moonbattery.gif


« Open Thread | Main | Wise Words From Beyond the Grave »


April 24, 2009

Look Who's Disarming Us

HR45 [aka the Blair Holt bill] is such a blatant attack on the Second Amendment, you would think it must be a hoax. But Snopes assures us otherwise:

In a nutshell, the Blair Holt bill would:
• Prohibit possession of any handguns or any semiautomatic firearms that can accept detachable ammunition-feeding devices (excluding antiques) by anyone who has not been issued a firearm license.
• Require all sales of those types of firearms to go through licensed dealers.
• Direct the Attorney General to establish and run a federal record-of-sale system.
• Require the possessors of firearms to secure them (by secure gun storage or safety devices) when they are kept in locales where children might be capable of gaining access to those firearms.
In order to be issued a firearm license under the provisions of the Blair Holt legislation, applicants would be required to submit the following information to the Attorney General:
1. a current, passport-sized photograph of the applicant that provides a clear, accurate likeness of the applicant
2. the name, address, and date and place of birth of the applicant
7. a certificate attesting to the completion at the time of application of a written firearms examination, which shall test the knowledge and ability of the applicant regarding: […blah blah blah…] any other subjects, as the Attorney General determines to be appropriate […blah blah blah et cetera]

It goes on, making crystal clear that federal bureaucrats do not want you to exercise your constitutional right to own a gun.

Needless to say, no provision of this bill will affect criminals, who do not obtain firearms through legitimate channels, or bog themselves down with legal requirements. But the bill does serve a purpose beyond bureaucratic harassment. As the recent Tea Parties made clear, this government is already pushing the farthest limits of what the public will tolerate. It needs to keep very close tabs on where all the guns are, the better to confiscate them in the near future.

The bill is sponsored by a guy who ought to know something about firearms, despite having gone AWOL from the US Army: Bobby Rush, a Congressman who used to be "deputy defense minister" for the Illinois chapter of the anti-Caucasian Marxist cult known as the Black Panthers. He served 6 months on an illegal weapons charge in 1969, the heyday of the ideology that is now being imposed from Washington.

To quote Rush himself on his intentions:

Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned … that's the endgame.

He's also a major proponent of "reparations" to blacks. But he's wise to want to take our guns away first before moving forward with more race-based wealth transfers.

As for the long-term objectives of Rush et al., his recent hajj to Cuba, where he and other Congresscreeps kissed communist dictator Fidel Castro's ring and came back praising him, gives a good idea of the direction in which disarmed Americans will be herded.

black-panthers.jpg
Now why would these people want us disarmed?

On a tip from Byron.

Posted by Van Helsing at April 24, 2009 9:06 AM

Comments

You realize, VH, that just by reporting the existence of this bill, you are now responsible for any gun violence that follows. (Or, so I understand the logic of the kostard left in blaming Glenn Beck for the guy who shot the cops in Pittsburgh.)

Posted by: V the K at April 24, 2009 9:28 AM

Every time I see this subject come up, I ask what's going to happen, after only a million or two idiots actually comply with this, to the other 78 million who refuse?

Posted by: Henry at April 24, 2009 9:32 AM

"...2. the name, address, and date and place of birth of the applicant...."

I guess Obama can't buy a gun if this bill passes

Posted by: blue at April 24, 2009 9:51 AM

I will die a free man before I hand my gun into the claws of any bureaucrat.

AC

Posted by: AC at April 24, 2009 10:05 AM

Imagine the outrage if we required this kind of scrutiny for people to vote.

Posted by: Joshua at April 24, 2009 10:24 AM

Come and get them. Brang it!!!!!!!!

Posted by: R985wasp at April 24, 2009 10:45 AM

lol @ blue - he doesn't need a gun w/ his trusty wife around

Posted by: Heather M at April 24, 2009 10:52 AM

The trouble is that the anti-American socialists who come up with this tripe will not be the ones coming to your door, they will send young men and women deprived of a decent education and brainwashed into following orders.

