Stuck On Stupid – Media Unable To Tell Difference Between “Semi-Automatic” (Hunting/Target Shooting) and “Automatic” (Military Grade Weapons)

(Via Ricochet) [A] friend who is a congressional staffer told me about this riveting interview of David Keene, president of the NRA, by CBS’ Bob Schieffer. Keene does a good job of pleasantly responding to Schieffer’s biased and inaccurate questions.

The part that struck me? Schieffer asks if the NRA will support a ban on “military-style assault weapons,” saying that “even” police chiefs support that. Keene explains that military-style weapons are fully automatic and that the bans being proposed are actually of semi-automatic weapons. They oppose those ban attempts. Schieffer says, showing his ignorance of how semi-automatic weapons work, “How many rounds can these weapons discharge in five seconds?” Keene says, well, “They fire when you pull the trigger.” Schieffer says, yeah, “And they keep firing.” Keene explains that “No, they don’t keep firing.”

The same USA Today Poll we shared earlier shows: Fifty-one percent oppose re-instating the federal ban on assault weapons, with 44 percent supporting the move. That is almost unchanged from 2011, when the public opposed the weapons ban by a 53-43 split.

This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment, A New America, media bias, Political correctness/cultural marxism, Potus Gun Ban, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

74 Responses to Stuck On Stupid – Media Unable To Tell Difference Between “Semi-Automatic” (Hunting/Target Shooting) and “Automatic” (Military Grade Weapons)

  1. John Galt says:

    Gun banners have always been incompetent with respect to firearm technology as evidenced by the emphasis of cosmetic features in the definition of “assault weapon” in the previous federal legislation.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

    Like

    • jke456 says:

      I don’t think they are that stupid , expecially the older reporters who have discussed all this before. I believe they are following the narative of the gun control crowd. The end justifies the means you know.

      Like

      • kadar2012 says:

        There is a book the journalists use. http://www.apstylebook.com/
        From the 2012 AP Stylebook:

        “Assault Weapon: A semi-automatic firearm similar in appearance to a fully automatic firearm or military weapon. Not synonymous with assault rifle, which can be used in fully automatic mode. Wherever possible, be specific about the type of weapon: semi-automatic rifle, semi-automatic shotgun or semi-automatic pistol.”

        Like

  2. Michelle Hart says:

    Again there is NO SUCH THING as a “semi-automatic” weapon regardless of type.

    Gas, recoil, or manual…. The weapon will either AUTOMATICALLY reload or it will not. there is either fully automated, non user intervention reloading limited only by ammunition supply, or there is not. The ENTIRE discussion is based around HOW a weapon will cycle the next round to be fired!!!

    Every single GAS OR RECOIL operated weapon on the planet is an “automatic weapon” because it will AUTOMATICALLY move a cartridge from the magazine to the chamber so the weapon can be fired again.

    Like

    • AghastInFL says:

      Yes, however a semi-automatic weapon stops after it cycles one time; a full automatic weapon continues to cycle until stopped by discontinuing the operation ie stop squeezing the trigger or it empties its given magazine.

      Like

      • Michelle Hart says:

        Sorry…..Nope…. The weapon DOES NOT lose it’s ability to automatically move a cartridge based on the action of the trigger. HOW a weapon loads it completely independant of how FAST or the NUMBER of bullets it fires.

        The Naval 20mm Phalanx CIWS can take over an HOUR to reload…. yet if will continue to AUTOMATICALLY load the next bullet and fire faster than almost any other manually operated weapon in existence. An automated system DOES NOT stop being automated just because it’s turned off. You are doing what everybody else does, which it try to merge two separate design functions, and claim they are the same thing.

        The receiver action, the trigger, and the method of operation have nothing to do with HOW the ammunition is supplied or the QUANTITY available to it.

        Caliber .45 ACP (AUTOMATIC Colt Pistol)

        Like

        • AghastInFL says:

          not being argumentative but how then would you prefer to distinguish between an automatic capable of a single re-load operation and one with a continuos feed? Back in 1911 the Army designated the sidearm design as one of a semi-automatic operaton, capable of a single reload with each blowback. I get the distinct impression you are looking for a particular descriptive.

          Like

          • Michelle Hart says:

            I’ve already told you based on the actual function, my preference really has nothing to do with it actually. All automatic weapons will move only ONE bullet to the chamber to fire with each cycle of the action regardless of action type. The difference is completely based on the action type of the weapon… Gas, recoil, or manual…

            THEN….

