Stoopid People Talking Stoopid about Guns.


Hey.  I get it.  Some asshole shot and killed a bunch of small children.  That sucks all the way around.  One of the lessons we can all take from this is just how fragile our existence is where even the most harmless among us can be targeted for death for no reason that makes sense to anyone. 

The other thing we can take is that the rabid gun control nazis will pounce on things like this to show why too much freedom is bad and must be stopped right this minute.

As is customary in such things, the same knuckleheads are spouting the same old arguments as if they have been frozen in carbomite for the past 30 years and just woke up and want to tell everyone their fresh new approaches to gun control.

So.  From CNN’s comment section, here they are:

Howard Cihak:  Given that they were actually designed for use in military combat, …

No.  They weren’t.  They were designed for sale to the civilian marketplace.  A common look and common parts does not make the modern AR-15 “designed for combat” any more than the 1 liter water bottle (which is also used in combat).  The .223 caliber round predates its use in the venerable M-16.  It was invented as a varmint control round.  The 9mm pistol round however WAS invented for combat, hence the name “Luger” which is a bastardization of the French “Le Guerre” or “the War”.  Just kidding.  Luger was named for the German inventer named Luger.  But that same round is also called “parabellum”.  That name DOES mean “for war”.  And yet most of the police departments in the USA think that round is insufficient for their normal policing roles among civilians and prefer the newer .40 S&W.

… and the frequency with which they’ve been used in these mass murders, …

Almost never. 

… it’s time to discuss banning the sale and ownership of all semi-automatic, automatic and high capacity weapons.

Time to discuss?  We’ve been discussing this for 50 years in the USA.  You just don’t count all those discussions that end with our side winning.  In fact, gun control is the only domestic policy issue where the left has not jammed something poisonous down the throats of every living American. 

Real hunters only need a single shot rifle or shotgun. …

You hunt your way, I’ll hunt mine.  I dont need or desire your assistance in picking out my hunting gear. 

…Anyone defending his or her home only needs a six shot revolver….

Even if defending it from police armed with automatic weapons?  Or defending it from MS-13?  Or Zetas along the Mexican border?  Or masses of starving city people looking to loot and pillage after the economy collapses?  Or hoards of third world immigrants who never learned those culturally oppressive rituals from European white guys like “keep your paws off my stuff”?  How very generous of him to grant us a 6 shooter to defend our lives.  Can we have two six shooters?  One in each hand?  How about two more in the waistband?  One per adult citizen (thass Rasis)?

 …Anything else is unjustified for those purposes and can only be used to kill lots of targets very quickly.  …

That IS the justification and it is a good one.  That is why the military and police ALL buy those types of weapons and the exact same reason why rational peaceful Christian citizens (and a few atheists if they have permits from the government) .  There are some times when you really NEED to kill a whole bunch of “targets” (Haha, milquetoast lefty can’t even bring himself to say “kill people”). 

Orwellian_Dilemma

Who’s selling automatic weapons? Since they are illegal to be owned by the public. This oughta be good. . . .

No they aren’t.  You can get the right background checks and pay the right licensing fees and you too can buy a punitively expensive fully automatic weapon, machine gun, sawed off shotgun, flame thrower, or cannon.

Travis M Bruno-Erck

First, when the constitution was made such weapons of this kind were unavailable. Therefore, it’s illogical to think it’s unconstituution to ban them.

WRONG.  When the constitution was made, the military was armed with exactly the same types of weapons that were in private hands.  The famed “minutemen” kept their service weapons in their homes.  The writers of the constitution understood that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to enable rebellion against a fielded army.  But don’t just depend on your own flawed logic and incomplete knowledge of history to noodle this one out.  READ WHAT THE FOUNDERS WROTE.  They wrote in English for God’s sake.  It’s not like you need a doctorate in Greek, Latin and Hebrew to figure it out.

MrMcgee

A .30-06 is made for hunting. An AR-15 is made for killing people.

Tell that to all those dead germans from WW1 and WW2.  Then tell it again to all those dead squirrels, groundhogs, prairie dogs, and coyotes all over the USA.  They will all be very embarrassed about being killed by the wrong type of bullet.

The second amendment to the constitution is not there to enshrine the noble art of killing your own food, pinning paper targets to your refrigerator with smily faces on them or your God given right to collect artifacts with various production designs that you like.  Nor it is about empowering the states to have militias that could then transform into the federal “National Guard”.   The second amendment is about ensuring that free Americans never become serfs in their own land.  Military grade firearms are the great equalizer between peasant farmers and the warrior class that traditionally make up the aristocracy.  You cannot re-impose feudalism as long as the peasants can fight back.

About these ads

About Professor Hale

Currently living in Virginia
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Stoopid People Talking Stoopid about Guns.

  1. Giraffe says:

    The .223 caliber round predates its use in the venerable M-16. It was invented as a varmint control round.

    The .223 is the civilian version of the 5.56 nato and did not exist prior to the 5.56. It may have been introduced to the public as the .223 before the 5.56 was adopted by the army but the development was 100% military.

  2. Giraffe says:

    The writers of the constitution understood that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to enable rebellion against a fielded army.

    Hear! Hear!

  3. OK. Chicken-egg. But the development is certainly linked and close enough together to make your point. But it was adopted almost immediately as a varmint round too.

  4. Rhaemyr says:

    “… it’s time to discuss banning the sale and ownership of all semi-automatic, automatic and high capacity weapons”
    “…Anyone defending his or her home only needs a six shot revolver….”

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t a six shot revolver semi-automatic?

  5. Giraffe says:

    It was designed specifically for the M-16. There were a few problems that delayed getting the round accepted. Also some problems with the M-16.

    Remington designed the round with a specific bullet in mind. It may have been a rebated boat-tail (can’t remember). They found the bullet too difficult to mass produce. After changing the bullet, they found they could not meet the specified 500 meter energy. Then they tried messing with propellants. I think they eventually got it solved with a new propellant.

    Remington released it to the public as the .223 Remington while they were sorting all of this out. Probably wanted some return on all the money the were spending. I believe the .222 remington magnum was developed earlier for the same reason. The army didn’t want it.

  6. Simon Grey says:

    @Rhaemyr- a revolver is not a semi-auto because it does not eject the shell after each shot.

  7. ” A common look and common parts does not make the modern AR-15 “designed for combat” any more than the 1 liter water bottle (which is also used in combat). “

    The M-24 started life as the civilian Remington 700, if memory serves. Same with the M-107…started life as a civilian rifle and then was adapted for mil use.

    ” The second amendment is about ensuring that free Americans never become serfs in their own land. Military grade firearms are the great equalizer between peasant farmers and the warrior class that traditionally make up the aristocracy. “

    More than this. An armed civilian populace, entrusted with (and jealous of) their own security, doesn’t need a large standing army to keep them safe in the first place. The very presence of armed law-abiding civilians precludes the “need” for a large “security force” to keep them “safe” from “criminals”.

  8. heresolong says:

    So many stupid comments, so little time. Professor, you touched quite nicely on many of them, but

    MrMcgee: “30-06 is a hunting round”? It was specifically developed as a military round to replace the 30-03.

    Bruno-Erck: “It’s not unconstitutional to ban stuff if it wasn’t available when the Constitution was written”. OK then. Can we talk about restrictions on speech using radio, television, or the internet? That ought to be a fun conversation. Time for the government to shut down MSNBC. I can hear the screaming now.

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