Alphecca

The antis started using the "Assault Weapon" term and we fell into the language trap of defending the term when misapplied to our arms. Assault is what a person does. Weapon is a tool.

That's why, in all of my posts on Alphecca, I've always put the phrase inside quote marks. It's THEIR TERM, not a legitimate one of ours.

I owe attribution to someone, but I don't recall just whom it is. However, he had a great idea for the proper terminology, "homeland defense weapons".

as to your emailer, I would point out that the public bearing arms is less of a protection to the individual carrying the arm, if he is specifically targeted for some reason, than it is to the public in general.

I can carry any arm I wish and still be ambushed. Or shot long distance from hiding, if I am a specific target. However, someone doing such a thing would in a perfect world find himself at gunpoint from all citizens in his vicinity for his unwarranted attack on another. My arm and yours provide an umbrella of protection that benefits others at least as much as it does the bearer. Provided, of course, that it is common knowledge that armed citizens are about.

As to what type of arm should be allowed or disallowed, all one can say is that the discussion itself is a subterfuge for a hidden agenda when one realizes just how many things are potentially lethal. Things that are not considered arms can be used to effective, efficient lethal effect. It is possible to kill more people with the contents of the average kitchen than most people could with the contents of the average gun safe. Ergo, those who pretend a restriction on caliber, function, or availability of firearms will make us safer, and who inject this into public debate have derailed the real issues. Many people of good will look at these pretend safety measures and are fooled. They often miss the illogical progression of the arguments made by the would be restrictors.

Emotion plays a part in this self deception. Good people do not want to see murder, mayhem, and violence visited upon innocents so what sounds like a great idea of restricting the tools of such gets their support, if not explicitly then implicitly. Where they miss the fracture of logic that makes this a bad idea, is that these same tools are also the tools of defense, or should be, of those innocents. However, because they are good people they observe the restriction and are thus left at the mercy of the bad people who will not. And even if they could not avail themselves of a certain tool, would just use another. Meanwhile the man of good conscience but flawed logic has left himself, his family and his neighbor who is also of good conscience helpless in the face naked aggression, criminal activity or any other violation a person of bad or no conscience may wish to inflict.

The perpetrators of these disarmament schemes know all the above. They just hope to keep a majority of the people fooled long enough to garner more power unto themselves. For where can a helpless man turn when his family is endangered and he is impotent? Why, to the state. He must grant them more power to fight the evildoers that did not abide the good conscience but foolish restrictions that others did.

Make no mistake my friend those that would argue you out of a right, or turn it to a privilege, or regulate and restrict that which "shall not be infringed.", or who demand you justify your "need" to exercise you right, are not concerned with gun control, public safety, or prevention of crime. They are concerned simply with control and this is one avenue they travel in pursuit of it.

"My first thought on that would be is, do they really know how to use it properly, and the next would be is, if that person gets ticked off will they pull that weapon on me?"

#1. Soldiers and policemen don't drink some magic kool aid in the morning that makes them capable of handling semi-automatic rifles. The knowledge for properly using such firearms is easily obtained, and anyone can learn those skills if they wish to.

#2. In order to pass a background check to buy a firearm in the first place, a person has to have a clean legal record. No felony arrests. The idea that someone who owns a rifle that doesn't meet some artificial, feel good cosmetic standard is somehow more likely to snap than anyone else is just a bit offensive, and insulting to say the least.

Do we "need" television? Do we "need" beer? If we don't "need" it, should we ban it?

There are needs and wants. I'd say a definition of socializm* is, "a system of government that limits us to our needs." In a more free system of government, the needs are usually met quite easily and the wants are what make the game worth playing.

Life would be pretty boring if we were limited to our needs and never fulfilled our wants.

Do we "need" assault weapons? Hmph. Stupid question.

*Note: "socializm" is spelled that way to thwart the spam blocker, which blocks the character string "cializ" which appears in "socializm." I guess the spam blocker never heard of word delimiters. Sigh.

Given that earlier commentors have already addressed the fact that rights are not need-based, I would like to briefly touch on why the need actually does exist.

The military and police are tools of the state, which is often held in sway by temporary, often irrational majorities. This nation is founded on the notion that democracy, or popular will, can only go so far. Minorities, who don't have the votes, must still be protected by immutable rights. The 2A, therefore, ensures that if their other political rights are denied, they at least have the means to resist oppression. Handguns and shotguns are not terribly useful here, unless they are used to secure an enemy's rifle. A semi-automatic rifle or carbine is your best bet should a sector of the population turn against you.

