The One With Aldacron

Every single bolt-action rifle is based on a design specifically made for war.

Yes, indeed.

The “assault rifles” used to hunt prairie dogs and other varmints are as far-removed from the military version of the M16 as a Remington 700 is from a ‘98 Mauser - though I imagine you’ll still find a lot of modified ‘98 Mausers in the deer woods each season.

Then educate me. When I read an article about assault rifles, what am I to think they are referring to? The issue of semantics is an important one when it comes to the written word. My statement, the one you called ignorant, was intended to mean that assault rifles have no place outside of war. Yet because of the way I worded it, it can be interpreted as a silly thing to say at face value. Had I phrased it differently, there would have been no doubt as to my intent. So, do tell — if Zumbo didn’t really mean “assault rifles” when he said “assault rifles”, what did he mean?

Now, if you’d care to discuss the actual meaning of the Constitution, drop me a note. You might have a lot to learn that will surprise the hell out of you.

Nothing surprising about the second amendment to me. When read in its entirety, it’s quite plain what it means. Gun lovers tend to only focus on the latter part though and ignore the first bit.

Jim Zumbo, while quite a hunter, is self-admittedly not a gun enthusiast. Guns are just the tool he uses to practice his sport. He’s not unusual in that. He was quite as ignorant about the state of modern firearms as you are, but he’s set himself to learn about them.

“Assault rifles” - by the actual textbook definition - are select-fire (semi- or full-auto) rifles or carbines that fire a cartridge that is intermediate in power between pistol and full “battle rifle” calibers. The gun ban groups and their cohorts in the media and legislative bodies invented the “semi-automatic assault weapon” which, apparently, ranges from high-capacity handguns up through rifles like the M1A, with a detour into some shotguns. It’s a catch-all term for “ugly semi-automatic guns that accept high-capacity magazines.” It was an phrase designed to frighten and confuse the general public, as admitted to by the Violence Policy Center in a 1988 strategic paper. To wit:

“Although handguns claim more than 20,000 lives a year, the issue of handgun restriction consistently remains a non-issue with the vast majority of legislators, the press, and public. The reasons for this vary: the power of the gun lobby; the tendency of both sides of the issue to resort to sloganeering and pre-packaged arguments when discussing the issue; the fact that until an individual is affected by handgun violence he or she is unlikely to work for handgun restrictions; the view that handgun violence is an “unsolvable” problem; the inability of the handgun restriction movement to organize itself into an effective electoral threat; and the fact that until someone famous is shot, or something truly horrible happens, handgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.”

In other words, “Joe and Jane Sixpack aren’t paying attention. We must play on their ignorance and frighten them some more.” You remember the “plastic firearm” scare, don’t you? The gun that was supposed to pass invisibly through airport metal detectors? The Glock that has over a pound of steel in it, and now rests on the hips of the majority of police officers on the beat in this country? Or the “cop-killer bullet” that wasn’t?

Jim Zumbo was told by one of his guides - on a varmint hunt - that AR15-type rifles were widely used and very popular for varmint hunting. He most likely pictured one of these, or something similar. After all, that’s the kind of photo put up behind the talking heads on TV whenever they breathlessly report a gang shooting, right? He was not aware that rifles like this are being made by a lot of different manufacturers. The latter are every bit as accurate as the best bolt-action rifles, and generally cost less. They are available in different calibers as well, though .223 is by far the most popular.

After passage of the 1994 “assault weapon ban” that wasn’t, the popularity of this type of rifle skyrocketed - with perfect legality, though the gun ban crowd screamed “loophole!” After all, the government didn’t want us to have them. Reason enough.

In all that, it was discovered that the AR15 type rifle is a damned accurate platform, highly reliable (when kept clean) and it’s become the Swiss-army knife of rifles. You can even buy the parts and build one yourself if you’re halfway mechanically inclined.

In addition, most people are not aware that the AR15 rifle is a two-piece gun. The lower part with the buttstock, grip, and trigger assembly is, per the BATFE, the “gun” - it carries the serial number. The upper is just another part you can order out of a catalog. So, for not too much money you can have multiple uppers in different calibers, barrel lengths, and accessories for whatever purpose you want. Long-range varmint shooting in .204 Ruger, DCM match target shooting in .223 Remington, deer hunting in 6×45, 6.5 Grendel or 6.8SPC, or bear hunting in .50 Beowulf.

They’re all based on the same gas-operated semi-automatic rifle. They’re all AR-15’s in the eyes of Diane Feinstein and the Violence Policy Center, but they are - even in Jim Zumbo’s little world - “legitimate hunting rifles.” Even though they’re based on a “weapon made for war” - just like every bolt action rifle since the introduction of the Mauser. They just aren’t pretty blued steel and oiled walnut (though I’ve actually seen a military version with a walnut buttstock and forend.) And, while the .223 caliber versions will accept a 30 round magazine, they’ll accept a legal-to-hunt-with five round magazine as well.

As to the Second Amendment, will you accept the interpretation of Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe - one of Al Gore’s lawyers in the 2000 election debacle? He is the author of the most widely used Constitutional Law textbook in ConLaw classes today. Here’s his understanding of it, taken from his textbook:

“Perhaps the most accurate conclusion one can reach with any confidence is that the core meaning of the Second Amendment is a populist / republican / federalism one: Its central object is to arm ‘We the People’ so that ordinary citizens can participate in the collective defense of their community and their state. But it does so not through directly protecting a right on the part of states or other collectivities, assertable by them against the federal government, to arm the populace as they see fit. Rather the amendment achieves its central purpose by assuring that the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification consistent with the authority of the states to organize their own militias. That assurance in turn is provided through recognizing a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes — not a right to hunt for game, quite clearly, and certainly not a right to employ firearms to commit aggressive acts against other persons — a right that directly limits action by Congress or by the Executive Branch and may well, in addition, be among the privileges or immunities of United States citizens protected by §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment against state or local government action.”

