FN Herstal Firearms banner

1 - 4 of 4 Posts

614 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I was scanning through a website this morning (Sweetness & Light) and read a bit about Biden and how "there's no reason" they can't get "comprehensive" gun control in the wake of CT shootings, blah,blah,blah. Anyway, one of the reader's (a Mr. Rusty Shackleford's) comments were very well written, so I figured I'd put them here for you guys to read:

"And most recently in China, a father of two murdered children, angry about the failure of the state to charge the perpetrators with murder, mowed down a bunch of kids with his car.
Therefore, cars must be banned, right?
Given that I tend to think of things in their simplest terms while still understanding the complexities of the human mind, or, more accurately that the human mind is complex, I will state the following:
It’s not the choice of weapon, the circumstance, the individual but more a combination of all three. When examined in court, what do the prosecutors try to pin on the defendant? Motive, opportunity and means. Remove any of those three and you have a different situation.
However, guns are not the problem inasmuch as it’s not the storm that floods the town that’s the problem. It’s the person’s, the individual’s response. I don’t want my kid to get shot so I send them to places where, either I’m there with them and I’m carrying a weapon, or a send them to places where odd people with guns cannot gain access to my child. Or, if by some chance they do, they will be killed before getting the opportunity to do so.
It’s very interesting that many of the people who insist on gun control send their kids to schools with very heavy security, including that twit Gregory who brandished a magazine, forbidden by DC law, on national TV.
So, Mr Gregory, why is that an unacceptable tack for me to take with my own kids? Or, does it tend to bring you down a notch in your elitist universe. Armed security not good for the masses? Just for our “elected” officials and for popinjay dullards like yourself?
When someone is so angry, so enraged as to be blinded to good sense, they will find a way to carry out and act upon their anger. Indeed, the murder mystery writers in Europe have to come up with very clever ways to kill off the object of their writing, since guns were “abolished”. Scissors, drowning, run over by a car, thrown from a train, electrocuted, strangled (a most popular method in the pages of fiction) and all sorts of ways that the murderer can accomplish their desired task.
So…..here we are once again where the socialists, ever the idealists, always search for the easy answer which is all-too-often incorrect. I’ll use the analogy thusly:
Kids aren’t doing well on the tests that the teacher gives out. When you ask the kids why that is, they say, “Teacher asks questions that are too hard.” But when you further ask the students what the teacher taught and none of them can remember, well, then, one can see the problem.
“Did you study the material?”
“Did you sit down and do your assignments?”
“Did you do as the teacher recommended and read the lesson the night before in the text book?”
If the answer to all three questions is “no” then you deserve a failing grade.
The socialists’ answer to this situation? Dumb down the tests. Make it so easy that everyone gets an “A”. The end result is a two-fer. The students then all think they’re brilliant and also, the school gets more funding because they have such high scores.
Now, let’s move that to the gun argument.
The socialists say, “It’s the gun’s fault. Without a gun, that person would never have done that.”
How would they know? This is the first incorrect assumption made by the socialist. They claim to understand the human mind and emotions so well that said violent criminal wouldn’t be had there been no gun.
So, let me ask. “What was the killer’s motivation?” “If there was no gun, would the killer have then studied bomb-making and satisfied their anger that way?”. “If no bombs, would the killer have waited outside the school until their target appeared and then driven their car to run them over?”. “Without a gun, would the killer have plotted a more complex plan to attack the people he wanted to hurt?”
With the exception of the first question, the answer to all the others would be “yes”.
The banning of guns is just the simple-minded person’s way of dealing with reality. It’s the same with the person who constantly runs into “bad luck”. If the person who never repairs their car keeps getting pulled over for inoperative taillights, they only see that the “cops are following them around”. When they show up at the grocery store without enough money to pay for the goods they’ve selected, it’s because, “They raised the prices too high and kept me from getting what I want”. And though the latter is partly often true, it’s because of that very line of thinking that we’re in the mess we are.
Always looking for the simple, unexplored, parochial “fix” to some problem that either didn’t really exist or became a problem because government tried to fix it.
Although the tragedy in Connecticut is every bit as dark as it can be, it’s not the guns’ fault. It’s the fault of a particular individual or individuals to take proper responsibility to prevent such behavior. Back in the 60′s the ACLU went to court a great many times to curtail the institutionalizing of mentally unstable people. We have reaped the rewards of government “fixing” that problem ever since.
But, to be fair, when a sane person decides to “go off the deep end” and otherwise seems perfectly normal, you can neither predict nor prevent that person from doing something outlandish.
It’s technically, and unfortunately, part of the “human condition” and will always be with us.
But the real problem is that socialists never want to face any cold, real realities. People can’t afford homes? Fine! Make it so everyone can get a mortgage, even if you’re already on food stamps and make $11,000 a year! What could possibly go wrong? Well, they were told what would and what eventually did go wrong but they denied their responsibility to it.
You cannot help those kinds of people. When I was a kid in school, teachers often pointed out that I had done something stupid and “now do you see why that’s a bad idea?”. Teachers are prohibited from saying anything of the kind to kids today.
The “system” has confused discipline with cruelty, thinking they are one and the same. They have invented a fantasy land where kids will develop into responsible adults simply by osmosis. But the teachers themselves are bad examples so the osmosis theory probably does work to some extent when the kid who can’t read or do basic math graduates from high school and can’t seem to hold a job, gets into drugs, etc.
Socialism destroys things. It’s designed to do-so. The architects and mechanics who use it love that about it."

