Brady Campaign to America's Hunters: "All your rifles are belong to us"

[Sesshoumaru]

Now I already basically knew this ever since the Brady people started talking about "deadly sniper weapons" during the D.C. shootings, despite the fact the rifle used was a standard semi-automatic .223 (the .223 has considerably less range and energy, and thus wounding power, than a basic .30'06 deer rifle), and that few, if any shots were takin from more than 100 yards away (I read somewhere that most of the victims were shot from within 50 yards, but I didn't bother saving it and haven't gotten around to finding it yet, but I'll try when I have more time). However, they've finally came right out and said it:

Originally Posted by Paul Helmke

Should The Public Be Able To Get The Types Of Guns We Use In Iraq?
I asked this question last week of the candidates for President now campaigning in Iowa, and I think that for most of the American people [pdf] the answer is clearly “no.”

In the last ten days, two states in the heart of the country have sustained mass shootings by people armed with military-style assault rifles – two attacks with assault weapons in less than a week. One shooter attacked a mall full of employees and Christmas shoppers in Omaha. The other attacked a church in Colorado.

Together, they left twelve people dead.

Yet today assault weapons remain perfectly legal to buy in gun stores and gun shows across the country, in unlimited quantities. Perhaps even more shocking, the type of bullet many assault weapons fire (7.62mm full metal jacket) can penetrate four categories of police body armor [pdf]. There is no legitimate reason the public should have this kind of access to military-style assault weapons.

It’s also frustrating that when a UPS employee raised concerns on September 13 about the “multiple boxes” of ammunition the Colorado shooter had delivered to his postal box, police officers said there was nothing illegal. No limits on the number of guns; no limits on ammunition; very minimal limits on the type of guns – no wonder we have problems.

Since the terrible shootings last week, leading newspapers are joining the call. Here is a sample of what they’re saying.

The New York Times: “Until recently, the nation did have a law designed to protect the public from assault rifles and other high-tech infantry weapons. In 1994, enough politicians felt the public’s fear to respond with a 10-year ban on assault-weapons that was not perfect but dented the free-marketeering of Rambo mayhem. Most Americans rejected the gun lobby’s absurd claim that assault rifles are “sporting” weapons. But when it came up for renewal in 2004, President Bush and Congress caved to the gun lobby and allowed the law to lapse.”

The Philadelphia Inquirer: “The troubled 19-year-old in Omaha used his stepfather’s AK-47-type assault weapon to unleash 30 rounds of gunfire on innocent victims, and then killed himself. Who needs a gun like that around the house?”

The Washington Post: “The AK-47 assault rifle that an Omaha teenager pilfered from his stepfather was among the guns outlawed under the ban on assault weapons that Congress and President Bush unwisely allowed to lapse. Why that kind of gun should be so easily available to someone as troubled as that 19-year-old is unfathomable. Eight people shopping or working at a mall died as a result.”

To protect ourselves and our police [pdf], these weapons of war should be kept out of the hands of civilians.

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

http://www.bradycampaign.org/blog/20...weapon-access/

Now there are a number of blatantly disgenius statements and at least a few complete lies, such as the claim that the rifle used by the Omaha shooter would have been banned under the blatantly unconstitutional and utterly useless (besides jacking up the prices of magazines holding more than 10 rounds) 1994 AWB, the shooter's rifle (a semi-automatic Ak-47 lookalike) lacked a bayonet lug, threaded barrel, and collaspable stock, so it would have been perfectly allowable under the ban. However, one thing stands out, because it reveals their true goal (there's a very good reason gun rights supporters often refer to them as the "Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership", and it isn't just the circumstantial evidence that they support every gun ban (and I mean ban, not 'reasonable regulation') they come across, or their inability to accept a simple fact that the 2nd Amendment clearly enumerates an individual, not collective right (what with it having "the right of the People" in it and the whole being in the Bill of Rights thing). If you don't bother keeping up with this stuff (and you really should, all our rights are important, not just the ones that happen to in vogue at the time), you probably missed it, so I'll repeat it.