I guess he’s a gun lover?

You’ve got my email address. Drop me a line if you’d like to continue the conversation.

Okay, so leaving the term “assault rifle” behind, are these weapons semi-automatic or not? In the Army, my M16 could be set to fire single shots, three-round bursts, or continuous fire. Are people hunting prairie dogs with weapons that fire multi-round bursts, or are they using single-shot weapons? It’s the former I take issue with and that I believe should not be in the hands of the population at large. If it’s the latter, then “assault rifle” is a misnomer. I don’t care what they look like, only what they can do.

Regarding the Laurence Tribe, I take no issue at all with his interpretation. It considers, correctly, the whole of the amendment rather than the oft-quoted latter half and is the intent of the amendment as I understand it. It’s not the “gun-lover” interpretation, the one born out of ignorance, that I referred to above. Specifically, this is the part that most people get wrong:

That assurance in turn is provided through recognizing a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes — not a right to hunt for game, quite clearly, and certainly not a right to employ firearms to commit aggressive acts against other persons…

If you look at Supreme Court cases going back almost 200 years, decisions have been consistently made based upon similar interpretations. As I said, the amendment is pretty clear in its intent.

In my experience, however, the average American cannot quote the second amendment fully if you ask. They’ll simply tell you that they have a right to own a gun (if they even know which amendment the second is). To them, there’s no distinction between owning a gun for the purpose of defense and owning a gun to do with as they will. That’s the ignorant interpretation I was referring to. Mr. Tribe is right on the money.

It is up to the Court to interpret how broad a scope the word “arms” should be allowed. I think we all agree that it should not go so far as to cover missiles or nuclear weapons. By the same token, I do not personally believe it should cover any kind of firearm which can release several rounds per second. Single-shot handguns and rifles are fine, but keep the heavier stuff in the realm of the military.

If the government were to decree tomorrow that you cannot own such firearms, nor could you use any firearms at all for any purpose other than self-defense or defense of the nation, they would be well within the framework of the Constitution. Of course, the NRA lobby would never let such a thing happen. And if it did happen, many Americans would be riled up about it. For most, it would be because they are ignorant about the scope of the second amendment.

Or by “single-shot” did you mean “semi-automatic”? Terminology is important.

Really? Care to cite the specific decisions and their precedents? I’ll wait. Explain to me how a “single shot handgun or rifle” is suitable for “self-defense or defense of the nation,” but an AR15, SKS, AK or FN-FAL is not. Be sure to explain it to our troops, too.

My point is that the term “arms” as it is used today covers a broad range of weaponry, from melee weapons to ballistic missiles. When the government declares that a citizen cannot own a certain type of weapon, it is well within their right to do so in restricting the scope of what “arms” are allowed. One example of this is United States v. Miller:

…in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ’shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense…

Of course, it can be argued (and, IIRC, the ACLU does) that the second amendment is anachronistic. In the modern USA, we have a capable active duty military as well as reservists. The modern militia is the National Guard, but this is a government entity. The days when the citizens were called upon to defend the homeland with their own arms are long gone.

I know you’ll likely argue the “unorganized militia” bit, as you did with the Algiers Point Militia. But that’s quite a loose interpretation of “unorganized militia”. The citizens who came forward to fight British in the early days of the Revolution — they were an unorganized militia. If the government put out a call for citizens to grab their weapons and defend the nation, that would be an unorganized militia. The people who defended their homes from looters in New Orleans were an armed mob. Quite a difference.

Were you aware that the Miller court’s “absence of any evidence” language was due to the fact that Mr. Miller had no representation before the Court? No one filed any briefs on his behalf. No one pled his side before the bench. No one placed into evidence the irrefutable fact that “shotguns having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length” had been used in warfare, by our militiary, since the Revolutionary War.

Question: Had Mr. Miller possessed not a sawed-off shotgun, but instead a Browning Automatic Rifle, Model of 1918, which was also restricted by the 1934 NFA - same registration requirement, same $200 tax stamp ($200 in 1934, remember, when that was a serious chunk of change) - and was part of the standard Table of Equipment for U.S. Army infantry units, would the Court have been able to say with a straight face that they couldn’t say that it had “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia”? Note, the prosecution raised the fact that Miller was not a member of a militia. The court dismissed it. Their discussion concentrated on the suitability of the weapon. Prior to 1934 you could order A 1918 BAR out of a catalog and have it delivered by mail to your home. It was one of Clyde Barrow’s favorite weapons.

Were you aware that U.S. v Miller did not proceed through the Court of Appeals process, but instead went directly from the District court to the Supreme Court, and in pretty much record time?

“But that’s quite a loose interpretation of “unorganized militia”. The citizens who came forward to fight British in the early days of the Revolution — they were an unorganized militia. If the government put out a call for citizens to grab their weapons and defend the nation, that would be an unorganized militia. The people who defended their homes from looters in New Orleans were an armed mob.”

No sir. As I said to Alex in that piece concerning the “Algiers Point Militia,” those people were not a mob. They were defending against mobs. The difference between a militia and a mob is intent. Is the intent of the group or individuals to uphold and defend the rules of society, or break them? Does the group or individual protect and defend the intent and purpose of the Constitution, or does it seek to violate it? Whether the group or individuals are “formally trained” is immaterial. The “formally trained” classification divides the “organized militia” from the “unorganized militia.” U.S. Code, Title 10, subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13 § 311 defines the militias - whether you agree with that definition or not.

Indeed the ACLU declines to defend the Second Amendment. I’ve had something to say about that as well. ACLU president Nadine Strossen has gone so far as to say “I guess the fact that something is mentioned in the Constitution doesn’t necessarily mean that it is a fundamental civil liberty.” How nice of her to take it upon herself to decide what is and what isn’t a fundamental civil liberty. Especially when that liberty is enumerated in the Bill of Rights!