367 Posts
Thanks for sharing. Pretty good read.

614 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Another reader's comments on the same, with some specifics that I found interesting to research. You guys'll probably get a mental picture of the weapons mentioned, but I'm a noob so I had to Gooogle everything:

"Here is what Feinstein is going to introduce:
Whether this is what Biden and his “commission” will use or something even worse who knows, but it’s the nightmare scenario I was dreading.
The NFA registration is the real killer–it would require registering every AR-15, AK-47, MAK-90, FN-FAL, or any other semi-auto “military like” gun ever made as if it were a machine gun, and would include deliberate bans on thumbhole stocks and the like. I’ve been out of firearms for so long I admit I had to look up what a “bullet button” was. We’re talking numbers in the millions–last I heard the file the ATF had on NFA weapons was something like 70,000 guns.
In a bit of weirdness it looks like flash hiders and bayonet mounts would be allowed this time. (?) So a Mini-14GB (police model also sold to the public) with a flash hider and bayonet lug is legal, but one with a folding stock is suddenly much more dangerous? Or maybe it’s just pre-emptively on the list.
“Antique weapons” are allowed, but what does that mean? Pre-1898 as defined in the ’68 Gun Control Act? Or the Curo and Relic list the ATF uses? If it’s 1898 there are none, the Curio and Relics list would allow some things like M1 carbines–at least until someone uses one of those in a shooting.
I see an exact return to the panicked environment of the 1990′s–people wondering if they’d go to jail over a pistol grip or a threaded barrel, and batches of guns suddenly getting “recalled” because of a new ruling. One I remember was a long barreled AK that had a bipod attached to what doubled as a bayonet mount and suddenly they were dreaded “assault weapons” that had to be gotten off the street. All of this amplified by a registration requirement and serious jail time if a mistake is ever made.
And none of this means squat. It’s all about scary appearances–a pistol grip does nothing. Even with a folding stock a rifle still won’t fit in your pocket. Spree killers would just take the stock off. The only thing that has mattered marginally has been high capacity magazines and the ability to swap them out.
But—–these high profile shootings have almost always been against unarmed crowds. People who aren’t shooting back, and are unlikely to rush the shooter to disarm him or her.
I don’t know if a generic Mini-14 is on this list, if not it’s the same type as used in Norway. So instead of 30 round magazines the killer would use 10 rounds, and be just as deadly.
An old SKS remains perfectly legal with it’s bayonet, and it can be reloaded fast with stripper clips.
Older “battle rifles” that only took 10 round magazines–Hakim, Swiss AVB, etc. Also are still legal.
A semi-auto handgun can be reloaded just as fast as before, and most of the larger calibers are only 10 or 12 rounds to begin with.
Or they can do what the cowboys did with their revolvers and carry more than one.
No one has made this combination to my knowledge but it sounds like a pump action AR-15 (I know someone made one under Ban One) with a permanently mounted 100 round drum magazine would be perfectly legal. Think someone couldn’t do a lot of damage with that? Go figure. Heck, a lever action rifle with a Calico/Bizon spiral tube magazine could also be made.
And just like Ban One this will be a response that was shown ineffective in the 90′s. The people killed most often by guns will still be killed by the same things: revolvers, .22 rifles, cheap .9mm or .25 semi-autos, and old shotguns. The result will be a lot of turmoil; a legislative and a legal nightmare for almost no benefit. Well, they will make it such a minefield that many people will decide it’s safer not to bother with guns, which is probably the goal.
And they won’t do a SINGLE THING about mental illness or keeping criminals off the street.
I keep hoping Feinstein and her partner in legislation Schumer will finally decide they’ve done enough damage and retire, but like all Democrats they’ll keep on until old age stops them as it’s not about making a better country, it’s all about power and their egos."
1 - 4 of 4 Posts