A fresh coat of paint on the 'patrol rifles' vs. 'assault weapons' fiction

Last fall, I wrote about an editorial in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel (the editorial has long since been removed from the Sun-Sentinel's website, but I have a screen capture of it) about the acquisition by several Florida police agencies of what advocates of forcible citizen disarmament refer to as "assault weapons." The Sun-Sentinel's editorial board was quite supportive of this measure:

People shouldn't be opposed to cops having these weapons.

It's the idea of anyone else having such firearms that we're supposed to oppose, according to the Sun-Sentinel.

What people should oppose — strongly — is the guy across the street having one.

In itself, of course, this was nothing new--the media has long championed the idea of restricting the people to less effective arms than are available to the "Only Ones." What made this editorial special was the editorial board's verbal sleight of hand when referring to the weapons in question.

Understandably, officers in more South Florida police agencies have been arming themselves — at their own expense — with patrol rifles to be on more even footing with criminals — particularly gangs — they encounter.

How did that happen? A minute ago, they were "assault weapons"--now they're "patrol rifles"? Pretty nifty transformation, and you apparently don't even need any gunsmithing skills whatsoever to bring it about--it depends simply on whose hands are holding the weapon.

I don't want to come across as self-aggrandizing, and I really have no idea if my blog post back then had anything to do with this, or not, but that blog post got a fair amount of attention (at least for a little, insignificant blogger like me) on the gun blogosphere, and the Sun-Sentinel pulled that editorial from their archives much more quickly than is their typical practice. They also, as far as I am aware, have never used the term "patrol rifle" since.

My point today is that they still haven't quite gotten out of the mindset that arms that are a horrid menace to society when in the hands of the public magically transform into noble tools for society's protection, when in the hands of the police. From another South Florida Sun-Sentinel editorial, about the Fort Lauderdale Police Department's acquisition of rifles, in yesterday's paper:

At least we are getting assault-style weapons into the hands of people who actually should have them.

Not "assault weapons," but "assault style weapons." Not as blatant as the "patrol rifles" reference, but we're still expected to believe that an AR-15 in the hands of a private citizen is a scary "assault weapon," but the very same firearm is merely in the "style" of an "assault weapon" when a cop is holding it.

These are the same editors, remember, who claimed that "assault weapons"

. . . have one purpose — to hurt or kill people, namely cops. And the assault weapons ban needs to be reinstated by Congress.

So police need a weapon for which the only purpose is "to hurt or kill people, namely cops"?

Oops--silly me--that just applies to bona fide "assault weapons," not "assault style weapons," or (to nostalgically resurrect an old term) "patrol rifles."

'Assault weapons' vs. 'Patrol rifles'

Not long ago, I mentioned an editorial* in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel that advocated a new ban on so-called "assault weapons." The media and the civilian disarmament advocacy groups (but perhaps I repeat myself) seem to be engaged in a blitz against these firearms (as has been pointed out at Snowflakes in Hell, Traction Control, Days of our Trailers, Captain of a Crew of One, and undoubtedly others that I've missed).

A reader and commenter (Straight Arrow) here at Armed and Safe pointed out something about the editorial that I had missed. Although I of course made note of the paper's editorial board's tyranny-enabling advocacy of a ban on "assault weapons" for civilians, while simultaneously claiming that "people shouldn't be opposed to cops having these weapons," I failed to spot the verbal gymnastics (despite their decided lack of subtlety) used a bit earlier in the editorial:

Understandably, officers in more South Florida police agencies have been arming themselves — at their own expense — with patrol rifles to be on more even footing with criminals — particularly gangs — they encounter.

Suddenly, what had been an "assault weapon" (or the even less honest use of the term "assault rifle") has become a "patrol rifle"--presumably because it is now in the hands of a police officer.

Perhaps I should count this as progress. After all, we (as gun rights advocates) have been arguing all along that the outrage and loathing should be directed at the evil person who commits evil with a gun, rather than the gun he uses for that purpose. By referring to an AR-15 in the hands of a gang banger as an "assault weapon" (with all the menace that term is intended to convey) while calling an identical firearm in the hands of a police officer a "patrol rifle" (a much more noble-sounding designation), they seem to have come a bit closer to that understanding--it at least implies an understanding that the user of a weapon determines whether good or evil is done with it.

Still, it's not enough. They refer to these firearms as "assault weapons," whether they belong to criminals/psychopaths, or peaceable civilians who would never shoot someone who does not mean them harm, and who does not present a serious, credible threat. Likewise, I assume that to them, an AR-15 in a police cruiser's trunk is a "patrol rifle," whether the officer in the car is a courageous protector of his/her community, or a monster with a badge.

