What The Heck Is An, "Assault Weapon?"

“Hoplophobia is a mental disturbance characterized by irrational aversion to weapons, as opposed to justified apprehension about those who may wield them.”—Col. Jeff Cooper.

Gun Grabbers are seeking an, "Assault weapons" ban in knee jerk response to the heinous and dreadful Newtown Massacre. There is little discussion about Adam Lanza or the victims from whom he lawlessly and barbarically snatched life.

Fox News' Bill O'Reilly likes to refer to these black scary guns as, "Heavy weapons" (and still we have no clear and articulate definition on what heavy weapons are) So exactly what is the anatomy of a black scary gun these gun banners seek to vanquish from our hands?

The term, "Assault Weapon" is a redundancy created to assist an anti-gun pathos. The definition of Assault in its simplest form is, "a physical attack." A weapon defined in simple terms is, "any device used to injure, defeat, or destroy."

Absent the pathos where common sense prevails, an assault weapon can now be effectively defined as a knife, a club, a bat, a tire iron, a whip or an atlatl, in addition to any firearm, not just scary black guns.

The AR-15 is a gas-operated, magazine-fed, shoulder-fired firearm. It is a semi-automatic rifle, meaning, it fires a chambered round, while simultaneously extracting the spent casing and loading a new round dispensed from a spring-loaded magazine with each independent press of a trigger. The AR-15 is not a machine gun.

The AR-15 fires a .223 Remington cartridge (or 5.56x45 mm NATO) round which has a typical average velocity of 3,200 feet per second. .223 is the caliber or, "size" of the bullet. they range in weight from 55 grains to 62 grains or a smidgen more than a quarter of an ounce. We are talking about a projectile that is under a quarter of an inch, weighing a quarter of an ounce....fired from a scary black gun.

The Ruger 10/22 and the .22 caliber rimfire bear some limited similarities to scary black guns. Ruger 10/22 is semi-automatic. So is the AR-15. The Ruger 10/22 can take a higher capacity magazine. So can the AR-15. The AR-15 and Ruger 10/22 have comparable sized projectiles that exit the muzzle. While the power between the two vastly varies, we can now see the intellectual flaws in terminology like, "Heavy weapons" and "Assault Weapons." Then there is one final glaring fact: Both firearms when used criminally and illegally, kill people equally dead.

An average .22 caliber rimfire cartridge has a muzzle velocity of roughly 1,065( +/) feet per second. Like the .223 Remington, the .22 caliber rim fire projectile is roughly the same size, separated only by 1/1,000th of an inch in size. These projectiles weigh anywhere from 19 to 40 grains: an infinitesimal weight difference between the two.

On January 29, 1979, 16-year-old Brenda Ann Spenser used a Ruger 10/22 to "plink" at kids and teachers at Grover Cleveland Elementary School in San Diego California. She is now doing 25-to life in Prison as she killed two and wounded eight others. The Ruger 10/22 is one of the most popular selling rifles since hitting the market in 1964 and is Not an assault weapon...

"We have to ban these powerful weapons..." go the hues and cries of the anti-gun liberals. But as usual, they are never clear about what they speak, letting ignorance and confusion stand.

How about a Marlin 1895 CB lever action rifle, chambered in 45-70 Government? What makes that firearm so powerful? Is it its' low velocity round and muzzle energy, effective to take down most North American Big game animals? Or is it whether or not the shooter can tolerate the recoil that rattles ones fillings at the press of the trigger?

 What about the even bigger rifles like the Armalite AR-50, MacMillan TAC 50, and the Barrett M82A1, all of which employ the massive 50 caliber bullet, commonly known as the 50BMG? (.510 diameter) 650-800 grains in weight. Now, these might conceivably be considered, "Heavy weapons." Perhaps the Bolt Action Rifle, .505 Gibbs? 375 H&H? 404 Jeffrey? 416 Rigby? .577 Nitro? All of them have MASSIVE, MASSIVE power. I have fired them all and they left me bruised and sore.

Most of the aforementioned are designed as, "long range shooting rifles." Or in the case of the big game rounds, meant for hunting Dangerous game. (Lions, Tigers, and Bears, Oh My!) They all have very long barrels, are very heavy (in weight) and most often (except for the Barrett) are bolt action (big game rifles tend to be double rifles and break action) rifles. But this fact that lacks relevance in the gun ban debate where killing sprees happen at very close ranges with small caliber arms. Despite that, California has banned them because they are simply scary. To date, there are no gun crimes recorded using any of these extra-large caliber firearms.