            Sustained or direct fire (machine gun)….most often belt or drum feed
            Non Sustained or repeating fire (shotgun, pistol, rifle)….usually magazine feed

            That’s why the Henry Rifle was called a “repeating rifle” when it was developed. It was capable of repeat fire based on the lever action NOT the magazine size or type.

            The Army never designated it a semi-automatic nor have they done so with any weapon. It was called the Colt Automatic Pistol Model 1911 and the really old ones have that stamped on them because it’s an AUTO LOADER. The German Mausers and Lugers are the same thing, the are all auto loaders, just like the M-249 or any Stoner AR-10 clone regardless of caliber or who made it. Colt, Bushmaster, Armalite, etc. just isn’t realevant in any way to how the action function or how many bullets are available to THAT weapons action…. Ever seen a belt fed AR-15??

            I’m really just pointing out the difference and the completely misleading and wrong descriptions given by people which is how we got where we are today.

            “Cutting Spending” is NOT a cut it’s a reduction of the increase…
            “Cutting Taxes” again NOT a cut but a reduction in the actual increase…
            “Semi Automatic” false term that applies to no know weapon on the planet…

            We let the commies continually play word games, reorganize reality, redefine the redefinition of the defined redefinition based on their own complete stupidity and the idiocy of the lazy who refuse to learn anything or just ignore what doesn’t suit them.

            Like

            • Mustang380gal says:

              Some Mauser handguns had only a broomhandle magazine, but had a selector switch to change it from semi-auto to full auto. It isn’t so much how the next round is chambered as it has to do with how many bullets come out with a pull of the finger on the trigger. If only one comes out per pull, it’s semi auto. My 1911 will never fire despite a round in the chamber until someone pulls the trigger. It will fire one, and stop, no matter how long the trigger is held back.

              Like

              • Michelle Hart says:

                The magazine is forward of the trigger housing, and it was NICKNAMED the broom handle by the allied forces, NOT the German army. It’s a 10 or 20 round 39mm cartridge and AGAIN it’s an auto loader or AUTOMATIC pistol which the name spells out Schnellfeuer (hurry fire/fast fire) the ACTION determines the MODE of fire…. Both the 1911 and the C96 are AUTO loaders, as stated, however the C96 is a “machine pistol” or techincally a sub machine gun depending on who you ask.

                1 – Does the weapon AUTOMATICALLY place a bullet in the chamber ( Yes / No)

                Answer – If Yes, well then it’s an auto loader / automatic / self loader / pistol

                2 – Do you MANUALLY place a bullet in the chamber (Yes / No)

                Answer – If No, well then it’s an auto loader / automatic / self loader / pistol

                Like

                • Mustang380gal says:

                  The 1911 Colt will only fire one round per pull of the trigger. That is what makes it semi-auto as opposed to full auto. Fill auto will cycle rounds until either ammunition in the magazine or belt is expended or the finger is removed from the trigger. No matter how long my finger is on the trigger, it will cycle, but not fire a second round until the sear is reset and the trigger depressed again. It is not anti-gunners who have made this distinction. It’s gun guys for decades. Most Mauser handguns only fired one round per pull of the trigger; a small percentage had the selector switch to make them fully automatic, ie fire until the bullets are gone.

                  An old Navy guy told me a grunt’s prayer was “Lord, let my enemy be on full auto…” :-)

                  Like

    • matt_ says:

      Although you are entitled to your own opinion, you’re not entitled to your own facts…

      Like

    • lovemygirl says:

      Would designing a handgun that acts like the first pull on a DA handgun get around the restrictions listed as you see it?

      Like

      • Michelle Hart says:

        Based on the Language used by Feinstein…. Only Manually operated antiques will be exempt… An 1891 Winchester 38-40 wont qualify because it holds 12 rounds

        However any lever, pump or bolt action, that is “an antique” based on what definition I don’t know, that has a magazine with less than 10 cartridges will be legal apparently?

        Like

        • Mustang380gal says:

          No, because of the “detachable magazine” provision in the description. My husband’s Enfield from 1917 will be out, because the magazine can detach. It’s loaded with stripper clips ordinarily, but sounds like that won’t matter. My Garand will be banned, I’m fairly sure, even though it loads with en bloc clips. It could take a bayonet. Now how many gang bangers could load one, and think to use a bayonet? But Feinstein won’t care. I think even a Ruger 10/22 will be out because of the detachable mag, and it’s a little .22.