In the end, an "assault weapon" is a "patrol rifle," is a homeland defense rifle, etc. To put it another way, "a rose by another name . . . ." To put it still another way, whether a gun is an instrument of evil, or a lifesaver, boils down to the intent and actions of the person holding it, rather than the cosmetic features or designation it bears.

*UPDATE: I notice that the South Florida Sun-Sentinel seems to have removed that op-ed piece from the archive, despite their usual practice being to keep articles freely available for thirty days (the article in question appeared on Sept. 22). Didn't like the attention, you suppose? But, for those who would like to see the article, all is not lost--for the moment it's available in Google's cache. If that goes (I'm not sure if it's kept around forever), I did a screen capture:

(click to enlarge)

Fatuous in Florida

The South Florida Sun-Sentinel editorial board has weighed in on* the Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms--they don't like it.

The particular arms they currently claim citizens have no right to bear are those that the civilian disarmament lobby has labeled "assault weapons."

And with each shooting, there is one unmistakable truth — the average person has absolutely no need for an assault rifle. They have one purpose — to hurt or kill people, namely cops. And the assault weapons ban needs to be reinstated by Congress.

Who knew? When Mikhail Kalashnikov was lying in his hospital bed in 1941, he designed the AK-47--not to stop the Nazi murderers who were advancing across his country, bringing death and mayhem every step of the way--he just wanted to kill Florida cops.

The recent shooting death of a Miami-Dade police officer was, of course, too tempting a target for these guardians of the First Amendment to fail to exploit:

Earlier this month, Miami-Dade officer Jose Somohano was killed. An AK-47 was found at the scene of the shooting.

What our purveyors of journalistic excellence fail to point out is that the rifle the killer used was not an AK-47--it was a MAK-90, a firearm that the expired "assault weapon" ban did not address in any way (not to mention the fact that the "ban" did not actually ban any of the firearms it covered--any manufactured/imported before the law went into effect could be bought, sold, or possessed just like any other firearm). They also did not bother to mention that every firearm that Shawn LaBeet (the murderer) owned was in contravention of several firearms laws. Those gun laws certainly seem to work swimmingly, don't they?

Don't worry, though--our valiant journalists do not wish to ban homeland defense rifles (my preferred term) for everyone--the "Only Ones" can have them, and "people shouldn't be opposed to" that.

Understandably, officers in more South Florida police agencies have been arming themselves — at their own expense — with patrol rifles to be on more even footing with criminals — particularly gangs — they encounter.

Officers in Miami-Dade can, for the first time, carry assault-type rifles. Deputies with the Broward Sheriff's Office must take a 16-hour training course in the weapons, and take yearly qualifications tests. Some deputies have spent up to $1,800 to have specially-equipped, semi-automatic Colt AR-15s. And they have to be able to justify when they handle one on duty. The Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office and city agencies like Delray Beach have also started training more officers to use the rifles.

People shouldn't be opposed to cops having these weapons. [my emphasis added]

And the editors aren't done telling the readers what they should think (very helpful of them to do our thinking for us, isn't it?).

What people should oppose — strongly — is the guy across the street having one.

I suppose it kind of depends on who lives across the street from you, but speaking personally, I certainly feel a whole lot better about lifesaving firepower being in the hands of anyone in my neighborhood than I do about a gun (and handcuffs, and pepper spray, and a nightstick, and a taser, and a badge) in the hands of paragons of law enforcement such as this "gentleman,", or this one, or any of these, or hell--you get the idea--I'll run out of energy to type long before I run out of examples of cops whom I wouldn't trust with a slingshot (thanks, War on Guns, and I hope you don't mind all of my borrowing, David).

In 1775, do you think the editors of the Sun-Sentinel would have supported the idea of muskets, powder, and ball in the hands of American patriots, or do you suspect that maybe they would have considered the British troops to be that era's equivalent of the "Only Ones"?

Bless the Sun-Sentinel editorial board, and may their chains rest lightly upon them.

*UPDATE: I notice that the South Florida Sun-Sentinel seems to have removed that op-ed piece from the archive, despite their usual practice being to keep articles freely available for thirty days (the article in question appeared on Sept. 22). Didn't like the attention, you suppose? But, for those who would like to see the article, all is not lost--for the moment it's available in Google's cache. If that goes (I'm not sure if it's kept around forever), I did a screen capture:

(click to enlarge)

What the hell is a 'semi-assault weapon'?

In a bizarre new twist on the "assault weapon" vs. "patrol rifles" idiocy of last October, we're now being told that Chicago police officers will soon be carrying "semi-assault weapons" ("high-powered semi-assault weapons," no less).

In addition to the battle dress, police will soon add high powered semi-assault weapons to their arsenal. Weis says it's in reaction to a shooting last month where police encountered a man with an AK-47.