Let me quote another famous lawyer, Alan Dershowitz:

“Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the constitution by claiming it’s not an individual right or that it’s too much of a safety hazard don’t see the danger of the big picture. They’re courting disaster by encouraging others to use this same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don’t like.”

Let me quote a judge sitting on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals - which has decided that there is no individual right to arms. In a recent decision, here’s an excerpt from his dissent:

“The panel opinion holds that the Second Amendment “imposes no limitation on California’s [or any other state’s] ability to enact legislation regulating or prohibiting the possession or use of firearms” and “does not confer an individual right to own or possess arms.” The panel opinion erases the Second Amendment from our Constitution as effectively as it can, by holding that no individual even has standing to challenge any law restricting firearm possession or use. This means that an individual cannot even get a case into court to raise the question. The panel’s theory is that “the Second Amendment affords only a collective right,” an odd deviation from the individualist philosophy of our Founders. The panel strikes a novel blow in favor of states’ rights, opining that “the amendment was not adopted to afford rights to individuals with respect to private gun ownership or possession,” but was instead “adopted to ensure that effective state militias would be maintained, thus preserving the people’s right to bear arms.” It is not clear from the opinion whom the states would sue or what such a suit would claim were they to try to enforce this right. The panel’s protection of what it calls the “people’s right to bear arms” protects that “right” in the same fictional sense as the “people’s” rights are protected in a “people’s democratic republic.”

“About twenty percent of the American population, those who live in the Ninth Circuit, have lost one of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights. And, the methodology used to take away the right threatens the rest of the Constitution. The most extraordinary step taken by the panel opinion is to read the frequently used Constitutional phrase, “the people,” as conferring rights only upon collectives, not individuals. There is no logical boundary to this misreading, so it threatens all the rights the Constitution guarantees to “the people,” including those having nothing to do with guns. I cannot imagine the judges on the panel similarly repealing the Fourth Amendment’s protection of the right of “the people” to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, or the right of “the people” to freedom of assembly, but times and personnel change, so that this right and all the other rights of “the people” are jeopardized by planting this weed in our Constitutional garden.”

I happen to live in the 9th Circuit. It looks like you’re one of the people willing to water that weed. I want to pull it out by the roots.

OK, so why did my last response not post?

Okay, so leaving the term “assault rifle” behind, are these weapons semi-automatic or not? In the Army, my M16 could be set to fire single shots, three-round bursts, or continuous fire. Are people hunting prairie dogs with weapons that fire multi-round bursts, or are they using single-shot weapons? It’s the former I take issue with and that I believe should not be in the hands of the population at large.

They are Semi-Automatic: You pull the trigger, and one bullet shoots out, automatically chambering the next round. You then need to release the trigger, and pull it again before the new round can be fired. One pull, one bullet. Almost all rifles and handguns nowadays are semi-automatic.

Rifles capable of firing three-round bursts are true military assault rifles capable of full-automatic fire. If your stance is that civilians shouldn’t be allowed to own or hunt with automatic weapons, then fine. But for the most part, civilians CAN’T own automatic weapons, and I’m pretty sure it’s already illegal to hunt with a magazine that holds more than 5 cartridges.

Fully automatic firearms have been severely restricted, taxed, licensed and owners screened by local and federal law enforcement since 1934, and by having a “machine gun” permit, you open up your house to the ATF to come in and search your house any time they want, without a warrant. Getting the necessary permit is also prohibitively expensive. Automatic weapons are not the issue here, and are not the target of “Assault Weapon” bans—they’re essentially already banned.

The rifles under discussion here are NOT automatic weapons, and are NOT capable of three-round bursts. They are semi-automatic rifles that shoot one bullet at a time (and generally shoot a much weaker round to boot).

“Are people hunting prairie dogs with weapons that fire multi-round bursts, or are they using single-shot weapons?”

No and no. they are using self-loading rifles that fire one round per trigger pull.

“I believe should not be in the hands of the population at large. ”

You’re in luck. They’ve been heavily regulated since 1934 and banned since 1986.

“I don’t care what they look like, only what they can do.”

An AR is functionally identical to a ruger mini-14. One looks mean, one looks like your average hunting rifle.

“The modern militia is the National Guard”

err, yes & no. U.S. Code : Title 10 : Section 311:

“Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.”

Not quite loose at all, actually.

If the government were to decree tomorrow that you cannot own such firearms, nor could you use any firearms at all for any purpose other than self-defense or defense of the nation

Uhm, that makes no sense at all. How can use use a firearm in self defense if you are banned from owning firearms?

If the government put out a call for citizens to grab their weapons and defend the nation, that would be an unorganized militia.

What if the government put out a call to round up all the Jews, leftists, homosexuals and other “undesireables”?

The Founding Fathers considered the militia to be a “citizens army” made up of the “whole of the people,” for the purpose of guarding against “betrayal by their representatives,” to “afford complete security against the invasions of public liberty by the national authority,” and if either occurs it is their right and their duty “to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

How can the National Guard, which you claim is equal to the militia, fulfill this role of protecting the people against the government—if nccessary—when you acknowledge that the National Guard is a “government entity”?

The people who defended their homes from looters in New Orleans were an armed mob.

Why do you have a problem with people defending their homes from looters? And why don’t you consider roving packs of looters to be “armed mobs”?

And in the spirit of your original entry, for your failure to grasp the fundamentals of the issue being discussed and for not even having any idea what type of gun is actually being debated here, I nominate you the fifth Moron of the Week.

(I mean, as long as we’re nominating people for not knowing what they’re talking about, that is. You started it.)