Perhaps even more shocking, the type of bullet many assault weapons fire (7.62mm full metal jacket) can penetrate four categories of police body armor [pdf]. There is no legitimate reason the public should have this kind of access to military-style assault weapons.

It’s also frustrating that when a UPS employee raised concerns on September 13 about the “multiple boxes” of ammunition the Colorado shooter had delivered to his postal box, police officers said there was nothing illegal. No limits on the number of guns; no limits on ammunition; very minimal limits on the type of guns – no wonder we have problems.

I'll tackle the first blatantly misleading (if not totally mendacious) assertion the Bradys like to throw around, the "omgzo0rz teh po-lice R in danger!" Let me make this very clear, police. body armor. was. designed. specifically. to protect. against. HANDGUNS if I sound condescending, its becuase I am, the level of incompetence (or lying scumbaginess) necessary to make the kind of statements the Bradys (and most other anti-gun rights groups) make in regards to police body armor and 'assault weapons' is astounding, as a simple google search can provide you the government's own documentation; alternatively, you can find the same documentation in Paul Helmke's article, apparently his 'research' was so shallow he couldn't even be bothered to read his own citations (this is assuming of course, that you're willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, a courtesy I do not beleive he desearves). The National Institute of Justice sums up the body armor issue quite well: http://www.nlectc.org/pdffiles/0101.04RevA.pdf . Skip to page 13 of the pdf to find where the report begins, the first two pages tell you all you need to know (i.e. the cartridges each type of armor is rated to protect against). Police departments use "soft" body armor (Kevlar for the most part) because its lighter and more flexable than the heavier armors necessary to protect against rifle rounds (excepting low powered rimfires such as the prevalent .22LR), in exchange for this, they lack the protection offered by "hard" armor, and are suitable only against handguns. Which brings me to the reason for the title, Paul specifically proclaims that any rifle capable of penetrating "police body armor" (most departments use Type IIIA, as it offers the most protection against higher powered handguns such as the big bore magnums mainly used for hunting, which can penetrate some weaker types of soft armor). The problem? Virtually any centerfire rifle cartridge is capable of defeating soft body armor, as it was designed to protect against handguns, which are considerably weaker than most rifles. First, they'll come after your "super evil scary black military assault rifle," next, they'll come for your "horrible police slayer sniper rifle" (i.e. your deer rifle). Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership indeed.

The second part I requoted, although not nearly as telling as the first, is still quite insidious, although I believe its foolishness should be obvious enough to any who bother looking (here's a hint; do you buy more than one roll of toliet paper at a time? You do?! Monster! You're going to go TP the neighborhood! Aren't you! FIEND!).

PS Holy crap I can't believe I managed 3 pages in word on this! (although I guess quoting the entire article helped with that)
*wow, 3 pages in Word is kinda short once the forum formatting hits it....
PPS Did I miss anything good while I was gone? Did Fifth finally snap and ban-massacre the forum?

Also, this does not mean I will be returning to regular posting (you can all sigh in relief now), apparently my university hates you all, so their firewall blocks the nuklear power domain, and I'll be going back in a couple weeks. But until then, you shall all suffer under the lash of (arguably) the most conservative member of NPF, muahahahah. On a related note, every time you don't vote for Fred Thompson, God kills a hippie, and a Communist.

[Ugainius]

Sorry but it seems to me that your whole arguement points to the fact that the killings were done with significantly less dangerous weapons than the ones in the article to achive the same deadly result. And that the police are underequiped to deal with such a threat.

Also on this second Amendment malarkey, Not to sound like an ignorant foreigner now but I don't think your founding Fathers meant "Yeah you can use guns cos, ya know, shootin' shits fun," I think it was more on the lines of you can have weapons in your home to defend yourself against foreign invaders which may threaten this new land."

[Sesshoumaru]

I think you missed the point entirely...also, please don't pretend to know what you're talking about when it comes to the Bill of Rights, as you clearly don't, nor do you really have a need to (since you don't live under their enumerated protections of liberty)...unless you want to debate them.

I think it was more on the lines of you can have weapons in your home to defend yourself against foreign invaders which may threaten this new land."