So what is a "semi-assault weapon"? My first thought was that it is a semi-automatic "assault weapon," but that can't be right--the AR-15's, the semi-automatic AK-47 copies (and now, apparently, the SKS rifles) that we're supposed to fear, as scary "assault weapons," are all semi-automatic, so this apparently new category of weapon must be something else. It's only partially useful in an assault, maybe? Only sort of a weapon, perhaps? I simply don't know.

Superintendent Weis continues:

"They were outgunned. I don't want officers going up against an AK-47 with a Smith and Wesson," Weis said. "They would lose every time."

Actually, it seems that the above is only a partial quote of what Weis actually said:

. . . and they have a Smith and Wesson revolver.

How long has it been since the standard duty weapon of the Chicago PD was a revolver, I wonder?

Not everyone is thrilled with this militarization of the Chicago Police, however.

But in Chicago's South Shore neighborhood, the idea of police with assault weapons is a concern.

"If they're going to carry assault rifles like that that's just going to be an all out war with citizens criminals because they're going to defend themselves," said area resident Kevine Green.

Pat Hill, a former police officer and the president of the African American Police League, questions the message police are sending to the black and Hispanic communities where the battle-ready officers are expected to be deployed.

"This is the stuff you use in war," Hill said. "This is what you use in Iraq and Afghanistan. So are they telling the community now that they've declared us as the enemy?"

Better get accustomed to the idea of many "Only Ones" thinking of the rest of us as the enemy, Pat.

But at least they'll only "semi-assault" us.

"A force for destruction"

I wasn't going to bother with this tripe (actually, I might owe tripe an apology), but I just can't seem to help myself. According to Dan K. Thomasson, the "NRA is a force for destruction." In Thomasson's view, apparently, a lobbying group that advocates a position with which he disagrees is akin to an American Hezbollah.

The nation's police chiefs have a serious problem. Their troops are being out-gunned, and to correct the situation taxpayers must increase law-enforcement budgets substantially or find some way to ban the circulation of weapons and ammunition meant for the battlefield - mainly, semiautomatic assault rifles and armor-piercing bullets.

That argument that police are now being forced to purchase more firepower, because they face more of it in the hands of the felons they're trying to stop, has been floating around lately (I discussed it a bit here), and frankly, it doesn't pass the smell test. Can anyone tell me of an incident since the North Hollywood bank robbery shootout just over 10 years ago, in which the problem was that the police had inadequate firepower on hand? As a side note about that incident, keep in mind that part of the solution for the police was to borrow weapons and ammunition from a nearby gun shop--if those items had not been legal for civilians, there would not likely have been such a convenient source of them for the police, and the outcome could have been tragic. Keep in mind also that this robbery was in 1997--when the federal ban on "assault weapons" had been in effect for 3 years--I guess that shows how well bans work at preventing criminals from arming themselves.

I do agree that police budgets are often somewhat lacking--the Lapeer County (MI) Sheriff's Office, for example, is so strapped for cash that it is trying to make a sale--of the department's fully-automatic M-16. Not exactly the asset one would expect the department would be willing to part with amid concerns of being "outgunned."

As to the "semiautomatic assault rifles and armor-piercing bullets," there are no semi-automatic assault rifles--assault rifles, by definition, have a fully-automatic capability. Granted, the VPC and Brady Bunch types have invented the term "assault weapons" in reference to semi-automatic, detachable magazine fed rifles, but the definition constantly changes, depending on who is doing the defining, and how ambitious he or she is about how many firearms can be banned at the time. If by "armor-piercing bullets," Thomasson means bullets that can penetrate the soft body armor normally worn by patrol officers under their shirts, then virtually all centerfire rifle ammunition, from the 19th century on, qualifies. "Meant for the battlefield" does not enter the picture here.

And where citizens are unwilling to spend the money to equip their guardians with weapons and armor now readily available to criminals, the threat to themselves and those they hire to protect them is likely to increase proportionately. It's just that simple.

This passage displays one of the fundamental philosophical differences between those who favor draconian gun restrictions, and those of us who are appalled at the idea of a government monopoly on the use of force--Thomasson thinks of police as our "guardians," hired to "protect" us (despite court ruling after court ruling stating that the police are under no obligation to protect individual citizens), while we demand that we not be stripped of our ability to protect ourselves. It's just that simple, Dan.

The Maryland legislature currently is considering a bill to ban the semiautomatic rifles, and the opposition has been loud and persistent.

By now, Thomasson has at least gotten honest enough to drop the "assault" pretense--if it's semi-automatic, he wants it banned. If he and his ideological allies win that battle, then it will be time to argue that bolt-actions, pump-actions, lever-actions, etc. are not much slower to operate than semi-autos, and need to be banned as well.

This is a land where the right to traffic in firearms, no matter how dangerous to law and order, is protected by constitutional language designed for a militia carrying muskets and enforced by a self-appointed virulent lobby called the National Rifle Association.