The Springfield ‘03, a bolt action rifle that was the primary battle rifle of the US army in WWI, is a weapon made for war. It makes a pretty good hunting rifle for deer or elk and many other animals.

Because of its accuracy, the AR-15 makes a pretty good varmint rifle.

Can you hunt deer and elk with other rifles than the ‘03 or varmints with other than the AR-15? Sure, you can. But why should you. These rifles are perfectly fine and have a reasonable cost for the purpose.

Both of them make pretty good self-defense tools too.

If I were as superficial and ignorant of the issues as you, I’d limit my writings to appear where only the superficial and ignorant would read. Surely the Brady organization has a suitable discussion group where, I believe, you might shine as a bright star among the uninformed.

The citizens who came forward to fight British in the early days of the Revolution — they were an unorganized militia.

True.

If the government put out a call for citizens to grab their weapons and defend the nation, that would be an unorganized militia.

The problem becomes multifold at this point. You have seen where USC expressly defines the militia, of which I fall into that group. If there was a general call, the scat would have hit the ventilator pretty badly, and I’d guess that I’d have to bring my own rifle. That’s problem 1. Problem 2 is that if such a call was made, we’d need trained people, which means that people have to find some way to train. By the time the call was put out, there would be no time to do so. I could keep going, but I would hope you see the point.

I like the way you’re going, keep going that way and you’ll end up entirely opposed to the concept of an AWB. My personal opinion is that Phil’s comment is a bit harsh, though the truth is that you are somewhat ignorant of the use and function of these firearms.

I’d add that I have an AR which is chambered in 308, which is not a military chamber. It is somewhat similar to a 7.62×51, which is military, but the round is much higher pressure and will damage a military chambered rifle. This rifle packs a fair bit more punch than the 223 versions, and would be entirely capable of hunting larger game where the 223 (military round 5.56mm) was inadequate.

One last try to post this (and what happened to my very first comment, may I ask?):

Were you aware that the Miller court’s “absence of any evidence” language was due to the fact that Mr. Miller had no representation before the Court? No one filed any briefs on his behalf. No one pled his side before the bench. No one placed into evidence the irrefutable fact that “shotguns having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length” had been used in warfare, by our militiary, since the Revolutionary War.

Question: Had Mr. Miller possessed not a sawed-off shotgun, but instead a Browning Automatic Rifle, Model of 1918, which was also restricted by the 1934 NFA - same registration requirement, same $200 tax stamp ($200 in 1934, remember, when that was a serious chunk of change) - and was part of the standard Table of Equipment for U.S. Army infantry units, would the Court have been able to say with a straight face that they couldn’t say that it had “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia”? Note, the prosecution raised the fact that Miller was not a member of a militia. The court dismissed it. Their discussion concentrated on the suitability of the weapon. Prior to 1934 you could order A 1918 BAR out of a catalog and have it delivered by mail to your home. It was one of Clyde Barrow’s favorite weapons IIRC.

Were you aware that U.S. v Miller did not proceed through the Court of Appeals process, but instead went directly from the District court to the Supreme Court, and in pretty much record time?

“But that’s quite a loose interpretation of “unorganized militia”. The citizens who came forward to fight British in the early days of the Revolution — they were an unorganized militia. If the government put out a call for citizens to grab their weapons and defend the nation, that would be an unorganized militia. The people who defended their homes from looters in New Orleans were an armed mob.”

No sir. As I said to Alex in that piece concerning the “Algiers Point Militia,” those people were not a mob. They were defending against mobs. The difference between a militia and a mob is intent. Is the intent of the group or individuals to uphold and defend the rules of society, or break them? Does the group or individual protect and defend the intent and purpose of the Constitution, or does it seek to violate it? Whether the group or individuals are “formally trained” is immaterial. The “formally trained” classification divides the “organized militia” from the “unorganized militia.” U.S. Code, Title 10, subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13 § 311 defines the militias - whether you agree with that definition or not.

Indeed the ACLU declines to defend the Second Amendment. I’ve had something to say about that as well. ACLU president Nadine Strossen has gone so far as to say “I guess the fact that something is mentioned in the Constitution doesn’t necessarily mean that it is a fundamental civil liberty.” How nice of her to take it upon herself to decide what is and what isn’t a fundamental civil liberty. Especially when that liberty is enumerated in the Bill of Rights!

Let me quote another famous lawyer, Alan Dershowitz:

“Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the constitution by claiming it’s not an individual right or that it’s too much of a safety hazard don’t see the danger of the big picture. They’re courting disaster by encouraging others to use this same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don’t like.”

And let me quote a judge sitting on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals - which has decided that there is no individual right to arms. In a recent decision, here’s an excerpt from his dissent:

“The panel opinion holds that the Second Amendment “imposes no limitation on California’s [or any other state's] ability to enact legislation regulating or prohibiting the possession or use of firearms” and “does not confer an individual right to own or possess arms.” The panel opinion erases the Second Amendment from our Constitution as effectively as it can, by holding that no individual even has standing to challenge any law restricting firearm possession or use. This means that an individual cannot even get a case into court to raise the question. The panel’s theory is that “the Second Amendment affords only a collective right” an odd deviation from the individualist philosophy of our Founders. The panel strikes a novel blow in favor of states’ rights, opining that “the amendment was not adopted to afford rights to individuals with respect to private gun ownership or possession,” but was instead “adopted to ensure that effective state militias would be maintained, thus preserving the people’s right to bear arms.” It is not clear from the opinion whom the states would sue or what such a suit would claim were they to try to enforce this right. The panel’s protection of what it calls the “people’s right to bear arms” protects that “right” in the same fictional sense as the “people’s” rights are protected in a “people’s democratic republic.”