Only half true, its was (paraphrasing) "to protect against tyranny, foreign and domestic." Rapist, murderers, and thugs commit thousands of "little tyrannies" every year. The right to defense agaisnt a tyrannical government, or vicious foreign invaders flows from the most prominent right of all, a man's (or woman's, or boy's, or girl's, as the case may be) right to his/her own life, without it, all other rights are meaningless.
*I beleive it was implied quite strongly, but in case anyone was wondering, yes, the right to defend that life is an intrinsic part of that right; the right of collective defense is a result of the right of individual defense, NOT the other way around.

Also on this second Amendment malarkey, Not to sound like an ignorant foreigner now but I don't think your founding Fathers meant "Yeah you can use guns cos, ya know, shootin' shits fun,"

Thats the kind of twisted, strawman knavery that the gun (and gun owner) hating bigots have been using for years. The number of people who believe that most be quite small indeed, as I have yet to meet, or hear from any of them. However, I know of many people (Paul Helmke and Rosy O' Donnol for two examples) that are so many mentally twisted as to believe that an inanimate object is capable of possessing human qualities such as evil (some even make the absurd claim that such inanimate objects possess the ability to influence the actions of humans, turning "good people" into "mindless killers" simply by touching, or being in the mere presence of a firearm).

*Also, the Bill of Rights is not negoiatable, not one part, if you piss on any one of the myriad rights of free men, you piss on them all.

*Gah I forgot to address the most important part of your post. The point I was making is that no matter how much they talk of "resonable regulation" these homunculi have proven, again and again, that in their eyes no amount of "reasonable regualation" short of an outright stripping away of the rights of a free citizenry can satisfy them.

[POS Industries]

Originally Posted by Sesshoumaru

Only half true, its was (paraphrasing) "to protect against tyranny, foreign and domestic." Rapist, murderers, and thugs commit thousands of "little tyrannies" every year. The right to defense agaisnt a tyrannical government, or vicious foreign invaders flows from the most prominent right of all, a man's (or woman's, or boy's, or girl's, as the case may be) right to his/her own life, without it, all other rights are meaningless.
*I beleive it was implied quite strongly, but in case anyone was wondering, yes, the right to defend that life is an intrinsic part of that right; the right of collective defense is a result of the right of individual defense, NOT the other way around.

Actually, the text of the Second Amendment reads as follows:

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.

Meaning that the right to bear arms is intended for national security purposes to the end that a public militia can be formed to defend it, as at the time such a militia was all the US had to defend itself.

By this interpretation, it would be completely reasonable to prohibit the use of guns for any purpose other than defending against invading forces. There's nothing in there about being allowed to even use them for hunting.

Not that I advocate any such legislation, but I'm just pointing out the boundaries of the Second Amendment's jurisdiction. The Government has full authority to ban the ownership of any type of firearm it wants as long as it doesn't ban them all, and can say what you can and cannot use firearms for outside of defending the sovereignty of the United States.

That is, if you're looking at the amendment from a truly strict constructionist standpoint.

[Krylo]

Discussion rules: http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=26354

You've broken like three of them in your last post, Sessh. Continue to break them and you won't be continuing to discuss things in this section of the forum.

[Fenris]

Sesshomaru, FYI, keep the insults out of your post or keep out of the discussion forum.

Don't make me dig through your post and quote them, 'cause I'd probably end up banning you.

Dammit ninja'd by Krylo.

[Sesshoumaru]

