General McChrystal on AR-15s — from Morning Joe:
“I spent a career carrying typically either an M16 or an M4 Carbine. An M4 Carbine fires a .223 caliber round which is 5.56 mm at about 3000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed for that,” McChrystal explained. “That’s what our soldiers ought to carry. I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America.”
I would add two things:
- The 2nd Amendment does not guarantee civilians the right to carry any type of weaponry. The “arms” portion of the amendment has already been interpreted to exclude things like rocket launchers, hand grenades, etc.
- No matter how the NRA tries to spin it, the AR-15 is not a sport hunting rifle.
“I served in the military and the M16A2/M4 was the weapon I used for 20 years. It is first and foremost designed as an assault weapon platform, no matter what the spin. A hunter does not need a semi-automatic rifle to hunt, if he does he sucks, and should go play video games. I see more men running around the bush all cammo’d up with assault vests and face paint with tricked out AR’s. These are not hunters but wannabe weekend warriors.”
But the AR-15 is very good at one thing: engaging the enemy at a rapid rate of fire. When someone like Adam Lanza uses it to take out 26 people in a matter of minutes, he’s committing a crime, but he isn’t misusing the rifle. That’s exactly what it was engineered to do.
Here’s a video that illustrates the rate of fire. Note that this AR-15 is semi-auto (i.e. each trigger pull fires a bullet) and not full auto. The NRA claims that since these weapons of mass destruction are semi-auto they are “sport” or “hunting” rifles and not comparable to a fully automatic M-16. This, of course, is utter bullshit.
Now imagine that firepower in a confined classroom or movie theater.
-BCP
I watched McChrystal’s interview on The Daily Show (which I think is supposed to qualify me as one of those raving, socialist, abortion-loving, america-haters I’ve read about) and he makes a compelling case about the destructive power of modern weapons. And while I’d love to adhere to a simplistic arguments like “just take away all the guns” or “without guns we would just stab each other anyway so theres no point in banning guns” I just cant seem to do it.
Kyokushin,
There are layers to the problem. However, I’ve reached the conclusion that doing nothing does a disservice to those who have been gunned down. We need to all try!
I agree completely – we DO need to try everything (well, everything rational anyway). I guess I didn’t come off that way in the original reply.
For example, I caught a glimpse of the proposed legislation by Bo Biden and his father’s similar bill which called for a number of changes: banning “assault” type weapons, large capacity magazines, and closing gun show loopholes, amongst others. These seem to be good ideas to strongly consider and put forth to vote. But one of the other proposed ideas in that legislation is banning guns within 1000 feet of a school which seems terribly foolish.
I used to live within 1000 feet of a school, would the bill apply to me inside my own house? Lets assume not. But I used to walk to the local grocery store, which passed directly in front of that same school. And, it would seem, that if I were armed at the time I would be breaking a federal law. But surely there would be some kind of provision for this sort of situation, right?
Hypotheticals aside, the “1000-foot” rule just wouldn’t help protect anyone. If someone is intent on walking into a school with a gun then an imaginary line isnt going to stop him for even a second. This portion of the legislation, to my limited understanding since it is a brand new bill, has only the potential to harm peaceful citizens.
Of course, the previous paragraph shouldn’t suggest that I agree with the NRA’s idiotic “cop in every classroom” suggestion.
(sorry for the long comment!)
You would hope. Depends on if it’s a federal ban or a local rule. There has to be a better way and it’s not from the extreme political left or right!
Problem with all of yours’ rationale, is that the founding fathers would expect, no demand, that Americans be armed with exactly these types of weapons. Consider that there are about 10 million AR’s in the hands of Americans today, and about two crimes per year are committed with them. Duh! They are not used to commit crimes. Hundreds, maybe thousands of times as many kids are bludgeoned to death in this country annually than are killed with rifles, of any kind. Rifles are statistically irrelevant in the the committing of crime, and that includes AR’s.