“About twenty percent of the American population, those who live in the Ninth Circuit, have lost one of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights. And, the methodology used to take away the right threatens the rest of the Constitution. The most extraordinary step taken by the panel opinion is to read the frequently used Constitutional phrase, “the people,” as conferring rights only upon collectives, not individuals. There is no logical boundary to this misreading, so it threatens all the rights the Constitution guarantees to “the people,” including those having nothing to do with guns. I cannot imagine the judges on the panel similarly repealing the Fourth Amendment’s protection of the right of “the people” to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, or the right of “the people” to freedom of assembly, but times and personnel change, so that this right and all the other rights of “the people” are jeopardized by planting this weed in our Constitutional garden.”

I happen to live in the 9th Circuit. It looks like you’re one of the people willing to water that weed. I want to pull it out by the roots.

Nothing surprising about the second amendment to me. When read in its entirety, it’s quite plain what it means. Gun lovers tend to only focus on the latter part though and ignore the first bit.

Gun lovers learned in Seventh Grade English class that a subordinant clause does not change the meaning of a sentence. Thus the Constitutionally guaranteed right of the individual to possass and carry personal arms is not contingent upon the fact that a populace skilled in the use of arms is essential to the security of the free condition.

Damn! I just noticed you pulled another comment of mine!

What, am I making too much sense?

I’ve got one question. Well, two actually. First, are you sure you’re not the moron of the week? And second, depending on what your answer to the first is, if not, what kind of fucking moron scrubs a comment and then quotes it, in italics no less, in his own first comment to his post which, oddly enough, no longer has any comment to be seen as a source for the sudden quotage? That’s most likely moron of the year material there, so I can see why you wouldn’t consider yourself something as mundane as moron of the week.

I guess Aldacrons commitment to the 1st amendment is about as strong as his knowledge of the 2nd and firearms in general.

Ouch. I got owned
I concede that I am quite ignorant of what is and isn’t legal as guns go. I’ve heard the variations of the term “assault rifle” for years in the media and associated that with military-style automatic weapons. It seems I was wrong.

I also misunderstood the meaning of “semi-automatic”. I had always believed that a semi-automatic weapon would fire bursts, where as a full automatic could spray. So again, I was wrong.

Guav wonders why I have a problem with people defending their homes against looters. Well, I don’t. My point is that I don’t see them as a militia, at least not by the dictionary definition. The only difference between them and the looters is intent: the looters are an armed mob intent on stealing property and/or killing people who get in their way, whereas the defenders are an armed mob intent on protecting their property and fighting off the looters. I have no problem with self-defense. I just don’t see how the latter can be called a militia where the former can’t. Before someone twists my words, I don’t want to call the looters “militia”. What I’m saying is that I see an unorganized militia as a group of citizens called upon by the government in times of need, not as a group of people who band together of their own volition. If I’m wrong, so be it.

And to be perfectly clear, I have no problem with the second amendment as written. My only concern is that rapid-fire weapons (and by that I guess I mean “fully automatic”) be out of the hands of the civilian population. My assumptions about what the terms “assault rifle” and “semi-automatic” mean led me to believe that a lot of gun lovers were wanting to run around hunting prairie dogs armed like Rambo.

So I will do more research on second amendment decisions, militias, and firearms to better understand the issue. But I still believe the reaction to Zumbo’s article was wrong. So many people going into an uproar and causing such damage to a guy’s career over one blog post expressing his opinion is just nuts. He’s not a child molester. So I still say the people who did that are morons for overreacting.

Regarding Kevin’s comments: I have not deleted any of them. I have not deleted any comments at all in this thread. If any you posted didn’t make it through, it’s likely the spam filter. As to Kevin’s first post, I have no idea what happened to it. I’m looking into it.

Okay, one of Kevin’s posts was in the approval queue (sent there automatically by the spam filter), and two others were marked as spam. I actually received email notification of the former, but didn’t realize it was in need of approval. As for spam, the filter does not notify me of individual posts it marks as such, but it does maintain the posts in a filtered queue for 30 days, so I was able to pull the other two from the spam queue and approve them.

As to the first post, I have no clue what happened. At any rate, the notification of the comment was still in my inbox, so I am able to post it in its entirety for posterity:

The “assault rifles” used to hunt prairie dogs and other varmints are as far-removed from the military version of the M16 as a Remington 700 is from a ‘98 Mauser - though I imagine you’ll still find a lot of modified ‘98 Mausers in the deer woods each season.

I’ve been following the commentary on this story around the blogosphere and the one constant is the staggering ignorance of the people opining on a topic they know absolutely nothing about - but who still feel completely justified in inflicting that ignorance on the general population.

“Typical American Ignorance”? I suggest you look in a mirror.

Now, if you’d care to discuss the actual meaning of the Constitution, drop me a note. You might have a lot to learn that will surprise the hell out of you.

I concede that I am quite ignorant of what is and isn’t legal as guns go. I’ve heard the variations of the term “assault rifle” for years in the media and associated that with military-style automatic weapons. It seems I was wrong.

And that, my friend, is exactly the point.

You and your ilk have no problem villifying people (like, say, declaring them “moron of the week”) for something that you clearly don’t understand. Versus trying to find out what the REAL deal is, you assume that you are just smarter than “the other side” and start flinging insults.

And where the real problem comes in…if Kevin hadn’t discovered your little diatribe and put you in your place, your ignorant diatribe would have just reinforced in the minds of the gullible that the gun grabbers are right.

The gun ban lobby is always eager for “useful idiots” as defined by Lenin to help them spread their misinformation and propandanda.

Good job.

Explanation accepted, but I have one question from the second of my comments to disappear:

How do you feel about being deliberately mislead in the furtherance of someone else’s agenda?

“I’ve heard the variations of the term “assault rifle” for years in the media and associated that with military-style automatic weapons. It seems I was wrong.

“I also misunderstood the meaning of “semi-automatic”. I had always believed that a semi-automatic weapon would fire bursts, where as a full automatic could spray. So again, I was wrong.”