Also, as the Swiss knew, a nation that maintains an armed population is far more formidable than a nation merely defended by a military. The Germans gave up on invading Switzerland, which is right next door, but were a few air-battles away from invading the United Kingdom. In the case of the Swiss, they already had control of the skies, but couldn't stomach the idea of marching uphill into a hornet's nest where every man-jack of them has a rifle aimed at you.

Ultimately, go rent "Uprising". Is that likely to happen again? Not in the slightest. But I'm sure people felt such a thing was equally implausible right before it happened.

While all that "definition" is fine - another point that would help, I think, answer anyone's 'concern' is the sheer number (estimated) of gun-owners in America.

Wasn't that in the neighborhood of 80 million or so??

Think of that for a minute.

THat's a lot of level-headed neighbors out there.

People that can be trusted. Likely co-workers and others.

A lot of people who believe in nature, and love of their country.

Does that help your level of trust???

Doesn't sound like a Hollywood-style Wild Wild West to me.

To take off a bit further on Hank's comment, in a communist or socialized system, it's more than a matter of limiting the population to their needs, but of determing what those needs are. This is part of a discussion of basic economic theory as well. How is it that someone in an office 1000 miles away has the ability to determine what constitutes a need in a local, or individual setting? And, as straightarrow points out, it derails the actual question. The real need is also a right: self preservation. It is up to the individual to choose what means best serve for satisfying that need. Individual situations vary. In a home-defense scenario, one person might find it difficult to operate a large handgun safely and effectively (i.e. hitting the perp without endangering others), and would therefore choose a lightweight carbine-style AR in 9mm.

Your correspondent falls into the trap that so many GFWs do: he believes the anti-gun propaganda. "How do I know that the bearer of the 'assault weapon' won't Go Postal at any moment" (to paraphrase)

My response is this: How does anyone know that the driver waiting for the red light won't simply step on the gas and run me over while I'm crossing the street in front of him? The thought of that is just as ludicrous as someone's misusing a firearm deliberately. In fact, your correspondent claims that he's unafraid of someone's carrying a pistol, rifle or shotgun, any of which is just as deadly as the "Assault Weapon". Again, I'd ask why a normal person would be more likely to commit murder/mayhem with an "AW" than with any other weapon?

Do we need "Assault Weapons?".

The short answer.
"Yes."

doesn't Switzerland require the average citizen
to own an "assault-style weapon"?

I thought the Swiss required a select-fire rifle, which BATFE would classify as a "machine gun".

Your letter writer has fallen prey to two typical anti-gun lobby fallacies, on which he bases his faulty assumptions. The first is the "Doctrine of Need", which has been fully illuminated by others. The second is the divide-and-conquer technique of the "Bad Gun" theory of "gun control". There are no such things as "bad guns", just bad gun uses. As others have pointed out, all so-called "gun control laws" are based on the hopes that prior restraint and reverse-onus laws will keep criminals in check. But since criminals, by definition, ignore the law, adding more laws will not stop them one bit. Therefore, these laws unjustly transfer the burden of responsibility from those who actually commit crimes onto the backs of law abiding and honest gun owners, who haven't.

Scott Ganz, I do not remember the names of the parties involved, but this did happen. It is referenced in several of my histories here. I do remember the actions and the words I shall paraphrase because I do not have the verbatim exchange handy.

A German dignitary visiting Switzerland during the German expansion, but prior to the actual beginning of WWII while being taken on a tour of Switzerland's points of interest was introduced to an old sergeant of the Swiss Army. Hoping to make his point of Germany's military supremacy in front of the ranking officers and Swiss officials the German asked of the sergeant who had been expounding on the fine marksmanship of his troops and reserves, "What could a nation of 8 million people do in the face of the German military who alone outnumber your entire population by a factor of 2, if we were to attack you?"

The old sergeant looked at him and in all seriousness said "Why, we should each have to shoot twice."

I should also like to point out that _very_, _very_ few semi autos are easy to convert to fully automatic. There aren't many out there on the street, and the ATF has a habit of classifying them as machine guns.

For a long time, the ATF has _required_ that certain steps be taken in the design and manufacture of semi autos that expressley prevents them from being easily converted.

The ATF scrutinizes all new semi auto designs for ease of convertability prior to production approval.

For example, if you open any AR-15 made in the last 30 years, you'll find a strange hump of metal in the reciever. This hump of metal fills in the place where the parts that make an M-16 a machine gun would normally go, thus preventing their installation.