So what are AR’s good for?? the Left keeps spouting off about sporting purposes. Well guess what, there is NO sporting purpose to the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment has one purpose: An armed American populace can stand up to its own government when that government becomes a tyranny. And please, don’t say it will never happen here. Do you suppose, if the day ever comes, when you have DHS, and BAT boys, and God forbid, even our armed forces knocking down our doors, that we are going to fight back with shotguns? With lever guns? With bolt guns? With muskets? Assinine huh? Will our AR’s be enough to stop a tryant? You damn straight they will. Look at what the Afghans did to the Soviet Bear with their small arms. Look what the Afghans are doing to us with their small arms.
A free people, armed with modern military small arms, and the will to fight will never be defeated by a central government bent on tyranny.
So Joltin’ Joe Biden can keep his $20K scattergun, and hunt for driven grouse on Theresa Heinz’s palatial estates in Scotland. I’ll keep my AR’s, with all of my 30 round magazines, and I’ll keep a stockpile of ammo, and I’ll practice, and I’ll never use them to violate any other human being’s rights; but when the day comes that Obama’s, or any other would be tyrant’s brownshirts come to take my guns from me, I’ll answer the way Leonidas did to the Persians, thousands of years ago: Molon Labe!
Ken,
Thanks for the feedback. If you do some digging you’ll find that the founders did debate what types of weapons were allowable by a militia. This is still in the historical record. Go find yourself a good college library and do a little research.
I’d also point out that the courts have interpreted and ruled on all of the amendments to the Constitution including the second. In fact, the courts have set limits on what weapons the “militia” can have access to. So, regardless of what you think, that train left the station long ago.
Your argument that a populace armed with ARs to stave off a takeover by our own government is flawed, to say the least. From your individual rights perspective you would have the public armed with hand grenades, rocket launchers, stinger missiles, landmines, etc. Those Afghans you mention had access to all those things, and, if my memory serves me, we gave them some of those weapons including the stingers!
http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1057196.html
“The U.S. government provided the shoulder-fired heat-seeking missiles to Islamist fighters battling Soviet troops in Afghanistan during the 1980s.”
You might also give this one a good skim. It’s a good starting point if you do decide to visit your local college library.
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5200
“For the moment, however, the claim that the Second Amendment was originally understood to protect an individual right to gun ownership remains historically unproven and politically contested.”
Bob, you can toss up all of the web sites you want to prove your point. I can certainly do the same. No doubt there are just as many pundits who interpret the language of the 2nd amendment to reflect a common or state rights view as there are who interpret it to mean an individual view. I have one simple question in response to that argument:
What other “right” mentioned in any of the other nine amendments is commonly interpreted to be a “common” or “state” right as opposed to being an individual one?
Hmmm……….
I suggest that instead of reading what others have to say about the RKBA, and the so called “meaning” of the language of the 2nd amendment, and its historical background; that you try doing some of your own reading. You go to your public library, ( exactly what you in a weakly attempt at being sarcastic), admonished me to do, and get some books that offer the views of the individual founding fathers on this subject. I can post up all sorts of web sites that support my POV on this subject, just like you did. As a matter of fact, I’ve previously perused a few of them you posted. what I found on them has not swayed my personal interpretation of what the 2nd amendment and the the RKBA means.
Our last presidential election proved one thing beyond a doubt: There is not now, nor do I expect there will be in the future, any shortage of people in this country willing to eat their government cheese, drink their rationed soda pop, and sprinkle their rationed salt on their rationed french fries.
I will not give up my “arms”. You will get no argument from me if you want to lay yours down.
The anti gun bunch, are like vegans; they aren’t content with not eating meat, they want to force me not to eat meat. So it goes with firearms.
When the “brownshirts” come knocking on your door, you going to kung fu them to death?
Ken,
I leave you with one book that I read a few years back. It covers both sides of the issue.
http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/44087112
If we bracket out the extreme left or extreme right view which is a minority opinion among historians, then the history is apparent IMO. If, however, you subscribe to either of those views, you won’t like the book and likely never will agree with me.
On that note I give you the last word and am tapping out of this discussion.
-Bob