My son confided in me that while in Iraq he and his barracks mates talked about this sort of thing in the evenings. When the question came up about following orders to confiscate guns, roughly 1/3 said "orders are orders", roughly 1/3 said "no way," and roughly 1/3 said "it will never come to that."

The dumbing down and indoctrination by the teacher's union has had an effect, as had the propaganda of the leftist media. We sit here in aw at the bald faced bias and lies, but we forget that outlandish propaganda works on an alarmingly high percentage of any population. If they say it often enough, loud enough, and with pseudo scientific or statistical justification about 1/3 of the people will susceptible.

Can you imagine the reaction to this story and this congressman's credentials just 20 or 30 years ago? What was unthinkable less than a generation ago is now mundane, my God, I hate to imagine what will be mundane in another 20 years.

Posted by: JustAl at April 24, 2009 11:46 AM

In responding to the confused and miseducated when this sort of thing comes up, I simply say that I'll gladly surrender all my firearms as soon as they get the bad guys to turn in theirs.

The smarmy wise-asses just come back with that idiot idea that the 'good' people have to lead by example. What could go wrong with that idea? Can you say Washington, D.C., or New Orleans? The folks whose brains are functioning will see the reality there and sadly agree that it seems hopeless.

Posted by: chuck in st paul at April 24, 2009 12:02 PM

Focus on disarming citizens when criminals have guns makes zero sense. Which of course is extremely attractive to zeros like B Rush.

Posted by: Fiberal at April 24, 2009 12:08 PM

I think law abiding citizens who register guns are making it easy for the government to come for you. We should all become unlawful citizens with guns and then we will be free to protect ourselves. Just looked what happened to the law abiding citizens of New Orleans after Katrina.
The police came knocking at doors of citizens who were registered gun owners.

Posted by: oldguy at April 24, 2009 12:28 PM

Bobby Rush was a Chicago Black-Panther. I bet he carried a gun and I would wager the gun was not registered.

Posted by: oldguy at April 24, 2009 12:37 PM

Oldguy: that's probably why Bobby Rush did a six month prison hitch - unregistered or unlawfully modified firearm.

Posted by: PabloD at April 24, 2009 1:16 PM

Just your typical liberal moonbats following in the footsteps of HITLER,STALIN and MAO

Posted by: Spurwing Plover at April 24, 2009 2:05 PM

lol @ Heather M...

And...with James Brownish wife around, who needed a dog too?

Posted by: Sylvia at April 24, 2009 5:45 PM

This bill also calls for the serial-numbering of all bullets and shell casings.

Further, it stipulates that all "non-serialized" ammunition be surrendered by 7/1/2011 or possessors criminal charges.

And you wonder why store shelves nationwide are empty of most ammo.

Posted by: Stymie at April 24, 2009 5:51 PM

You really ought to worry more about the assault weapons being sold to Mexican gangs BY AMERICANS. Now THAT is a threat to American security but you people have your heads so far up your ass you don't even know what's going on outside your own colon.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2009 8:19 PM

The black panthers were a bunch of terrorists and extremists wanting to overthrow the goverment and start a revolution and the DEMONCRATS have a BLACK PANTHER in their midst

Posted by: Flu-Bird at April 24, 2009 9:14 PM

Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2009 8:19 PM, "You really ought to worry more about the assault weapons being sold to Mexican gangs BY AMERICANS. Now THAT is a threat to American security but you people have your heads so far up your ass you don't even know what's going on outside your own colon."

With comments like that, I can see why you want to be "anonymous".

Let's use the ubiquitous AK-47 as an example:

The Soviets and Chinese manufactured over 100 MILLION fully automatic AK-47s. They are cheap (about $100 US) and readily available in Central America and all over the world - except here in the US.

In the US, we have the semiautomatic AK-47 "knock off" made strictly for the US market. These are currently selling selling for about $400 to $500.

