This is why thier was such an uproar, Zumbo was help to mislead the public.

Well, I didn’t give him a Moron of the Week title, but I did have this to say in a related post:

If the ‘facts’ surrounding the case are true, then the two agents acted reprehensibly. But the lengthy jail terms handed down are way beyond what was warranted. I would even argue that tossing them, being Border Patrol agents, in a medium security prison filled with illegal aliens from Mexico is bordering on cruel and unusual punishment. So from that perspective, I think it’s great that these Republicans Congressmen are displaying their outrage at Bush for not pardoning the two men. They are standing up for the rights of wayward citizens who have become victims of the Decider’s relations with Mexico.

The primary focus of that post was on Dana Rohrabacher’s threats of impeaching Bush over this issue, rather than the other impeachable offenses he’s already committed. I don’t know all of the details of the case, but even if they are guilty they should not have gotten the punishment that they did.

Much (if not nearly all) of the media coverage and printed information relates to basically one thing. So called assault weapons should not be in the hands of citizens. It seems, as even in your case, that the misconception of so called assault weapons include every semi- automatic weapon available to the public. Very few reporters and editors have even the basic understanding of the difference between NFA (registered machineguns) and civilian legal semi auto rifles (or pistols). All are lumped into one group. Therein lies the problem.

As pointed out more than once in the previous posts, they are indeed two different animals. Once that is understood and grasped by the many media writers, maybe, just maybe, this topic would take on a whole new perspective. Until then, it’s simply a matter of the uninformed media and politicians forcing uneducated ideas and policies on people that know the truth and the facts. Calling them “assault TYPE weapons is just another way of lumping all guns together – a tool used extensively by the anti-gun lobby.

I hope all the comments above have opened your eyes enough that you really do some research. I think if you do, you will realize there are tremendous inconsistencies of assault weapon terminology used to try and sway the public into supporting ridiculous bans on mythical terrorist rifles and (misconstrued) automatic weapons.

Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, declares the necessity for “a well regulated militia,” and prohibits infringement of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”
It does not state that a regulated militia can bear arms (which many people assume). It declares the necessity for “a well regulated militia” as well as the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The original text was:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

It later modified to:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

And finally to:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

You will note there is no Hunting or sporting use clause in the second amendment, or any restrictions on ammunition (type or capacity) for that matter.

Any (so called Assault) weapon ban would effectively restrict ownership of a weapon no more advanced than a rifle designed 117 years ago (bolt action rifle). The Semi-Auto rifle has been around since before 1936 (71 years), and even the AR15 is 50 years old. The ban is about a legal citzen owning an ergonomically designed self loading weapon (not true Assault rifles, or Machine Guns).

Most weapon inovations come from the public (none government) and R&D is paid for by the public (via sales), the government then updates it’s own weapons systems based on those innovations and without spending billions of dollars doing so. Banning 50 year old designs does nothing for crime, it hurts the economy, puts a ban on innovation, and would cost us more as tax payers. The only ones it helps are the criminals as they are not effected by bans.

1) Sights.

It would be missing the sights you commonly see on guns. Instead, it would have a rail on top to which a scope can be attached. The scope itself would cost nearly $1,000 because quality scopes cost that much.

2) Tuning

It would have a special barrel. This barrel would come from a *precision* manufacturer and would be installed by a professional gunsmith. It would be carefully attached, measured, fluffed, buffed, and coo’d over so it would be *just right*. The trigger alone would cost nearly $200. Special grips would be installed to prevent interference with the barrel harmonics and be more comfortable. Finally, it would be painted some neat colors…maybe red with flames or something.

The overall cost would probably run around $2,000.

And yes, I’d have a 30 round magazine for it.

The whole point is that the government would consider such a weapon to be an evil weapon, but the reality is that it is a sporting gun. I’d never take something like that into battle. That would be like taking a Ferrari into the invasion of Fallujah.