Facts are inconvenient things.

Asia has the United States beat, "hands down" on the Spree Killings with 122. Since 1863, there have been sixty-three such spree killings in the U.S. The decade with the highest number was 1980 to 1990 counting at 15, and handguns are the most used firearms in spree killings.

Might the reader find this information bordering on mundane? Probably. But certainly it cannot be argued that I am not reasonably informed about that which I write.

All the calls to ban these scary black guns FAILS to deal with the other inconvenient hard cold facts. Fact 1: We have these gun safe school zones...no guns present anywhere. If a spree killer enters into a school with a .22 rim fire rifle, be it a bolt action, lever action or semi-automatic, with the express intent to kill many...he (or she) will likely kill many. Fact 2: The fallen dead will be as equally dead as if they were shot with a pistol, a Bushmaster Rifle, a musket or a big bore hunting rifle....and no less dead.

History tells us that spree killers have been around since the civil war and long before the advent of the so-called assault weapon. Spree killers have frequently used items other than firearms in mass murder, such as the dynamite and timer used in Bath Michigan in 1927 by Andrew Kehoe: 45 Killed, 58 injured...38 were children.

Efforts to ban firearms possessed by law-abiding citizens is not only misplaced but gives further evidence to a progressive-statist utopian worldview that citizens do not need guns, that they may be subjects to an oppressive government and not citizens. Some of the most poignant statements advocating for the confiscation of guns comes from the likes of Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mussolini, Kim Jong Il and Fidel Castro. Most recently, Hugo Chavez has banned the possession of all firearms by citizens and will require surrender of all privately owned firearms.

Col. Jeff Cooper put it like this:

“The conclusions seem inescapable that in certain circles a tendency has arisen to fear people who fear government. Government, as the Father of Our Country put it so well, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. People who understand history, especially the history of government, do well to fear it. For a people to express openly their fear of those of us who are afraid of tyranny is alarming. Fear of the state is in no sense subversive. It is, to the contrary, the healthiest political philosophy for a free people.” – Jeff Cooper’s Commentaries, vol. 4, no. 16, December, 1996

Assault weapon is a term of redundancy. A misnomer...a liberal pathos. Next time a liberal asks why a person needs a black scary gun, tell them to trade in their Lexus', their Volvo's and their Land Rovers for Yugo's, Why not? Nobody needs any of those vehicles. Transportation from point A to point B is all that is "needed". Comfort and style are the bane of the opulent. So, buy that Yugo today!

This isn't about scary black guns. This public debate is about keeping the populace in check and disarming those who the progressives perceive as a threat.

Editorial Second Guessing And Blind Hypocrisy

"A liar begins with making falsehood appear like truth, and ends with making truth itself appear like falsehood."   —William Shenstone

The Keene Sentinel , last Thursday, featured an editorial, positing the question, "Could an armed citizen have stopped the shooter?  But they never really answer the question and instead make an argument that we should move toward more gun control. The opening paragraph states,

Anyone who has ever aimed and discharged a firearm knows that accuracy depends on a number of things — the eye of the shooter, the weapon in use, levels of training and experience. There’s also the matter of setting. Hitting a target at a shooting range, with pulse steady and trigger squeezed, is not the same as, say, taking down a gunman in a darkened theater that’s filled with tear gas and screaming, panic-stricken movie-goers.

Oversimplifying.  Reasonable people know that firearm use in self defense never presents any good or optimal circumstance. In fact it is the law-abiding firearm owner who is at the greatest disadvantage because he has to be concerned about shot placement and not hitting innocent bystanders...People willing to do others harm never give warning and will always choose a setting most ideal for them. And they never care much about who they injure or kill. So now the liberal crows are picking at Joe Zamudio...a guy who had a firearm in his possession and supposedly "intervened" in the Gabriel Giffords shooting case.  Zamudio, an armed citizen with no military experience or formal training, admits,

"I was very lucky.  Honestly, it was a matter of seconds.  Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down.  So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky.

Throughout the conversation, and all that was written, the focus on what Zamudio "almost" did overshadows what he "actually did." And it is telling Zamudio never took the time to think about and analyze why he didn't arbitrarily start shooting. Obviously Zamudio...is not the smartest guy ever interviewed.  Perhaps he was a bit star-struck in his quest for that 15 minutes of fame;

Zamudio says,

"I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." (Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun.) "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!' "

But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.