Most of the "Full Auto" AK-47s in the US are owned by the military and under strict control. The FEW civilian "Full Auto" AK-47s that actually exist in the US are subject to BAFTE Class III registration and transfer rules, a $200 tax stamp is required, and they are typically priced at over $10,000

NOW - explain to us all why criminals in Mexico would want to buy a civilian "knockoff" for $400-500 in the US, and smuggle it in when they can get a REAL full auto AK for a quarter of that in Central America.

Most of the firearms from the US that make it to Mexico are stolen handguns.

The big danger here is not that firearms from the US are going south, it is that the drug gangs in this country can smuggle in fullly automatic weapons from Mexico.

You have it exactly wrong.....as always.

Posted by: TonyD95B at April 25, 2009 1:11 AM

You have it exactly wrong.....as always.

This story is from 1 year ago during the BUSH administration (you know, when only the truth came out of Washington):

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4695848&page=1

So, no, I didn't get it exactly wrong. LaPierre did, as always.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 25, 2009 5:03 AM

Canada has had these kind of laws for years now. It's buget-draining bureaucratic bloat called the 'Gun Registry'. Does very little to deter armed crime, and makes life a pain in the ass for hunters and farmers (i.e. rural people). Now rural homes are easy targets. A homeowner who defends himself against intruders using a firearm will get arrested, while the 'victim' criminal will walk free.

Posted by: shadfly at April 25, 2009 5:22 AM

Haha, Tony, let's recap shall we?

Anonymous blathers: Mexican cartels are getting full-auto weapons from the U.S.

Tony: This is why you're wrong...

Anonymous: Bush!

Brilliant!

Posted by: cowlove at April 25, 2009 5:44 AM

Haha, Tony, let's recap shall we?

Anonymous blathers: Mexican cartels are getting full-auto weapons from the U.S.

Tony: This is why you're wrong...

Anonymous: Bush!

Brilliant!

It's obvious that you didn't read the story. And you didn't follow the argument.

Stupid is as stupid does.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 25, 2009 5:51 AM

Canada has had these kind of laws for years now. It's buget-draining bureaucratic bloat called the 'Gun Registry'. Does very little to deter armed crime, and makes life a pain in the ass for hunters and farmers (i.e. rural people). Now rural homes are easy targets. A homeowner who defends himself against intruders using a firearm will get arrested, while the 'victim' criminal will walk free.

Canada's problem is that guns are smuggled across the US border into Canada.

Are you starting to see a pattern here?

Posted by: Anonymous at April 25, 2009 5:57 AM

Anon, there's a simple solution for the problem of these evil, heinous guns leaking from our porous borders to infect the socialist paradises to our north and south...

How about we build a wall? Hell, MINE the border if we have to, so we can strictly control the flow of our vicious guns (especially South)...

Of course, a nice side-effect would be making it harder for illegals to get IN, so I'm guessing you're probably against that.

Posted by: hiram at April 25, 2009 7:07 AM

Anon,
I read your link, so what? Have you seen ANYONE post here that Bush was any better than His "O"lliness in this regard? In fact, Bush said in Y2K that he would sign an extension of this stupid law if Congress brought it before him (they didn't).

As for the Mexicans backing this bullshit, of course they will say whatever the US president says to keep thier "war on drugs" money flowing in and their poor flowing out of the country.

Maybe Mexico's problem is that the average citizen has been stripped of the ability to defend themselves, their homes, and thier towns by one of the most longstanding corrupt governments in the world, one which you, apparently, want us to model our legal code after.

I will refrain from further characterisations of your ill conceived arguments on the assumption that you are likely an adolescent or was one very recently and simply do not have the world experience to know any better.

Posted by: JustAl at April 25, 2009 7:10 AM

It's obvious that you didn't read the story. And you didn't follow the argument.

You said: You really ought to worry more about the assault weapons being sold to Mexican gangs BY AMERICANS.

Tony said, summarizing: The big danger here is not that firearms from the US are going south, it is that the drug gangs in this country can smuggle in fullly automatic weapons from Mexico.