You believed that because you were lead to believe by the propaganda of the gun control groups and their enablers in the media who, either intentionally or through people like you, pass on and often embellish on that deliberately mendacious propaganda. I gave you the quote from the Violence Policy Center to that effect.

To be honest, I respect (if that’s the word) the Violence Policy Center more than any of the other gun “control” groups out there. At least they publicly admit what they’re doing, and what they’re willing to do to accomplish their goal.

One of the things that has made me an advocate is my anger over being lied to so badly for so long - and watching other people (like you) get sucked in by the lies.

Thank you for your attention, and the opportunity to speak my piece.

You and your ilk have no problem villifying people (like, say, declaring them “moron of the week”) for something that you clearly don’t understand. Versus trying to find out what the REAL deal is, you assume that you are just smarter than “the other side” and start flinging insults.

I write about a lot of inflammatory topics, such as religion and politics, and I often (though not always) use inflammatory words to do so. My motive is to try and spark something in my readers. One of the things I’ve learned since I’ve been blogging is that people are more likely to pay attention to you if you grab them by the nose and slap them. This motivates people, both those who agree and those who disagree, to write comments and/or make a post on their own blog that links back to mine. Not only does that get more eyes on my blog, it encourages discussion. It also encourages a bunch of insults being thrown at me, but I have a thick skin. Ultimately, I may bring other people around to my point of view or, as in this case, learn something new. The Moron of the Week series was born from this motivation. Heck, it works for Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly.

There are quite a few topics in which I am not well-versed, but upon which I have still formed an opinion. I’m quite free to write about them regardless of how little I may know. And you are quite free to come here and call me a moron for doing so. But I will continue to make such posts and will continue to call people morons and idiots.

And where the real problem comes in…if Kevin hadn’t discovered your little diatribe and put you in your place, your ignorant diatribe would have just reinforced in the minds of the gullible that the gun grabbers are right.

The gun ban lobby is always eager for “useful idiots” as defined by Lenin to help them spread their misinformation and propandanda.

This is what I don’t understand — at what point did I come across as a “gun grabber”? The post focused on assault rifles and the people who support using them, nothing more. Over the course of the comments here, I have learned that my understanding of the issue was wrong. I support the second amendment and the right to keep and bear arms. What I do not support is the use of automatic weapons by civilians. My post was based on the assumption that “assault rifle” meant just that.

I thought I had made my position clear in the comments. I guess not.

How do you feel about being deliberately mislead in the furtherance of someone else’s agenda?

Heh, that’s a loaded question. It happens all of the time on a wide range of issues. I’ve often ranted on this blog that people need to do the research themselves when it comes to what’s true and what’s not, rather than being mindless zombies soaking up what we are fed. I try to stay on top of things when it comes to Iraq, the War on Terror, global warming, and other issues that have been and will be election campaign issues. But none of us can fact-check everything we read. Some things I just accept at face-value or dismiss out of hand and move on.

So how do I feel about it? I have come to expect it. I wish I could say that I can automatically filter the wheat from the chaff, but all of us are prone to have some of our opinions affected, to one degree or another, by what the media tells us. I’m sure I’ll learn later that my understanding of another topic I have not researched will have been colored inappropriately by the media.

The problem though, is that this isn’t going to change overnight. For now, whenever we realize that all is not what it seems, all we can do is acknowledge that we were misinformed and work to right the wrongs. For example, the next time I make a post about “gun lovers”, it won’t be colored by an image of Larry the Cable Guy laying down the smack on prairie dogs with an M16.

Thank you for your attention, and the opportunity to speak my piece.

Thank you for commenting. This is exactly the sort of discussion posts like this are intended to encourage.

Aldercon said “at what point did I come across as a “gun grabber”.

You didn’t read the responses to your posts. The point was made that your posts would be used by the “gun-grabbers” and would reinforce the erroneous knowledge of those, like yourself, who don’t understand the issue. No one here, least of all Kevin, accused you of being a “gun-grabber”.

Now, despite your 2 mea culpas’ you still haven’t rescinded your award of “moron of the week”. You were WRONG, you admitted you were wrong. And on top of that you “wronged” us gun-owners who know actally why Zumbos post was wrong. So what are you going to do about it?

Aldacron, I’d like to thank you for conducting yourself with honor and not being too proud to acknowledge that you were clearly wrong on some important points. It’s appreciated. A couple more thoughts:

But I still believe the reaction to Zumbo’s article was wrong.

That’s what happens when people say things that anger a lot of people—people write letters. It’s one of the hallmarks of a free society—he’s free to say what he wants, and people are free to take exception to it.

Imagine, for example, that someone widely respected in the pro-choice movement who worked for a pro-choice/women’s advocacy organization and who’s opinions were widely disseminated all of a sudden said that some abortions should be banned, and called women who got abortions “muderers.” Do you honestly think the reaction would be any different? I should hope not.

So many people going into an uproar and causing such damage to a guy’s career over one blog post expressing his opinion is just nuts.

Zumbo referred to AR-15s as terrorist rifles and stated that hunters shouldn’t lump themselves in with a group of people who terrorize the world. One of the damages to his career was when Remington stopped sponsoring Zumbo. Why would they do that? Well, arguably the most popular ammunition for AR-15s is the .223 Remington. So obviously Remington—maker of some Scary Black Rifles and “terrorist” ammunition—decided that sponsoring Zumbo was not in it’s best interests. What could be expected of them? If a Ford spokesman publicly called Ford cars “shoddily-built rolling deathtraps,” clearly he would not remain on the Ford payroll for very long.

So I still say the people who did that are morons for overreacting.

Only because he didn’t betray a cause that you personally hold important.

