Thursday, January 17, 2013

Mills Fleet Farm's Gun Video

A pretty darned effective open letter to legislators.

This one is long, but worth it:


  1. Bull Crap!!!! Again, I am a moderate on this issue but this demonstration was totally off base.

    1. If the shot gun is so much more effective than the "assault rifle" then why would you want an assault rifle?

    2. I suppose that if the test is 25 rounds to 5 rounds, then the shotgun wins. THe problem is that their "test" to prove the effectiveness is simply bogus. Not only that, the girl firing the scary "assault rifle" was clearly taking more time before rounds.

    3. If you want to consider a measure of lethality, then consider what the military does. They arm the average soldier with an "assault rifle", not a shot gun. The M-4/M-16 military version of the AR-15 is fully automatic, but that is not its most common way it is used.

    4. Nor do insurgents or other types of forces use shotguns. They carry an AK-47 variant.

    5. Why do these soldiers use these weapons and not the "duck hunting shotgun"? BECAUSE IT IS MORE LETHAL. The average person, even an untrained insurgent, can lay down a heavy mass of fire on a target area.

    6. Again, as I have already mentioned in this forum, the government clearly has the power to prohibit the acquisition of certain classes of weapons, and those prohibitions are clearly not infringements as defined by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. This guy is simply wrong when he tries to claim that the government cannot ban "assault rifles". They can prohibit automatic weapons. They can prohibit RPG's. They can also prohibit "assault rifles" however broadly they want to define it.

  2. House,

    I'm curious on your push for an "assault weapons" ban. What's behind it? They're used in a very small minority of gun deaths, hence the impact of their "ban" (and how you'd get rid of the hundreds of thousands in circulation is beyond me) would be quite small. Is it the fear of another event in which they might be used? If so, our government attempted to blame a video for terrorist attacks last 9/11, and the media damn near allowed them to get away with it. If the video really played a role, would you be OK with banning that type of speech because it could spark another event?

  3. In a perfect world I would not support an "assault weapon" ban. I am a major believer in federalism, with each of the 50 sovereign states setting their own laws and customs. The value to this is if you don't like the gun laws, the abortion laws, the gay rights laws, the zoning laws, the noise ordinances, the regulations on nude beaches, you can move to a state that offers a better palette of freedoms or restrictions. That is what maximizes real political welfare and real freedom.

    The problem is that we do not live in a perfect world, and politics is perhaps the most imperfect of worlds. There are times when you need to evaluate the political value of your positions. And, if you are sitting on a loser, you need to do something about it. And, the most effective way for a person with an unpopular political position to fight back is to compromise. You give up a little to get a lot.

    Now, I know that the gun zealots are big believers in the "slippery slope". I am not. You simply do not make policy based upon "what might happen next". And, the history of politics in the US has shown that often it is the "winning side" that makes the mistake along the slippery slope and pushes the issue much too far (example, Franklin Roosevelt and the Supreme Court Packing issue).

    So, in this situation I believe that compromise is the right position. "Ban" the "assault weapons". But, do it in a compromise fashion that protects existing holders and potentially allows for exemptions that can be easily worked around, and simple modifications that make the "assault rifle" not an assault rifle (exactly what happened wiht the previous "Assault Weapon Ban). When you are working with the issue you can influence these things.

    When you decide on idealogical purity, you are now on the outside looking in. YOu have no influence in the future course of action. And, when you decide on idealogical purity on a losing issue, all you are is a loser.

    And, really, for what purpose? Compromise on "assault weapons" and "large capacity magazines", which is my position, is giving up the pawn to save the Queen, while putting your Queen in position to strike deep.

    Frankly, I am calling bull crap to both sides ridiculous claims and propaganda. The "if it saves just one life" rhetoric is sickening. And, as I believe I have said before, I am not about to be lectured what to do about "gun violence" by the liberal Democratic leader of the urban areas that have some of the highest crime rates in the world. When Barrack Obama and Rahm Emmanuel figure out how to control violence in their own city, then maybe they will have more appropriate solutions for the rest of the nation.

    Politics is a dirty business, but it is also a rational business. There is no room for purity.


Please feel free to include any thoughts you may have. Know, however, that kiddos might be reading this, so please keep the adult language to yourself. I know, for me to ask that language is clean is a stretch...