You said: This story is from 1 year ago during the BUSH administration (you know, when only the truth came out of Washington). [link]

Did I miss anything?

The problem, Anonymous, is that you use easily refutable arguments and refuse to think for yourself.

Why would Mexican drug cartels try to get fully automatic weapons from the U.S.? There are tens of thousands of them floating around in Central in South America, and believe it or not, it's actually difficult to attain them in the U.S. For the same reason, why would it be claimed that the cartels are using RPGs and other explosives attained from the U.S.? It's simple logistics.

Read this article at your leisure, and tell me if you see the logic.

Link

Like all good yarns, this one has a thread of truth that is being overspun. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 90 percent of "traced" guns come from the United States. The two governments cooperate on gun-tracing, and when Mexico seizes guns from criminals, it sends home those it ascertains to be from the U.S. It is easy to identify U.S. guns because they carry serial numbers and "Made in USA" stamps.

Imagine my surprise to find out that 90% of the guns Mexican authorities suspect originated in the U.S. actually originated in the U.S. Knock me over with a freaking feather.

Even you can probably see how that's a far different story than, "90% of all guns used in violent crimes in Mexico come from the U.S."

That phony statistic is simply cover for an attack on the Second Ammendment, plain and simple. Drones like you mindlessly repeating it only proves its effectiveness. It's a case-in-point of attempting to repeat a lie over and over in the hope it becomes truth.

Posted by: cowlove at April 25, 2009 7:30 AM

I don't believe I said Mexico was a paradise let alone a socialist paradise. What I said was (try to follow without foaming at the mouth and loosing focus) that guns are being sold to Mexican gangs and those guns are coming from America. Why? Several reasons. Corrupt border patrol guards and liberal gun laws in Texas are two.

Assault weapons in the hands of the Mexican gangs is a problem for the security of America.

So, instead of worrying about loosing your handguns (which comes under the heading "shit thats never going to happen") start worrying about Mexicans armed with assault weapons (which comes under the heading "shit that IS happening").

Posted by: Anonymous at April 25, 2009 7:33 AM

Anon,
I can see that you have very strong feelings about this, key word "feelings," since you keep repeating the propaganda you've been fed rather than respond to the logical arguments put forward by my esteemed colleague, cowlove.

Like everyone here, you are entitled to your opinion. As to my comment about real world experience earlier, here are the sort of things I was alluding to:
1. Have you ever owned, fired, or even seen with your own eyes the rifles you want to deprive your fellow citizens of?

2. Have you every actually been in a Mexican border town?

3. Have you ever sat down and discussed this issue with people who live or work in Mexican border towns?

4. Have you ever sat down and discussed this issue with someone who has relatives who are actually members of one of the cartels?

When you can answer in the affirmative to these four points I will consider your opinion as well founded as my own.

Good day sir or madame,

Posted by: JustAl at April 25, 2009 7:49 AM

Fully automatic weapons (which I assume is what you mean by "assault weapons") are not coming across the border from the U.S.

If you disagree, the onus is on you to prove it.

On a side note, I don't think anyone here seriously believes they're going to "come take our handguns away." Should that actually take place, our country would devolve into civil war, and I think even the most dense liberal among us knows it. I do believe that the government is actively pursuing an agenda to make it difficult for law-abiding citizens to buy guns and ammunition. Bogus stastics like the one you continue to cite in the face of absolute contradictory evidence are just smoke and mirrors for the real goal.

To date, I have not heard one convincing argument that supports the idea of restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens in order to deter gun crime. Not one.

Posted by: cowlove at April 25, 2009 7:52 AM

Not one convincing argument? Try getting your news from a variety of places instead of just Faux news and the National Review. Read more than the headlines.

Don't let Rush and Sean and Glen tell you how to think. They are self professed entertainers. Read a variety of news both liberal and conservative because the truth lies somewhere in between.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 25, 2009 7:59 AM

The truth is the second amendment is not negotiable.