Interesting--he acknowledges the Constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms. He then dismisses it, apparently on the grounds that the Founding Fathers lacked the wit to realize that firearm technology would evolve. Obviously, they would also not have predicted the vast advancements in communications technology--looks as if the First Amendment is dangerously outmoded, as well. Or just maybe, they believed that just as freedom of speech shouldn't depend on there being no efficient means to communicate on a large scale, the right of the people to arm themselves as well as government soldiers shouldn't depend on firearms being clumsy, inefficient means of defense.

Now, poor, confused, old Jim Zumbo gets dragged back into it.

Would it be out of place here to suggest that this swift and unrelenting attack by the NRA on one of its own proves conclusively that Zumbo was right in suggesting that terrorism is not unknown to the gun lobby?

Well Dan, since you ask--yes it would be out of place. Not just because there was no "swift and unrelenting attack by the NRA" (but rather a delayed, subdued one, after a firestorm of outrage from individual gun owners whom he had equated with terrorists), but mostly because terrorism involves killing, on a large scale. Zumbo had his career wrecked and his feelings hurt--he wasn't machine gunned, blown up, or gassed to death, along with dozens (or hundreds, or thousands) of other people. That's terrorism. What the "gun lobby" (if that's what you insist on calling thousands of individual gun owners) did was retort to an unfair, inaccurate, and hurtful charge of terrorism.

That is why the increasingly frantic efforts of law enforcers to win some sort of reasonable control over the kinds of weapons they face on the street are pretty much futile. Politicians want to be re-elected.

Ahh, tragic--politicians forced to bend to the will of their constituents in order to get re-elected. If only we had a political system in which the government wasn't held to any kind of accountability--eh, Dan?

Dan K. Thomasson is a tool (if not a particularly effective one, thankfully) of tyranny.

More strange "logic" from the gun ban advocates

According to this article, police departments are outfitting patrol officers with more firepower. This is coming in the form of semi-automatic, detachable magazine fed rifles--commonly referred to as "assault weapons," (more on that in a minute)--or simply moving rifles and shotguns from the trunks of squad cars, up to the front, where they're more easily available (but I thought quickly available firepower only made bloodbaths more likely--I guess the "Only Ones", as defined at War on Guns--are too good for that).

The writers of the article would clearly like us to believe that the reason for this is that the expiration of the ban on so-called "assault weapons" means that more of them are showing up in the hands of criminals, requiring police to need more firepower to avoid being "outgunned."

Scott Knight, chairman of the Firearms Committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, said an informal survey of about 20 departments revealed that since 2004 all of the agencies have either added weapons to officers' patrol units or have replaced existing weaponry with military-style arms.

Knight, police chief in Chaska, Minn., said the upgrades have occurred since a national ban on certain assault weapons expired in September 2004. The ban, passed in 1994, in part prohibited domestic gunmakers from producing semi-automatic weapons and ammunition dispensers holding more than 10 rounds.

"This (weapons upgrade) is being done with an eye to the absolute knowledge that more higher-caliber weapons are on the street since the expiration of the ban," Knight said. He said his own department of about 20 officers is in the midst of determining whether to upgrade its weapons.

Hmm--an "informal" survey of "about 20 departments"--hardly ironclad proof of a widespread national trend to more police firepower. Keep in mind that this "ban" wasn't a ban--at least not in the traditional sense. People who owned the banned firearms were not compelled to give them up, and could sell them to others without any more restrictions than were imposed on other firearm sales. True--banned firearms manufactured during the 10 year life of the ban were off limits to most of the public, but as the civilian disarmament extremists never got tired of complaining, firearms manufacturers were able to market, absolutely legally, many guns that differed from the banned models only by the most trivial of details. Even Tom Diaz (Violence Policy Center) himself said that

if the existing assault weapons ban expires, I personally do not believe it will make one whit of difference one way or another . . . reducing death and injury.

The simple truth is that the militarization of our nation's police forces is a well established (and somewhat alarming) trend, and has nothing to do with the sunset of the AWB. Finally, since the AWB included absolutely no language restricting the calibers available to the public, his statement that "This (weapons upgrade) is being done with an eye to the absolute knowledge that more higher-caliber weapons are on the street since the expiration of the ban," is clearly pure nonsense.

A few paragraphs ago, I promised to expand on the civilian disarmament extremist lobby's sensationalist, pejorative term of "assault weapons," for semi-automatic, detachable magazine fed rifles. As gun owners, our use of their loaded terminology plays right into their hands. A member of a gun forum I frequent, 1911 forum, suggested a new term that is both much more accurate, and less "frightening" sounding: homeland security rifles.

I think it's as good a term as any (and better than any I'd heard until now).

The difference between 'assault weapons' and 'patrol rifles'

Get that? An AR-15, for example, that in the hands of "the guy across the street" is an "assault weapon," magically morphs into the much more benign-sounding "patrol rifle" when in the hands of a cop.