          Like

          • Michelle Hart says:

            Which is EXACTLY what I’ve already said…. EVERY modern weapon will be illegal and by “modern” I mean anything made AFTER 1900

            Like

    • jordan2222 says:

      Damn, you sure know a lot about weapons. How (and why) did you learn all of this?

      I no longer keep up with current technology as I once did, but, hell, with you here, I don’t need to.

      I hereby nominate you to be our resident weapons expert.

      Education is one of the keys to resolving the gun control issue but I am afraid the other side is perfectly content with their own definitions.

      I wonder if Feinstein retained any weapons experts to write her bill. Never mind.

      Like

      • sundance says:

        Listen and understand what Michelle is saying here. I’ve been in this debate with others for two weeks, but I am no where near the expert that she is. The language is intentional – and MICHELLE IS 100% CORRECT ABOUT THE SPECIFIC WAY IT IS WORDED.

        If passed, by a sheeple congress who obviously don’t read bills before they pass them, what Michelle describes is exactly correct – almost every firearm in the U.S. would be illegal. It is not a technicality it is step one.

        Step two becomes what processes, if any, are allowed to be placed, like permitting, that will allow you to be grandfathered in to retain the illegal weapon. Ownership permits anually updated for a couple hundred bucks will be the approach (IMHO).

        If a person defaults on their permit fee, their firearm will be removed from their posession under the taxing authority of the feds. (legal subversion of 2nd amendment)

        Those newly hired 60,000 IRS agents, and the Agriculture Dept (remember the fully armed military assault on the organic dairy farm) will assist the DHS in execution of the retreival.

        This ain’t tin foily crap.

        This is factually based on prior examples.

        Like

        • Michelle Hart says:

          Bingo… the goal is to create a “legal justification” to confiscate guns of any type they choose because all of them will qualify based on the LANGUAGE they use.

          Like

          • sundance says:

            We are totally in-sync on this. Actually, I am breathing a HUGE sigh of relief finally seeing another person understand what is constructed in the legislation.

            I have been at my wits end with people saying “they wouldn’t”, or “they couldn’t” or “nah, that’s silly”… etc …. etc…. Yes they would, they could, and they can.

            The process -Legal Justification- already theoretically exists – they just need legislative authorization, or dictatorial fiat to impliment it. I thought it would be by Executive Order, now I see it is actually written in legislative language I percieve them as actually using law to engage it.

            Believe it or not, just knowing that someone else out there sees the construct makes me feel better about it.

            Now I can only hope that people see all the dots of the various depts purchasing bullets beginning to make more sense? And the random police stops – and the DHS checkpoints – and the various federal agencies using military tactics – and the Federal takeover of education financing in the Obamacare bill – and the strategically timed distraction of the economic crisis?

            Like

            • Michelle Hart says:

              Because of my background I can see MUCH MORE of what is going on Sundance… Which is terrifying me beyond belief. There are a lot of us out here, with my background that KNOW what is coming, but can’t do a thing to stop it. Right now the only thing I don’t know is what the flash point is going to be….

              Feel free to use anything I’ve written or send me a note for clarification, I’m easy to find.

              Like

            • jordan2222 says:

              I realize it is not your intent, SD, but you write seriously scary stuff that can cause people to “react” rather than “respond” as Sharon so eloquently explains.

              I would bet most of us here wonder what we can realistically do to “combat” this and that includes me.

              Being aware that, yes, they can, and yes, they will, is one thing and may be the first step in the process but what next?

              I have some ideas but have not thought them through yet so I will keep them private for now. However, they all require a sensible leader to organize any kind of opposition effort and I have not seen such a person in years.

              Like

      • Michelle Hart says:

        I have a VERY interesting background…. Believe me… It’s pretty wild…

        Like

        • jordan2222 says:

          Michelle Hart: I used to think that Dolly Parton was the only woman on the planet who could wear all of the makeup she wanted, never put on enough, and still get away with it but that gravatar of yours says you might be even more self confident than she is, especially when packing.

          Like

      • jordan2222 says:

        Michelle Hart: My post was intended for you but I am curious as to how you learned all of this. I am having a difficult time reconciling your knowledge with your gravatar.