They can register my guns when they pry them from my cold dead fingers.

The second amendment was written to protect us from fools like anon.

Posted by: FREE at April 25, 2009 8:36 AM

Don't let Rush and Sean and Glen tell you how to think. They are self professed entertainers. Read a variety of news both liberal and conservative because the truth lies somewhere in between.

I've never listened to Rush, I've never listened to Hannity, I've watched Glen Beck's show once. You're inferring an awful lot without a shred of support.

I could turn your own advice around and tell you to stop listening solely to NPR and CNN, and hopefully educate yourself with sources that don't have a nauseatingly obvious liberal bias. That you continue to mindlessly cite demonstrably false statistics only serves to show that you have little use for information that doesn't coincide with your prejudices.

But that's neither here nor there. You had/have an opportunity to educate me. You can even point me in the right direction with a link or two. Saying vague things like, "the truth lies somewhere in between," while entirely true and sensible, still has nothing to do with the percentage of guns seized in Mexico that are of U.S. origin versus fully automatic rifles and various explosives that are clearly obtained from Eastern bloc countries, the former Soviet Union, and Central and South America.

I have little use for platitudes when we're discussing hard facts. A good place to start, for example, is discussing the 29,000 guns that Mexican authorities seized at crime scenes over the course of two years, 2007-2008, and the 5,114 that were successfully traced to U.S. origin.

Source

Now, I know you're going to get in a huff about Fox News, but these again are hard numbers and facts, based on information provided by the ATF, Mexican authorities, and sworn testimony in Congress. It should be easily refuted if it's false. Have at it.

Posted by: cowlove at April 25, 2009 8:51 AM

http://www.factcheck.org/politics/counting_mexicos_guns.html

Posted by: Anonymous at April 25, 2009 9:03 AM

By the way, I do not listen to NPR OR CNN.

Look, every news agency (or so called news agency since what they dispense is hardly news) has an agenda - Fox News, CNN, NPR, CNN etc. So, t.v. "news" is just entertainment and has very little to do with the news.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 25, 2009 9:11 AM

Given the lack of hard data from Mexico, we can't calculate a precise figure for what portion of crime guns have been traced to the U.S. Based on the best evidence we can find so far, we conclude that the 90 percent claim made by the president and others in his administration lacks a basis in solid fact. But we also conclude that the number is at least double what Fox News has reported, based on its reporters' mistaken interpretation of ATF testimony.

So both are off it would seem. Now we should broaden our discussion to fully automatic weapons, of course, and take the same approach based on hard fact.

It would seem that Obama and Holder have a vested interest in repeating the 90% statistic, would you agree? It also seems clear that should they and our politicians continue to repeat it, they can rightly be called liars, no?

Something to consider as well, Anonymous, is the lack of border control. In your opinion, are we better served by tightening said control, or tightening restrictions on gun control? This is an important point, because it's long been my stance that gun control only controls those who care about it. You simply can enforce tight restrictions without infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Posted by: cowlove at April 25, 2009 9:18 AM

I am not against gun ownership. They make me uncomfortable and I wouldn't let my kid play there without adult supervision just as I wouldn't allow my child to swim in a neighbors pool without adult supervision.

What I do have a problem with is no regulation. Texas gun dealers may sell as many guns as they wish to one buyer. So, I can come in and buy 200 guns if I wanted. Now, shouldn't that raise some suspicion? Shouldn't that require a report to the authorities at least?

And exactly what is the problem with a license for goodness sake?

Posted by: Anonymous at April 25, 2009 9:34 AM

It would seem that Obama and Holder have a vested interest in repeating the 90% statistic, would you agree? It also seems clear that should they and our politicians continue to repeat it, they can rightly be called liars, no?

First, Obama may have a vested interest in repeating the 90% just as Fox news may have a vested interest in repeating the 17%.

If Obama repeats it and hence is lying than that isn't any different then the torture controversy as handled by the Bush administration. Or the repeated lies told by any politician - including Republicans.