I mentioned Tyler Peterson a bit earlier. The firearm he used was, I believe, an AR-15. Here's the tricky question: was it a "patrol rifle," or an "assault weapon"? [More]

Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column. Longtime regular readers, assuming I have a couple, might find it familiar. That's not laziness (not exclusively, anyway)--it's just something I want a wider audience to see.

Help me get it to 'em?

Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:

• Atlanta: Carrying a firearm openly is not illegal in Georgia


• Austin: In memoriam: Values then and now


• Boston: The Educated Patriot: Domestic Enemies: The Reconquista


• Charlotte: Armed self-defense: Getting a concealed handgun permit


• Cleveland: Lying about gun control with statistics


• DC: Congress joins states in making parks safe for gun carry


• Denver: The new Prohibition


• Los Angeles: Sovereignty 101: The Second Amendment is absolute as it must be.


• Minneapolis: A great couple of days in the Midwest


• National: Some journalists won't admit truth about Mexican 'crime gun' numbers


• Seattle: Philosphy 101: Is there such a thing as an 'absolute right?'


• Wisconsin: Gun rights advocates make progress

Sheriff's Department arming the underworld

War on Guns has already covered the theft of shotguns and AR-15s from Contra Costa Sheriff's Department cars (does that mean that "patrol rifles" instantly transformed into "assault weapons"?).

I just have a couple observations to make, gleaned from this article. The first is this beautiful bit of bureaucratese uttered by BATFE spokesthuggette (what--that's not a word?) Nina Delgadillo.

"It's disturbing ... when you're talking about someone stealing (weapons) from a law enforcement agency," said Nina Delgadillo, a special agent with the San Francisco Bay Area division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. "Once a weapon is stolen, it has a degree of anonymity that makes it difficult for us to trace."

Two things: 1) a stolen weapon doesn't have "a degree of anonymity that makes it difficult to trace"--it's gone; and 2) notice that her biggest worry is that the feds can no longer keep track of the guns--interesting priorities, eh?

I also noticed this:

The weapons reported stolen, particularly the rifles, could be valuable in the illegal arms market because of state assault weapon restrictions implemented at the beginning of the decade, said Brian Rodgers, general manager of the Antioch Armory gun shop.

What--you mean prohibition fosters black market demand? Who would have guessed? Who could have imagined that the laws that make California the Brady Bunch's highest rated state would provide a lucrative incentive for crime?

Question for the South Florida Sun-Sentinel editorial staff

So, folks, would you refer to Tyler Peterson's gun as an "assault weapon," or a "patrol rifle"?

An off-duty sheriff's deputy used a police-style AR-15 rifle to kill six people at an early-morning party in a small Wisconsin town, officials said Monday.

By the way, I have no idea what distinguishes a "police-style" AR-15 rifle from other AR-15's.

UPDATE: I notice that the South Florida Sun-Sentinel seems to have removed the op-ed piece that refers to "patrol rifles" from the archive, despite their usual practice being to keep articles freely available for thirty days (the article in question appeared on Sept. 22). Didn't like the attention, you suppose? But, for those who would like to see the article, all is not lost--for the moment it's available in Google's cache. If that goes (I'm not sure if it's kept around forever), I did a screen capture:

(click to enlarge)

I should mention that I sent the editorial board an email asking this question (and also why the original editorial was removed from the website so quickly). I have a hunch that if my email is the only one they get, it will be ignored--perhaps some folks will join me in this inquiry. Click on the title of this blog post for contact information.

The media's assault on truth

I hesitate to write this, because the issue has already gotten so much superb coverage recently at War on Guns, Say Uncle, Snowflakes in Hell, Call me Ahab, Illspirit, Dustin's Gun Blog, Carnaby Fudge, The Real Gun Guys, Days of Our Trailers, and undoubtedly others. Those are some sharp folks, and I don't have such a high opinion of myself that I think I have much to add.

Still, KX Blogs and Talk takes us back to another instance of media (CNN, once again) distortion about so-called "assault weapons" that is so grotesque that even though it's several years old, deserves another look. I refer here to the time they tried to claim that a round of ammunition fired from an "assault weapon" is much more powerful than an identical round shot from a more politically correct rifle.

First, a deputy fired what Jenne described as "a AK-47, the Chinese version," which is "currently banned." [this was before the 2004 sunset of the AWB]

Viewers saw bullets fired into a pile of cinder blocks and chunks of the cinder block flying off, leaving a big hole in one block. Then, the deputy fired into a bullet-proof vest. Zarrella observed that the bullets "clearly fired right through" the vest.

Second, Jenne set up the next model to be tested: "This is an AK-47 also, but a civilian model. It has some differences and right now this only has a clip of 10 in the magazine -- or 10 rounds in the magazine. So this is a big difference than the 30 rounds in the previous magazine."

