slide back and load another round as opposed to the revolver which uses old fashioned mechanics to rotate the cylinder bringing another round into place.....why do i need to wait a week...cho waited a month a piece for each gun he bought or did you not know that....
Why should lawful citizens have to wait a week to get a gun? Is a criminal who wants to commit a crime with his gun going to wait a week? (or any other amount of time?) How is forcing the good guys to be defenseless for another week going to harm the bad guys?
As for automatic weapons, they have been banned from production for civilians since 1986. You'll have to find a better strawman.
Full-auto firearms have been very strictly controlled since 1934. You cannot just waltz in to a store or gun show and buy one. The paperwork alone takes months to complete.
Why should I have to wait a week to get a firearm when it is extremely, extremely rare for a firearm to be used in a crime within 15 days of purchase?
How about 10-20-Life. Carry a firearm in commission of a crime, get an extra 10 years. Brandish the firearm, add 20. Discharge the firearm, you get life. FTR, the NRA supports this - BC and VPC do not.
No.
and while we are at it we can have a straight up and down vote for abortion, same sex marriage, and a host of other issues that only win in the courts.
"Noting the reported increases in sales of assault rifles like the AR-15 "
Once again, for Josh's benefit -
Assault Rifle: A select-fire, carbine length rifle firing light to intermediate power, small to medium caliber cartridges fed from a detachable magazine. Select-fire means it has both a semi-auto and full-auto setting and as such is catagorized as a full-auto firearm AKA machine gun and is therefore very strictly controlled as an NFA Title II firearm.
Civilian AR-15: A semi-auto rifle. Not a machine gun and not an NFA Title II firearm.
Assault weapon: A vague, self-redundant term coined around 1970 but not defined. Used in the title of a firearm reference book in 1986 to refer to just about any firearm and even some knives. Codified in 1994 to be certain semi-auto firearms or any semi-auto firearms with more than an arbitrary amount of certain arbitrary features, mostly external.
Ahh. I never even noticed that they use weapon instead of rifle. Those devious gun grabbers are using orwellian double-speak. Absurd way to abolish the 2nd amendment.
assault weapon depends on which end of the barrel you are on...not what the gun looks like or how it functions...case in point....i am sure that custer considered the winchester lever action an assault weapon...i am sure that the sioux thought that as well.....
When read with Josh's infamous memo regarding the public's confusion between machine guns and semi-autos, it becomes much more damning.
""Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. "
If any of you ever get to rural or small towns in the states of the uneducated...read their newspapers and the editorials...they will scare even those who think the second amendment says something that it doesn't...that you can have your own warzone in your living room. My gawd...they think of Heston as their president. "Gotta arm ourselves for what is to come". What IS to come? The proliferation of guns is a sad commentary of the intellect of our citizenry. And their educational level.
then leave the country and go somewhere that more resembles your ideal homeland....
The Second Amendment says that individuals have a right to keep and bear arms and that one of the paramount reasons to not infringe that right is defense.
Unfortunately for you, you are living with a very shallow view of the world where you are unable to see diversity beyond the stereotypes. Go do some research about the educational and socio-economic levels of the average gun owner and get back to us.
Which explains why rural areas and small towns have lower crime rates than urban areas.
But none of that matters, does it? So much easier to make elitist stereotypes that you have no evidence for, isn't it?
What these mental defectives believe is simply that what has happened all over the world in the 20th century can happen here in the USA. What they fail to understand is that the USA is impervious to the social upheavals that have torn Europe, Asia, Africa and South America apart. History can be a bad thing in the wrong minds.
"According to Jan Libourel, the editor of Gun World magazine, "Nobody but a madman would oppose some sort of gun control laws.""
And everyone and their brothers have been saying the same thing to you for decades. Amazing that you are just now starting to pay attention. Now if you would just learn the difference between an assault rifle and an assault weapon.
"But in the pro-gun world where everything -- from word to deed -- is seen through the gummy lense of the slippery slope, his comments may well be taken as an act of betrayal."
Why should it when pretty much the entire pro-gun world has said the same thing for decades?
"Ask Jim Zumbo"
Jim did something quite different than what Jan did.
"Noting the reported increases in sales of assault rifles like the AR-15 in the wake of President Obama's election,"
There you go, confusing assault rifles with semi-autos again. Tsk tsk.
"Mel Tappan"
Most firearm owners and pro-gun folks have no idea who Mel Tappan was and extremely few give his writing much credence.
Yet guys like this are never the ones your side of the divide puts forward in the debate. It's always the wild-eyed militia psycho rambling on about UN/Zionist/al-Qaeda attempts to "conquer" the nation and outlaw capitalism, Christianity, and heterosexuality. Stereotypes don't materialize out of thin air, so get your own house in order.
Blackjac--either you have the world's worst memory or you have not been paying attention
Road apples. The stereotypes emerge because the propaganda of the gun control special interest lobby actively seeks these people out aand trots them out as examples.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