Zamudio allowed himself to be a willing dupe for the media to focus on the "almost" versus "what actually" happened.  Without realizing it, Zamudio effectively assessed the situation and reacted accordingly.  That is why the individual who had wrestled the gun from Jared Lee Loughner was not shot.  Most reasonable people are capable of making such assessments under such tense situations, but anti-gun liberals always seem to imply otherwise. The anti-gun agenda thesis finally emerges in this paragraph of the Sentinel Editorial:

"The mantra of gun lobby supporters is that guns don’t kill people; people kill people. Precisely. That’s why it’s appropriate for society to not merely wonder about how a person in Aurora came into possession of his remarkable arsenal, but also to actually do something about access to firearms. Likewise, it’s appropriate for society to take note of the possible dangers of armed vigilantism."

So there you have it; Advocacy for gun control, propped up by a huge leap to vigilantism. Vigilantism.  A very descriptive word.   Words mean things.   So it is appropriate to effectively define vigilantism.   The legal dictionary defines vigilantism as, 

"Taking the law into one's own hands and attempting to effect justice according to one's own understanding of right and wrong;(my emphasis) action taken by a voluntary association of persons who organize themselves for the purpose of protecting a common interest, such as liberty, property, or personal security; action taken by an individual or group to protest existing law; action taken by an individual or group to enforce a higher law than that enacted by society's designated lawmaking institutions; private enforcement of legal norms in the absence of an established, reliable, and effective law enforcement body."

So according to the Keene Sentinel Editors, if a person attacks me or another person with deadly force and I meet that threat with equal force sufficient to terminate the actions of the attacker, I am a vigilante.   That is little more than a smear on all law-abiding gun owners... I think we can sum this all up quite easily.  The Lame stream media focuses on the fact that Holmes purchased his guns legally, but glosses over the fact that he was allegedly under the care of  Psychiatrist Dr. Lynne Fenton, mental health services director at the University of Colorado.  It is also alleged that Holmes had articulated his thoughts of harming others in a notebook, e-mails, and in sessions prior to the attack.

I am not clear if Colorado has such a law, but in this state, shrinks are mandated by law to make a report to law enforcement where there exists any kind of threat to ones' self or others....be it violence or otherwise. Where is the lame stream media holding the shrink accountable? [insert crickets chirping].

 The right of self defense is a "natural" right and the lame stream media seeks to culturally recondition us to believe that meeting force with force is mere armed "vigilatism."  After all, "Only the Police should have guns."

Finally, the lame stream media continues in its' quest to reshape the cultural bias against the fallacious descriptor "assault weapon" merely because of a firearm's materials of construction, appearance, and form.  Under their description, an assault weapon is virtually anything they say it is. Liberals will likely continue to advance the thesis that even if an armed citizen was present, action would have been ineffective.  Liberals are willing to hang their hat on this thesis, but squelch and ignore all accounts where handgun-use has saved lives.

NRA President David A. Keene,  writes in the  American Rifleman, August 2012,

"In a very real sense (the anti-gun leftists) hostility to firearms and the Second Amendment isn't about guns or violence or crime; it's about values."

The Keene Sentinel is just one in the sea of progressive anti-gun liberal media mouthpieces chipping away at the second amendment rights of citizens.

CROSS-POSTED AT GRANITE GROK

The Shrill Kathy On Religion, Fatties, Food Stamps, And Republicans

"I have a great diet. You're allowed to eat anything you want, but you must eat it with naked fat people." —Ed Bluestone

It's a different kind of day when the Shrill Kathy graces the pages of the Union Leader with feigned pity for Republican candidates. And what can be said of the Shrill Kathy where she takes the opportunity to grossly mischaracterized an ad put out by the Perry Campaign. She states, "Rick Perry Complains..." But does he really? Or are the assertions in the spot a pointed statement about the current and existing situation. Having served in the United States Marine Corps, I can tell you there were individuals present and serving who were gay. And they continued to serve.

The job of the military is national defense, not social policy and for a long time loony liberals like the Shrill Kathy Sullivan have sought to change that priority. Leftists want the U.S. Armed forces to more closely resemble the Danish and Dutch Armed Forces for whom the enemies of the free world possess no fear.  What's more, after making a thesis statement about Perry's ad referencing gays in the military, she takes a slap at him with a Brokeback Mountain simile about the jacket he wears in that ad.  Frankly, I've seen more class from drunk people at an Appalachian Wedding Reception. And before the Shrill Kathy starts poking at people's appearances and what they wear, she ought to step in front of a mirror, herself.