Viewers then saw the deputy fire four shots toward the cinder blocks, but nothing happened, not even a speck of the cinder block flew off, never mind any hole being created.

The very clear implication: The illegal model punches right through cinder block with devastating and deadly force, but the legal model can't even cause a speck to fall off.

That, of course, is so far from the truth as to be laughable, were it not for the fact that this kind of distortion is part of a campaign to render American citizens disarmed.

The real reason for the cinder block's seeming imperviousness to bullets fired from politically correct firearms, is that the bullets were being shot elsewhere, as CNN was eventually forced to admit, when called on it:

"When a BSO employee fired a banned weapon, the camera showed bullets ripping through a cinderblock target. When a legal semi-automatic weapon was fired, the camera showed another cinderblock seemingly unharmed.
"In fact, the bullets from the legal gun never hit the cinderblock. CNN spokesman Matthew Furman said the camera operator didn't realize the sheriff's employee had switched targets and was firing into the ground....
"The comparison seemed to imply the banned weapon packed more punch than its legal counterpart. In fact, the two are the same in terms of firepower."

Whether CNN was a willing participant in the deception, or if the Broward County (Florida) Sheriff's Office hoodwinked them, in addition to their viewers, the obvious conclusion is that a campaign of disinformation (a nice way of saying "lies") was waged in order to try to rally public support for continued banning of so-called "assault weapons."

As my fellow bloggers have demonstrated, that campaign of lies is still in full force.

As an aside, if we go to the CNN article that inspired the recent storm of retorts from my fellow bloggers, we come to this . . . interesting tidbit:

Across the country, at least 62 police officers have been gunned down this year -- a record pace, said Robert Tessaro, the associate director for law enforcement relations for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

As a result, the Brady organization supports police officers arming themselves with high-powered weapons "to protect themselves and their communities," he said.

"High-powered weapons," of course, being the Bradys' term for what they would call "assault weapons" when owned by private citizens (or criminals, or terrorists--the Bradys apparently don't see three distinct groups there--only one). I guess someone forgot to tell the Bradys that the preferred term for police-owned "assault weapons" is "patrol rifles," but they and the media do seem united on the idea that police need these weapons that "are useful only for killing large numbers of people," and the rest of us must not have them. I guess we know why, now, the Brady Bunch never expressed "outrage" over this mass killing with an assault weapon . . . er, high-powered rife/patrol rifle.

The Bradys call for private citizens to have their most effective arms removed, while at the same time supporting equipping agents of the government with those same arms. Maybe it's just me, but I find that just a teensy bit sinister. Ladd Everitt and the CSGV approve, I'm sure.

Sleeping 'under the blanket of protection'

Over a year ago, inspired by one of my more insightful commenters, who pointed out perhaps the most egregious example yet of police being viewed as somehow more trustworthy with firearms than the general populace, I wrote one of my better posts--"'Assault weapons' vs. 'Patrol rifles.'"

Then, in May, that post generated a bravely anonymous comment of its own. This comment, though vastly less insightful than Straightarrow's, does pack a great deal of amusement value.

Anonymous said...

Hey LibertyPlease, you sleep at night under the blanket of protection the police provide you then you question how it is provided. I suggest you strap on a gun and do it yourself or just say thank you, either way I don't give a damn what you think. Maby you should give out your home address so all the evil in this country can come to where you and your family live and you can hold their hands and sing kum bi ya with them. Of course the occupiers as you call them won't be there to stand selflessly between you and them!

I had planned to talk about that "blanket of protection," but somehow forgot about it, until a recent comment made fun of it.

It occurs to me that one of (the many) things I like about David Codrea's War on Guns is his use of recurring themes--"Only Ones," "Authorized Journalists," etc. to illustrate his points. I've always thought I should adopt a similar technique, but never came up with anything I really liked--until now. Please join me under the "Blanket of Protection" (the link won't point to much yet, obviously).

David's "Only Ones" references have drawn criticism (unjustified, in my view) that he is "anti-cop," when his point is simply that the badge is no guarantee of either competence or nobility of purpose, and to attempt to deny people--to any degree--the right to defend their lives, their homes, their families, and their freedom, simply because they lack such a badge, is well beyond misguided--it's evil.

With my "Blanket of Protection" posts, I may well start drawing similar criticisms, despite having a goal far different from "cop-bashing." My point is that I never asked for the "Blanket of Protection," and ask only not to be interfered with in my efforts to protect myself.

Actually, come to think of it, I'm not asking.

'Assault weapon' bans punish the disabled--and everyone else

Sergeant Walker is presumably an able-bodied man, but he too is much more effectively armed with a so-called "assault weapon" (although some would have us call them "patrol rifles" when in cops' hands) than with a handgun.