        Sundance: I understand loud and clear that all guns will be banned. My comment about “Feinstein retaining weapons experts to write her bill” was pure sarcasm.

        Like

        • Michelle Hart says:

          Well that’s me in the gravitar, and my actual name Jordan… However unless you are one of a very select few there is no way you could ever possibly figure out how a average woman like me just happens to know what I do about guns. Just take to hart that I’m quite possibly, more intimately familiar with more weapon systems than anyone you will ever meet.

          Like

          • jordan2222 says:

            Michelle Hart

            No one would say that unless it were true. I was a nuclear weapons specialist while in the USAF during the Cold War but I did not see them on the ban list. LOL.

            Like

            • Michelle Hart says:

              You must have missed the news then… the littlest dictator is trying to get rid of our current launch capable inventory, and has openly stated we do not need them like an idiot.

              Like

    • Chip Bennett says:

      What’s wrong with the definitions as listed in the NFA? To wit:

      Machine guns—this includes any firearm which can fire more than 1 cartridge per trigger pull. Both continuous fully automatic fire and “burst fire” (i.e., firearms with a 3-round burst feature) are considered machine gun features. The weapon’s receiver is by itself considered to be a regulated firearm.

      That definition suffices. What we refer to as semi-automatic pistols and rifles fire one round per trigger pull. If the receiver is modified such that more than one round is fired per trigger pull, then that modified receiver falls under the NFA, and as such is already regulated.

      We have all the definition we need. We have all the regulation we need. The rest is semantics and intentional obfuscation by the gun-control tyrants.

      Like

      • boricuafudd says:

        The problem is that definition does not advance the agenda.

        Like

      • Michelle Hart says:

        Ccontinuous = Sustained Fire which is EXACTLY what I’ve stated previously,

        The weapon’s receiver = As I have also stated, the ACTION of the weapon in question as it’s referred to on the original blueprints in most cases rather than as a group or complete unit.

        What you FAIL TO GRASP is that the 34 act is just as unconstitutional as the current proposal and was ALSO written by a bunch of lawyers who did not know very much about weapons or the supreme law of the land either!

        While I appreciate your effort Chip, citing an illegal law that began the process of disarming us isn’t terribly impressive and only confirms what I’ve already said. Which YOU are completely missing.

        Like

      • jordan2222 says:

        The only definition they need is anything that fires bullets so I am surprised they did not make it that simple because they appear to have left out canes and artificial limbs.

        Like

  3. elvischupacabra says:

    As I said before, equating a semi-automatic rifle with a military-grade weapon is the same as equating a dude fleeing the cops in a Chevy Impala with someone using a NASCAR race car to elude. They may look somewhat alike, but they are both different as Logic and Feinstein.

    Like

  4. brutalhonesty says:

    I cant stand this. “ban guns ban guns ban guns” “we have a right to guns, stop trying to ban them”…”dude no one is trying to take away your guns”.
    And they even have the gall to forget the 21st amendment and how it came about, or the fact that the black market will always exist, or the fact someone who wants to kill doesnt care about the laws, or the fact that the guns they want to blame arent even the ones used in 99.99% of the shootings…….this is making my head hurt

    Like

  5. Knuckledraggingwino says:

    I am frustrated. The FBI-UCR has ceased including a table in LEK&A with caliber specific data for all weapons used to kill police officers. They still have a table with such data when an officer is killed with their own weapon and another table listing type and caliber of weapons used when the officer was wearing body armor. Also gone are. The exact weapons identifications that were once included in the incident summaries.

    This data is still present in earlier editions, so I do not suspect intentional obfuscation. I’ll give them a call to enquire. May be Ill be fortunate to talk them into giving me an updated database listing type, caliber, manufacturer and model of all weapons used

    Like

  6. lovemygirl says:

    I was about to write Feinstein, but gave up half way through (don’t want to end up on the naughty list ;) ). My question centered on how any provision in hr bill will get any weapon out of any criminal’s possession.
    Debating the sheep on other websites their answer is clear. All weapons start out as legal and by reducing the supply, the source of weapons to criminals will eventually dry up.

    Like

  7. lovemygirl says:

    My naive suggestion (someone asked earlier about protests etc.) is that we push everyone to not comply with any regulation they pass. Civil Disobedience. If a campaign nationwide could convince the vast majority of gun owners to say Hell No it may have an impact. Think Civil Rights marches (this is a civil rights issue).