Defending Obama Shrill tells us that, "President Obama is a man of faith who receives a daily devotional from Joshua DuBois, the head of the White House Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships." But do note the choice of words the Shrill uses: "man of faith," and, "daily devotional"...sans any reference to Christ Jesus, Christianity or God, Buddha, Allah, or Baal. Don't Wiccans, Satanic worshipers and Vodouisants exercise "faith?" Faith in Obama's world is the mere rebranding and repackaging of Saul Alinsky-esque secular humanistic pursuits, sans deity... making the notion of faith more palatable for sheeple who profess a neo-religious or non-religious world view.

The Shrill Kathy clearly loathes Christianity and this inane Union Leader Opposite Editorial suggests just that. The bulk of her diatribe is squarely aimed at Rick Perry, interlaced with pointed shots at Rick Santorum. The commonality? Both profess a faith-based world view and neither candidate is the current front-runner.

And for some gratuitous fun, the Shrill references a You Tube video where, one quips, "Rick Perry may believe in God, but I’ve seen his poll numbers and God does not believe in Rick Perry.” Yes. That is pithy. It is also the rank and file stock that candidates garner as a by-product of the national spotlight...perhaps even a statement of the individual who made the spoof... but hardly the viable data source subject to interpretation as some larger sentiment. But leave it to the shrill to go there.

Shrill Kathy reminds us that Perry was unable to remember the name of Justice Sotomayor, quipping, "There should be a mercy rule in politics that allows Rick Perry to exit the race now." On that point, I might be inclined to agree and ask when we will see Obama's exit. He can go back to one of the #57states and visit those #NavyCorpsemen returning from "Eye-Rack." Talk about descent into caricature. And a Shrill rant just isn't a shrill rant without a lie. The Shrill says, "(Santorum) [L]ast week asserted that the food stamp program is not necessary..." Well, not really a true statement. The Shrill Kathy left out the part where Santorum stated,

"[I] would cut and cap spending on the food stamp program and put the money in block grants for states to individually administer."

 Reasonable people would take this to imply Santorum thinks such programs are better administered at the local level than on the federal level.

Santorum then commented, “If hunger is a problem in America, then why do we have an obesity problem among the people who we say have a hunger problem?” The Shrill Kathy's  judgment? An, "ignorant statement."

The Shrill Kathy cites research from the University of Washington that found junk food costs less than fruits and vegetables and that lower-income folks bought less expensive, less healthy processed foods. Talk "make work" and a waste of money and resources. It takes neither research, nor rocket science to know this.

Personally, I have lost 121 pounds over the past year (unlike the Shrill Kathy who doesn't appear to have lost any). Personally, my joints ached from being a fatty, so I am  glad to see she fares better with extra poundage than I.   And in order to go from 347-pounds to my current 226 lbs I had to change what I ate. And what I ate meant an increase in food costs.  You should be quite happy, Shrill...think of all those farm subsidies hard at work. What kind of research is needed to know that a box of ten Devil Dogs and a half Gallon of Milk equals less than the cost of one box of six Kashi Go-Lean bars? And it took researchers to figure this out? One trip to the store is all that was needed.

The Federal Government, time after time has shown itself to be an abysmal failure and these programs are better-managed at the local level. Besides, where are all your big giant corporate liberal friends who run the Granola factories? When are they going to step up? A Red Herring, indeed...You just don't like Santorum because he says "Jesus" (and not the same way and context you might say "Jesus ").

And if it were not enough to go after the current Republican Field, she fixes her sights on, "The Donald" for an inane attack. Trump may not be an American Icon on the level of Jefferson and Lincoln, but for all of his shortcomings and warts, Trump has created a heck of a lot more jobs in one day than any of the Shrill Kathy's pals have in any given year. Leave it to the Shrill Kathy and her liberal pedantists pals with no higher purpose in mind than an anti-business, anti-capitalist world view.

The Shrill Kathy predicted a Carol-SEIU Porter win...She was wrong. The Shrill Kathy predicted a pick-up of seats in the 2010 election for her ilk. Again, she was wrong. Her predictions are more errant than those that are not. And those that are not, are not even her own. So why bother to write all this useless prattle? With so much time on her hands, the Shrill Kathy shakes the Chips A'hoy crumbs from out of her keyboard and goes to work...Being Shrill. Isn't Free Speech Grand?

CROSS-POSTED AT GRANITEGROK

Follow me on