In a very real sense, those advocating "assault weapon" bans--for either the disabled or the able-bodied--are trying to outlaw accurate shooting. Evidently, they care no more for innocent bystanders than for gun owners. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend--and Facebook "likes" and "shares" are hugely appreciated.

More on Eric Thompson, and ending defenselessness on college campuses

About two weeks ago, I wrote about my decision to buy a couple magazines from Eric Thompson's website (purchases from which were used by the killers at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University). I did this as a show of support for a man who is ridiculously and grossly unfairly being blamed by some as being somehow responsible (OK--I also did it because I wanted those magazines, but the other reason sounds a lot more noble).

Now, the LA Times has an article about Mr. Thompson, and call me the suspicious type, but I can't quite shake the idea that the author would like readers to sympathize with the "blame the dealer" crowd. Maybe it's the title--"Gun dealer wants weapons on campus," as if to imply that his motivation is expansion of his customer base. Or maybe it's things like this:

Thompson donated to funds for the victims on both campuses. And he continued to sell guns.

As if there is anything inconsistent about generously providing for the victims, while continuing to sell the means to avoid becoming a victim.

The article, by the way, points out that some citizen disarmament advocates, not content with trying to close the mythical "gun show loophole" (and the perhaps even more ludicrous "newspaper loophole"), want to prohibit internet sales of guns (and accessories?), despite the fact that internet gun sales still have to go through a dealer in the purchaser's state, with the usual background check.

Guns must be shipped to one of the nation's 70,000 federally licensed firearms dealers, who do background checks before releasing the package to the buyer.

Gun control advocates condemn online transactions as open to fraud, because convicted criminals can browse online, then pay someone with a clean record to place the order and pick up the firearm.

The same information, of course, can be found in Gun Digest--should libraries be required to run background checks before permitting someone to look at it?

Thompson's solution to college campus massacres is, as the title of the article implies, rather different.

Thompson starts with the uncontested fact that campus shootings are often over before law enforcement can respond. At Virginia Tech, Cho barricaded the classroom building and shot himself in the head as police broke through. At Northern Illinois, Kazmierczak killed five students in less than two minutes; he committed suicide before police arrived.

But what if someone else in those classrooms -- a student, a teacher -- had been carrying a gun? Isn't it at least possible some lives could have been saved? Isn't it worth giving our children that chance?

"Otherwise, it's 'Welcome to your killing spree,' " Thompson says. "Because there's nothing to stop these shooters."

He argues too that allowing guns on campus could deter future shootings.

That perspective has caught on widely since the carnage at Virginia Tech. Most states long ago declared schools gun-free zones; only Utah allows concealed weapons at all public colleges.

Abolishing college "defense-free zones" is another issue I've discussed recently, and an idea whose time has come.

This post is starting to run rather long, and Wasted Electrons has some superb commentary on the subject of ending mandated defenselessness on campus, so I'd like to send readers there next.

For anyone still with me, check out what War on Guns has to say about Arizona college campus police being issued assault weapons . . . oops--I mean "patrol rifles," and then read this genius's tail-wagging endorsement of the idea of more heavily armed "Only Ones," combined with utter contempt for the idea of students not being denied the means to defend themselves.

One police department suggests TASERs for self-defense; another trades theirs for 'patrol rifles'

That reasoning sounds (to me) troublingly like "don't worry your pretty little head about getting a gun--you might hurt someone." If we are not yet long past such a mentality, we need to get there, and quickly.

In the meantime, we find that the Elyria, OH police department hopes to sell their TASERS--never having issued them to officers--to help raise money to significantly boost officers' firepower. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Help spread the word?

Why don't you just steal them again, Mayor?

New Orleans Mayor Nagin is lobbying the Louisiana legislature to ban so-called "assault weapons" (in excerpts from the article, the odd substitution of question marks where quotation marks and apostrophes should be is apparently the result of some kind of cyber-flatulence in the original article).

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin kicked off a series of closed-door sessions in Baton Rouge to encourage state legislators to breathe life into the city�s health care infrastructure, curb access to assault weapons and ignite economic development.

But I thought the mayor liked "assault weapons"--he certainly seems to be having a good time here.



Oops--I suppose those are "patrol rifles," rather than "assault weapons"--my mistake.

Anyway, as I asked in the title, if Nagin doesn't like people having these firearms, why doesn't he just steal them (at gunpoint) again? Oops--my mistake again--that mean old Louisiana legislature says he can't do that anymore (although if laws were much of a deterrent, one might think that the Constitution would have stopped him before).

This part of the article caught my eye:

To tackle the issue of assault weapons, Mayor Nagin wants to team-up with Rep. Richmond and the National Rifle Association to lay out a �workable compromise.� The NRA has been a formidable opponent against any proposed state gun laws.