Now, despite your 2 mea culpas’ you still haven’t rescinded your award of “moron of the week”. You were WRONG, you admitted you were wrong. And on top of that you “wronged” us gun-owners who know actally why Zumbos post was wrong. So what are you going to do about it?

I’m not editing the post. It should remain to give context to the discussion. And I did make the following comment above:

So I will do more research on second amendment decisions, militias, and firearms to better understand the issue. But I still believe the reaction to Zumbo’s article was wrong. So many people going into an uproar and causing such damage to a guy’s career over one blog post expressing his opinion is just nuts. He’s not a child molester. So I still say the people who did that are morons for overreacting.

It doesn’t matter whether the guy was wrong. The reaction to his comments was unjustified. It’s one thing to disagree with someone, quite another to ruin their career. That was the impetus for this post in the first place.

I still going to have to disagree w/ you. It wasn’t as if it was just some random blogger saying these things. If it had, he/she would have gotten a couple posts and it would have ended. Jim Zumbo was an important hunting figure who was sponsored by Remington, Cabela’s, and even the NRA. He made uninformed and inflammatory statements in opposition to the beleifs of tens of thousands of people as well as his sponsors as well as giving leverage to organizations whose express goal is to remove firearms from civilian ownership. His remarks have already been used to try and justify the MD AWB that came up for discussion the other day. The new (even more restrictive)federal bill is also in the works.

While some of the comments were over the top, the overall response, I feel, was justified.

The reaction to his comments was moot for those of us who live in States where his “hunterly” level of unawareness, political inactivity, and downright selfishness has lead to the banning of those rifles.
He can freely hunt here in California without fear of being “molested” by them, but I have no chance of winning while competing in Service Rifle shooting an M1 Garand against those who owned the Black Rifles prior to the CA-AWB ban, and were grandfathered-in. As has been said to me, it’s like having the fastest mule in the Kentucky Derby. Not gonna get to Camp Perry that way either. It’s just a simple hobby-matter of training and self-improvement, and that’s exactlky how Feinstein, Boxer, and Pelosi want it - nmarginalized and more easily rendered extinct. Ya know they’re working on a ban against lead ammo here…

Aldercon,

“This one goes out to all of the misguided supporters of assault weapons who collectively ended the career of a long time NRA member, gun supporter and hunting enthusiast.”

Your “moron of the week” award goes to people like me, WHO ACTUALLY KNOW what this issue is all about. YOU don’t, you admitted that. Before this you wouldn’t have know an “assault weapon” from a table knife. We’re not the morons.

Zumbo more acurately deserves that title, since he, at LEAST, after 40+ years in the biz forgot who the hell pays his bills. But more than that, he doesn’t know anything more about EBR’s (evil black rifles) than you do. For that he should’ve been sacked long ago.

“Because of the complaints of such loons (I’ll bet they’re all card-carrying Republicans),”

Now thats a bit of an ad hominem attack isn’t it Aldercon (FYI, I’m a registered libertarian in AZ, of couse thats mostly a protest since the libertarian party is pretty kooky). And yet you call US “ignorant”. You admit that just maybe Zumbo’s comment wasn’t all that sensible but you stand by your characterization of those of us WHO ACTUALLY KNOW that it wasn’t sensible as “morons”.

Shall we try for a few descriptions of you that go beyond moron, like ARROGANT maybe?

Aldercon,

oh hell, more.

“It doesn’t matter that he (Zumbo) was wrong”. “It’s one thing to disagree with someone, quite another to ruin their career”.

So, there is supposed to be no penalty for screwing up? Wish I had that kind of guarantee. Millions of people have had to re-do their “careers” because they put their foot in their mouths.

And, “That was the impetus for this post in the first place”. I’m not sure about that. It really sounds to me like you enjoyed making a lot of pretty mean spirited claims about the collective intelligence of some gun-owners in America. And Dumbo was just an excuse to trot out your bigotry towards them.

Of course, once we handed your head back to you on the plate “Over the course of the comments here, I have learned that my understanding of the issue was wrong”,
you still have the chutzpah to want to weasle out of you ignorance yet still leave us labeled as “morons”.

Give youself the “moron of the week award” next time. You won’t get any flak about that.

RE:Automatic rifles
Interestingly enough, I’m not aware of a single full-auto weapon registered under the 1934 law concerning automatic weapons that has ever been used in a crime. The only full-auto weapons used in crime were unregistered and either stolen from the cops or brought in from outside the country anyway. The type of people who are going to go out and buy a full-auto weapon and subject themselves to the highly invasive backround check required for a Class III license aren’t really the type to go and subsequently use that weapon in a crime.

Just another one of your “#4 morons of the week” chiming in here. I read your initial entry and the ensuing comments with interest, and I wanted to say it was a pleasant change to see someone admit they needed to learn more. The tone of this discousre has been in the main polite, which is refreshing. I’m glad you owned your ignorance about the issue and I think you deserve credit for that. I’m sure that after research, a reasoned idividual like you will happily join those of us on the dark side. Mwahahahaha!

@J

There have been absolutely no civilian owned NFA items ever used in any crime since they were restricted in 1934. However, a Dayton PD officer used a department issue MAC-11 to murder a witness. Civilians with machineguns are quite trustworthy.

@aldacron
“Because of the complaints of such loons (I’ll bet they’re all card-carrying Republicans)”

This black-rifle owning, nonhunter, Buddhist, universal-healthcare supporting, gay-marriage-OK registered Democrat begs to differ.