The point is, 17% or 90%, there is no need for any assault weapons to be heading over the border into the hands of gang members.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 25, 2009 11:17 AM

Anon (who knows if it's the same one),
"And exactly what is the problem with a license for goodness sake?"

Perhaps you should ask the law abiding folks of New Orleans who had the Police confiscate their guns at the one time in their lives when they needed them most.

"I am not against gun ownership." You do if you favor the so called "Assault Weapons Ban."

"They make me uncomfortable " Sorry, I can not support overturning part of the Constitution to make you more comfortable.

"I wouldn't let my kid play there without adult supervision just as I wouldn't allow my child to swim in a neighbors pool without adult supervision." That is your right, of course no one here is talking about taking away any-one's rights. . . except for the ones who want to take gun owner's rights away.

"What I do have a problem with is no regulation." Lady, we have entire federal and state agencies primarily devoted to the reams and reams and reams of gun regulations we have.

"Shouldn't that require a report to the authorities at least?" What is being discussed is an attempt to ban certain guns based on the incomplete data you supplied, not simply more paperwork. You may recall that cowlove pointed out that most US guns found in MX are hand guns, yet you persist in banning "scary looking" guns because the make you "uncomfortable," which are not hand guns.

Posted by: JustAl at April 25, 2009 11:26 AM

" there is no need for any assault weapons to be heading over the border into the hands of gang members"

I agree, let's fortify the border to keep our guns and their citizens at home, excellent idea.

Of course, it would just be easier to pass a law making the Cartel's illegal, yeah, let's just pass another law, that's the ticket.

Posted by: JustAl at April 25, 2009 11:29 AM

yet you persist in banning "scary looking" guns because the make you "uncomfortable,"

Hell Yeah, men wearing wife-beaters carrying a can of beer in one hand and an assault weapon in the other scare the bejeesus out of me. Hell, a guy in a 3 piece suit carrying an assault weapon scares me.

And perhaps this scares you:
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/12/13/majadk47_narrowweb__300x432,0.jpg

Coming to a border town near you!

Posted by: Anonymous at April 25, 2009 1:52 PM

First, Obama may have a vested interest in repeating the 90% just as Fox news may have a vested interest in repeating the 17%.

I don't see Fox News having a vested interest in anything. I see the reporters on the article I linked misunderstanding the facts they cited to arrive at 17%. But that, again, is neither here nor there. Fox News doesn't make policy. Obama does. Therefore, at the very least, I would expect him to far more informed than Fox News, and it turns out he's not.

If Obama repeats it and hence is lying than that isn't any different then the torture controversy as handled by the Bush administration. Or the repeated lies told by any politician - including Republicans.

You could've left out the "torture controversy" example and it would've made your point even more effective. In my opinion, the only problem we're having with "torture" is that we have to deal with candyasses whining about waterboarding and putting panties on someone's head. Scratch that, not just "someone," people who either have or would like to kill Americans. But putting that aside, you're absolutely right. A lie is a lie is a lie. I'm anxious to see how this plays out, personally.

The point is, 17% or 90%, there is no need for any assault weapons to be heading over the border into the hands of gang members.

First, as I said to another visitor here, please define "assault weapon." We're going to continue to disagree if you're referring to automatic weapons, because those are not coming across the border from the U.S. If they were, you can bet your ass it would be ended very, very quickly, because the government keeps excellent tabs on who actually possesses automatic weapons in the U.S. Such good tabs, in fact, that cartels would certainly never bother with the U.S. when they have excellent suppliers to the south.