    Like

    • waltherppk says:

      When millions of armed men are thoroughly pissed off for a really very good reason, just how long do you think “disobedience” will remain civil …especially given a situation where there is a real lack of clarity about who should be obeying whom? Government of the republic derives its authority from the consent of the governed, and here such consent does not exist and the government is attempting to violate the supreme law of the land operating unlawfully under the color of authority to violate the second amendment by infringing that right which the government has no legitimate authority to infringe. It is a similar matter to where a soldier is given an unlawful order which is the soldiers duty to refuse and resist by whatever means necessary. The constitution is above even the president and there is no chain of command which supersedes the constitution so a constitutional crisis is being created which will likely only be resolved by
      force. Violating the constitutional right of THE PEOPLE is a heinous high crime and an act of war upon THE PEOPLE. Not even the Supreme Court can lawfully suspend the constitution, nobody can. The second amendment is not going anywhere but those people who would assert that it will be infringed are inciting a reckoning. What is
      unfolding is a power grab by subversives who are fifth column communists operating openly within U.S. borders.

      Like

      • Mustang380gal says:

        Ever hear of the Battle of Athens (Tennessee?) Armed men stood up to their corrupt local government and won. We may be setting up for the same on a large scale.

        Like

      • jordan2222 says:

        Officers DO NOT swear allegiance to the President – They swear allegiance only to the Constitution.

        Here’s the officer’s oath. 

        “I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

        If you are an enlisted soldier, whose orders are you going to follow? Any successful revolution will require a defection of at least part of the military.

        Like

      • Bongo says:

        Exactly, waltherppk. I will never register or disclose the existence of any guns I may or may not possess. Anyone coming to my front door with a survey of any kind about guns will promptly find the door slammed in their face without comment. I will never allow any law enforcement personnel to enter my home for any reason.

        I feel the 2nd Amendment as well as the rest of the Bill of Rights give me all the authorization I need to perform the above actions.

        Like

  8. cajunkelly says:

    Take out the following:

    (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____

    and you have the same oath *I* took for my job.

    Like

    • jordan2222 says:

      cajunkelly

      You have a very interesting background and always have informative things to add to the conversation but can you make a roux?

      Like

      • cajunkelly says:

        LOL, is a fat hog heavy?

        Made seafood gumbeaux for Christmas day. Threw lump crab, crawfish tails, shrimp, mussels and oysters in it. :) It was a huge pot…ended up freezing five quarts of it. Now we can have gumbeaux on any cold evening during this winter by just thawing a quart, makin some rice and garlic bread.

        I also make a mean pot of wild duck gumbeaux.

        (chuckle) Back before they were protected, ex went on a South Texas goose hunt and came back with a sand hill crane. Yyyyyyyep, I made gumbeaux with it. :) His fellow hunters laughed at me, until they tried it.

        I used to start cookin a week in advance when ex went to Colorado to deer/elk hunt. He wasn’t about to live off vienna sausage. I’d make gumbeaux and venison chili…freeze it in the smallest ziplock bags and they’d pack it in dry ice for the journey.

        The first time I did it, I was trying to tell ex how to make “Minute Rice” and he said “errr I dont think we’ll have measuring cups”, to which I replied;

        OK goofy, two empty beer cans of dry rice and two empty beer cans of water. I *know* you’ll have that.

        It got to where other hunters fought over who stayed at ex’s camp.

        To answer my own question; fat hogs *are* heavy. :lol:

        Like

        • jordan2222 says:

          I was born cooking courtesy of my Mom and Dad and grew up in and around Charleston, SC. Low country country cooking is very similar to both Cajun and Creole cooking largely influenced by Geechees.. Gullahs. Lots of rice, grits, okra, seafood, game, gumbos, and our very own She Crab Soup.

          Later in life, I became a frequent visitor in my business to New Orleans and other parts of LA (every 6 weeks for many years.) I began to create dishes combining all three cuisines but mastered some of the best, including Pascal Manale’s Barbecue Shrimp which I still keep “secret.” LOL.

          I regularly cook for neighbors and friends by request and made several huge batches of my own version of bread pudding for the holidays.

          I admit I was influenced by Emeril Lagasse because he successfully adapted a lot of ONO dishes into NNO. He actually used those designations in his earlier recipes. NNO is NEW New Orleans and ONO is OLD New Orleans.