Here are some more questions you might find the answers interesting:

1. What is the difference between full-automatic and semi-automatic? Is there one?
2. Are machine guns legal to own in the United States? Can they be easily bought over the counter?
3. How many legally owned machineguns have been used in a crime by civilians since 1934, when they were restricted by Federal law?
4. What percentage of American homes have firearms in them? a)10% b)25% c)45%
5. Is there any such thing as a 45mm handgun?
6. Is the crime rate by concealed carry holders greater or lesser than the general population?
7. Are there a greater or lesser number of crimes committed with firearms than defensive uses of firearms?
8. What did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban actually ban?
9. What is the average income of a gun owner? a)$20K b) $30K c) $50K
10. Are you more or less likely to be injured a) resisting a violent assault with a firearm or b) resisting a violent assault without a firearm c) not resisting at all?
11. If you are a male citizen of the US, between the ages of 17 and 45, and not in the National Guard or other armed forces, are you in the militia according to the United States Code?
12. Thousands of children 0-14 die in gun accidents every year, true or false?
13. What is the ratio between homicides and democides (killed by your own government) in the 20th Century?
14. What is the correlation between restricting firearms and the violent crime rate on a state-by-state basis?
15. Which group shoots a bystander more often in a defensive shooting - concealed carry permit holders or cops?
16. How many guns do private American citizens own? How many guns does the military own?
17. What percentage of murders are committed with a semi-automatic rifle with a protruding handgrip?
18. What percentage of gun owners are not hunters?
19. What does a police department pay for a fully automatic weapon? What does a citizen have to pay for the same weapon because of an artificially restricted supply?
20. How many Democrats lost their seats in Congress because of the Assault Weapons Ban?

ANSWERS:
1. Full-auto fires continuously, semi-auto fires one shot with each pull of the trigger.
2. Yes, they’re legal. No, you can’t buy one without an EXTENSIVE federal background check.
3. Zero of the 300,000 legally owned machineguns have been used in a crime by a citizen since 1934, when they were first regulated. No legally owned silencer, howitzer, or grenade has ever been used in a crime either.
4. C, 45%.
5. No, but a lot of journalists get this one wrong. 45mm is in anti-tank weapon territory.
6. CCW holders are 20 times less likely to be arrested for any crime (source: Texas DOJ).
7. There are 20x more defensive uses than criminal uses (source: US DOJ).
8. Magazine capacities over ten rounds, and certain cosmetic features of military-style rifles. If you think it had something to do with banning machineguns, you’ve been duped - badly.
9. C, $50K. The average education level of gunowners is a Bachelor’s degree. (source: NRA-ILA survey).
10. From most to least likely, b, c, a. You are least likely to be injured while resisting with a firearm (source: UK Home Office).
11. Unequivocally. If you meet these criteria, you are in the militia BY LAW under USC 10 Sec. 311. Therefore, you’re in a “well-regulated” militia.
12. False. Accidental death by firearm accounted for 72 accidental deaths of 0-14 year olds in 2001 in the entire USA. (source: CDC)
13. The instance of democide is 200 times greater than that of homicide. (source: U. Of Hawaii study, “Power Kills”)
14. The correlation is zero. Firearms restrictions do not impact the violent crime rate in any way. (source: Brady Campaign to Reduce Handgun Violence, USDOJ violent crime rates comparison)
15. Concealed carry holders shoot the wrong person 2% of the time. Cops shoot the wrong person more than five times as often - 11% of the time. (source: Kleck study)
16. Private US citizens own 300 million guns. The US Army, US Navy, US Air Force, and the National Guard combined own only 3 million guns. (UN Small Arms Survey)
17. Less than 0.25% of murders involve an “assault weapon”. (Source: Uniform Crime Report)
18. Over 80% of gun owners don’t hunt. (source: NRA survey)
19. A police department can buy a fully automatic M16 from the government for $500. Because mere citizens cannot buy any machinegun made after 1986, a transferrable M16 is $15,000, a government-induced increase of 3,000%.
20. “The fights I fought… cost a lot –the fight for the assault-weapons ban cost 20 members their seats in Congress.” –William Jefferson Clinton

If I were going to hunt prairie dogs with an AR-15, it would NOT be a common, off-the-shelf rifle. Instead, it would be tuned to the purpose of shooting small targets at long distances. The final product would resemble an AR-15/M-16, but that’s about it.

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.

Aldacron, the reason we all blew up isn’t because he didn’t think that the military clones weren’t suitable hunting rifles. We very likely wouldn’t have a quarrel with him on that. We blew up because he called such guns “terrorist guns” and by extension, their owners “terrorists”. Being “one of us”, he betrayed us. On the other hand, Dianne Feinstein is a known enemy, which is why we don’t burn up the blogs over her. We’ve tried to get her out, but she’s bombproof in the People’s Demokratik Republik of Kollyvornia.

so many good and informative posts.

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.

Very interesting reading. I think the most important point that you and Jim Zumbo and other uninformed, elitist hunter or even shooter types have missed is that there is no Constitutional right to hunt or to own hunting appropriate arms. Once, with your help and Jim Zumbo’s, militia appropriate arms are vilified for citizen possession, how long before your so called hunting appropriate arms will be banned also? There is already proposals out there to ban evil “sniper rifles” single shot bolt action scope mounted rifles….you know: hunting rifles!

While I have thoroughly enjoyed reading these posts, I have also summed it up in my mind. This is my opinion.

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.

Not sure what else is left to say but, just that as an active constituent, why doesn’t the leftist media go and report on how to secure our borders and put pressure on that. You have socialist, communist countries popping up all around the US. Yet we arrest border patrol officers who are protecting it. I think the moron of the week is the dam DA that prosecuted the guys which were being paid for by our government to protect all Americans.

Yet we arrest border patrol officers who are protecting it. I think the moron of the week is the dam DA that prosecuted the guys which were being paid for by our government to protect all Americans.

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.

“So how do I feel about it? I have come to expect it. I wish I could say that I can automatically filter the wheat from the chaff, but all of us are prone to have some of our opinions affected, to one degree or another, by what the media tells us. I’m sure I’ll learn later that my understanding of another topic I have not researched will have been colored inappropriately by the media.”

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