My first thought was to wonder what the good mayor has been smoking, but on second thought, if Carolyn "What's a barrel shroud?" McCarthy and Paul "Have I mentioned I was mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana?" Helmke can sweet-talk the NRA into a "compromise," why can't Nagin?

That sounds familiar

The Tyler Morning Telegraph (Tyler, Texas) has been seeking reader reactions to the spike in firearms sales spurred by the the impending HopeandChange™. One respondent didn't seem to think it was a good idea.

"I think people are completely overreacting," Chad King wrote in a reader comment he submitted. "It's funny to me that people are buying guns that they fear are going to be taken away from them. That makes absolutely no sense. ... Republican or Democrat, we all have to agree somewhere in the middle that certain guns only belong on the battlefield and serve no purpose in the hands of children and criminals."

"Only belong on the battlefield," eh? That sounds an awful lot like the (now vanished) urban policy we've been promised:

They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

Ignoring for the moment the fact that there's no guarantee that the only battlefields over the next few years will be "foreign battlefields," and that the "Only Ones" are presumably not being equipped with "patrol rifles" for use on foreign battlefields, the assumption here seems to be that making something illegal will make it go away. By such "logic," that "War on Drugs" must be just about won by now, eh? I suppose it might bother some if I point out that a ban on militia-capable firearms is rather difficult to reconcile with shall not be infringed--I guess they'll just have to deal with being bothered.

Another aspect of what Chad King says (in reference to so-called "assault weapons") comes at the end of the sentence. To repeat:

. . . serve no purpose in the hands of children and criminals.

That also sounds quite a lot like something straight from the mouth of the Obamessiah (this time his Democratic Convention speech).

. . . but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals.

And that takes me to what I see as the main point of this post (yeah, I know--it takes me a while to get there). I'm assuming that by "AK-47s," he refers not to real AK-47s, which are already extremely tightly controlled, but to the semi-automatic copies commonly available to private citizens in most states.

I have a problem with the ambiguity of that position. Presumably, the "Lightworker" is well aware of the fact that criminals are already barred by law from possessing any firearms. That would seem to mean that by "keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals," he means keeping them out of our hands--the hands of peaceable armed citizens.

Obviously, keeping such firearms out of the hands of such citizens will do nothing, in and of itself, to prevent violence--the idea is that to keep them out of the hands of criminals, you have to keep them out of everyone's hands (never mind that that is impossible, also). Once you acknowledge that, it seems to me that you acknowledge that the laws against criminals possessing firearms don't work--if they did, you wouldn't need another law, keeping AK-47s out of their hands.

In other words, the response to the ineffectiveness of gun laws is . . . to pass more gun laws. That oughta work.

If AR-15 is 'weapon of war,' cop bearing it is a 'soldier' for 3rd Amdt purposes

Besides, none of the forcible citizen disarmament advocates object to the police being armed with so-called "assault weapons" (although in that context, they might call them "patrol rifles," or "personal defense weapons"), which we are told are "weapons of war, that belong on the battlefield, not on our streets," and are thus not suitable for civilian ownership. Does that not make the police who are issued them soldiers?

In the end, whether the courts buy the Third Amendment argument or not, it is past time for all 50 states to follow Indiana's example, and make that kind of unforgivable thuggery lethally dangerous to the perpetrators (as it is to the victims). [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

'Assault weapons,' ('patrol rifles'?), 'Only Ones' and marksmanship

Sgt. Walker has, intentionally or not, made a pretty good case for the argument that if private citizens really are not particularly proficient with firearms, "assault weapons" are just what they need in a dangerous situation. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

'Patrol rifles' vs. 'assault weapons' revisited: A shot in the back?

It could be worse--Aimpoint apparently does not demand that buyers be "Only Ones," as some makers of tactical equipment, including "assault backpacks," do. Nor is it as offensive as selling one precision rifle for law enforcement/military work, with the rest of us limited to another version, deliberately made less capable (but still costing over $10,000). It's certainly less disgusting than using an FBI political hitman to hawk their wares.

Still, though, promoting the idea that effective fighting arms and equipment belong more naturally to government enforcers than to we who are "necessary to the security of a free state" is offensive, and should not be allowed to go unremarked. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Oh, and if you could spare a digg?

Are more tax dollars to be spent facilitating arms trafficking to Mexico?

And that brings us to the title of today's column. If, as a growing-by-the-day (hour?) body of evidence indicates, "Project Gunrunner" is intimately linked to the sinister "Project Gunwalker," whereby the BATFE approves some trafficking, including the trafficking of the rifles used to kill Border Patrol Officer Brian Terry, could an increase in the BATFE's budget, tied in large part to an expansion of "Project Gunrunner," not be seen as an expansion of a program--by the U.S. government--that helps arm the Mexican narco-thugs? [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.