          However, he is a complete A__s in real life but he is on a par with Paul Prudhomme as far as chefs…my favorite.

          Did you ever go to LeRuth’s in New Orleans before it closed? (The best French country cooking in the world.)

          Like

  9. Michelle Hart says:

    For Mustang380gal … Sorry for moving down it’s just easier to read this way…

    “it will cycle, but not fire”

    HOW does it cycle?…. Manually or automatically?

    The “trigger” is NOT how it loads, the “magazine” is NOT how it loads the “caliber” is NOT how it loads! The “action” is the ONLY THING that determines the RATE or TYPE of fire

    The “semi” and “full” came not the AR -10 Stoner design, but from the Colt M-16 design as a way to select the mode of operation for the smaller 5.56 receiver. Note the M-1 and the Garand are both gas operated, magazine fed, and designated as AUTOMATIC rifles by the DOD and the dual action M-14, which the smaller M-16 replaced, has no markings for “semi or full” anywhere on the action. The BAR … Browning Automatic Rifle …. Also does NOT have “semi or full” markings on the action.

    Like

    • Mustang380gal says:

      An M-16 is the Stoner design. AR stands for Armalite, who made a civilian model which only fired one round per trigger pull. The media would have us believe it stands for “Assault Rifle” but since they are agenda-driven they don’t care to use terms properly.

      Look, the bottom line is the way Feinstein et al are defining things, using a detachable magazine as a base, we will be left with some models of tube fed pump or lever shotguns and rifles, maybe some bolt action rifles and that is it. Using convoluted definitions and arguing all auto-loaders are automatic the way the gun culture defines automatic is meaningless. They are already going after a wide enough swath with the detachable magazine provision. Enfield designed his first rifle in about 1879 with a detachable magazine. It was a bolt action, and would be out if this passes.

      Soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box. Those are what helps us guard our Liberty. StStand firm.

      Like

      • Michelle Hart says:

        which is my point… they will twist… manipulate… redefine… mislead… and anything else to make it sound “good” while their intent is pure evil. KNOWING the real definitions is how you beat them.

        Like

  10. elvischupacabra says:

    Old Bob attempts a Parthian shot at the end of the clip by says, “But these [AR15s] are dangerous….”

    No sh!t, you butt-chugging ingrate. Guns are SUPPOSED to be dangerous. Dumbass.

    Like

  11. MJW says:

    They aren’t stuck on stupid. It’s just that when it comes to stupidy, they’re fully automatic.

    Like

  12. jordan2222 says:

    Anyone heard of “high POWERED clips”…. Not to be confused with high CAPACITY clips?

    It’s new secret stuff to make guns even more “dangerous.” I guess the gun control nuts will now begin to educate us with the latest weaponry technology.

    Like

  13. jsjavascript says:

    well tree house you deside

    Like

  14. waltherppk says:

    There is only one constitutional gun law and it is the second amendment. Obviously the 2nd amendment was never intended to allow private citizens to “keep and bear arms.” If it had been meant that way, clearly there would have been very simple and plain wording in the second amendment such as “THE RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” :D

    Like

  15. Donna Maskell says:

    Considering that the second amendment justifies the keeping and bearing of arms based on citizen-soldiers serving in the military in times of emergency (e.g., a “militia” being necessary to the security of the nation), why shouldn’t we all be allowed to purchase military-grade weapons, regardless of how many bullets fire when you pull the trigger? Isn’t that fundamental to the definition of “shall not be infringed”? Seems to me that, while some people have abused the right to own guns, the original meaning would not have prevented felons or murderers from carrying weapons on the frontier. When most people are armed, seems like wanton killers don’t get as far. Admittedly my knowledge of history is weak, but it appears that modern mass murders are committed in gun-free zones, not cop bars. I am not trying to arm murderers and other felons, and I don’t want a showdown/throwdown with the government over any weapons I may or may not own. How am I supposed to be part of the emergency militia without a reasonable approximation of a weapon? “When seconds count, the government is months away.”

    Like

  16. howie says:

    Powder go boom. Bullet go out. Same for hundred’s of years. Only the look’s change. It is worse, or at least equal to, Global Warming.

    Like

  17. ftsk420 says:

    I can turn any semi auto pistol into full auto in a matter of minutes

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s