As for your point about weapons ending up in the hands of Mexican criminals that originate in the U.S., I agree. It shouldn't happen. I'm actually encouraged that out of the millions of guns produced in the U.S. every year, roughly 11,000 +/- ended up being recovered by Mexican authorities over a two-year period, per your previous link. Considering our porous border, that's not too shabby. But it's already illegal to sell guns across the southern border. Whoever is supplying these weapons, presumably long rifles and handguns, is already breaking the law. Sooo...should we make another law? An even stronger one maybe? Should we make the licensing requirements even more exclusive and stringent? I just don't see the logic, personally. Those laws only affect the people who give a crap about them: me and you. Maybe if we had some sort of semblance of border control and security, it would help. Just sayin'

Again, I agree that there's no need for U.S. manufactored weapons to illegally end up in the hands of Mexican criminals, as they obviously do. Likewise, there's no need for them to end up in the hands of American criminals, as they obviously do. There are laws against both already.

Posted by: cowlove at April 25, 2009 2:00 PM

What is an assault weapon?

Posted by: cowlove at April 25, 2009 2:02 PM

Cowlove:

To the media, an 'assault rifle' is any weapon that looks 'military', or is self-loading. I have even seen pimped out Ruger 10/22's (a .22 rifle) referred to as an 'assault rifle', but on to the real world, in quick and dirty form.

In military circles, an assault rifle has generally been defined as a select fire weapon (giving the user the choice of semi-auto, and/or burst and/or full auto fire) with an intermediate cartridge. An intermediate cartridge is a cartridge larger than a pistol cartridge (.45 ACP, 9mm) but not a larger rifle cartridge(.303, 8mm Mauser(actually 7.92x57), 30-06, 7.52x54R).

The first production assault rifle was the Sturmgewehr 44 (Storm or Assault rifle of 1944). This weapon fired a 7.92x33 Kurz (short) round. The Kalashnikov family of weapons arose from the StG and fired the 7.62x39 round, as opposed to the 7.62x54R round of the Mosin-Nagant. NATO adopted the 7.62x51 round as standard round in the Cold War period, and the US developed the 5.56 round as well.

To return to the point at hand, an 'M-16', as issued by the US military is an assault rifle. The 'AR-15' that one purchases is not, as it is not capable of burst or full-auto fire. Likewise the 'AK' clones that one can purchase without special paperwork are not assault rifles.

The anti-gun crowd has gone so far as to add 'bayonet lugs' and 'flash-hiders' to their spurious 'definition' of 'assault rifle', amongst other canards.

Sorry if this went a little long, I tried to cover it reasonably.

Posted by: Viking04 at April 25, 2009 6:48 PM

Anony says: "So, t.v. "news" is just entertainment and has very little to do with the news." This, of course, after he cites an ABC news story as evidence in support of his position.
I'm sorry that guns frighten you; they don't frighten me. Violent idiots with anti-social tendencies tend to make me a bit nervous; well-meaning idiots with socialist tendencies make me highly nervous.

Posted by: PabloD at April 25, 2009 7:20 PM

Posted by: Anonymous at April 25, 2009 7:25 PM

Mexico can solve its weapon problem by simply outlawing possession of the firearms. After all, that is what the Left has said in the US for decades. What the left considers axiomatic here (outlaw possession of firearms, gun crime dwindles to nothing) should work there just as well, right?

Posted by: Viking04 at April 25, 2009 7:32 PM

IMPEACH BOBBY RUSH NO BLACK PANTHERS NO TERRORISTS IN THE GOVERMENT WE ALREADY HAVE THE IMPERIAL STORM TROOPERS OF EMPORER PALPATINE OBAMA

Posted by: Flu-Bird at April 25, 2009 7:37 PM

First, Obama may have a vested interest in repeating the 90% ....Posted by: Anonymous at April 25, 2009 11:17 AM

Anonymous just admitted he doesn't care if Obama lies, as long as it advances his policy choices.

Typical Dem.

Posted by: V the K at April 26, 2009 10:32 AM

Good explanation Viking , but you must not forget "the shoulder thing that goes up" .


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo
I never cease to revel in this clip ......
Such witty banter from master debaters is rare these days . Study this carefully ANON as she sets the bar , and our expectations ..........exceedingly high .

Posted by: Katya Kakhov at April 27, 2009 6:20 PM