*Gah, I keep forgetting the intention I had when I started this thread. I don't really want to start another gun rights/second amendment debate, but rather focus on the extreme mendacity thats been demostrated by many of the leaders of the anti-gun organizations. The orginal point I was trying to make was that they have, for 30 years, been claiming their only interested in 'reasonable' gun control, and not in 'sporting weapons' (which itself is quite odd considering that virtually all 'sporting' guns are direct descendents of military weapons that were then superceded, people keep forgetting that most bolt action hunting rifles are quite similar to the infantry rifles used up until shortly before WWII, even the chambering of 30'06, still the most popular deer cartridge, and the semi-automatic rifles are not at all unlike the kind used in WWII and up until shortly before the Korean Conflict; and a growing number of hunters are using rifles utilizing detachable box magazines; not to mention the growing sport of competition shooting with "military" style semiautomatics such as AR-15 varients), all the while they have NEVER opposed ANY outright ban on private firearms ownership, and instead have steadfastly supported them (see the current D.C. gun ban case for vindication of this charge). First they were only for banning (note, not "reasonable regulation") of 'evil handguns,' then when public support for that failed to materalize, they moved to 'saturday night specials', then 'assault rifles,' then when it became more widely known that rifles of ANY type were used in less than 1 percent of violent crime, they moved on to 'assault weapons' (the current 'evil gun of the month'), often using terms such as "high powered" (despite the already mentioned power gap between 'assault rifle' chamberings, which are weaker b/c their based on full auto rifles used by the military, and full auto firing is hard to control even with a reduced power chambering; and the more powerful chamberings used in hunting), or 'concealable' (well duh! the whole point of a weak handgun instead of a long gun is that its smaller, easier to carry, and thus, more easy to conceal; although a sawed off long gun is both far more deadly, and almost as easy to conceal, and the fact that its a serious felony to own an unregistered short barrel long gun hasn't stopped criminals from using them). And each step along the way mere facts have been little barrier to them; which wouldn't be much of a problem, except that they continuously get away with blatant misrepresentations, distortions, and outright lies; and I'm getting tired of a band of knaves and liars setting the tone to a debate over the essence of liberty itself, and even more tired of a complecent media, and populace (while your ignorance may simply be a result that you haven't bothered with the issue, it is no excuse for letting them get way with) ignoring it, even when they are caught red handed; and in many cases actively helping them in their campaign of lies, and I'd like to change that. And one thing that liars and distorters can't live with it is objective discussion of the issues they twist and turn into unregnizable abominations and farces; whenever people truly devote themselves to examining the truth of a thing, the lies surrounding it tend to shrivle up and die (but ONLY when one can see past the distortions to begin with).

If, after examining this issue without the lies and distortions that have been piled on it; you still don't agree my view of gun control, well, at least it's your view, and not the view that some lying scumbag has spent 30 years of medacity to make sure you accept uncritically (I'll still think you're wrong though; but I'd rather argue with someone who actually knows what their talking about, whether than someone who simply bleets* when told to).

/preachy rant thingy...damn that spiraled a bit further than intended

*reference to 'sheeple', which is used to describe the brainwashed "gunz r teh evilz," although I don't think we have too many of those around here, most of you guys seem like the type that would get pretty pissed off about someone deliberatly lying to you, and the illusion of credibility these organizations have built up has been used a vehical to keep people like you on on their side, they don't want to risk that some of you might change your minds if you were shown the whole picture, and not just the horrbly mangled parts they hand out.

So if the first amendment had been prefaced with "the right of an informed and educated electorate being necessary to a free state" then only voting pamphlets would be kosher? You're putting far too much emphasis on the explanatory clause, and shifting focus away from the very specific "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" You also have to keep in mind that in modern parlence, 'well regulated' refers to gov't control, but in colonial times, it meant something akin to "trained and equiped" and "keep and bear" would translate to "own and carry". Of course, this all ignores the tenth amendment, that stipulated that the fact that any rights were not specifically enumerated, NOT 'given' or 'granted' (meaning the revocation of any of the Bill of Rights would have no effect on the rights of the people, as all it did was spell out specific ones that they wanted to have special mention) could not be used to claim that they did not exist. Unless, of course, you were to argue that even a man's life is not his. You also have to keep in mind WHY the people have the right to defend themselves from tyranny and foreign invaders (which I touched upon breifly).

Another point you didn't address:
"The security of a free State," this does not refer exclusively to "barbarians at the gates" as you seem to regard it as. The depradations of "knaves and murderers" are as much as a threat as foreign invaders; you also completely dismiss the very well documented fear of domestic tyranny, which is an important reason why the militia was regarded as more desirable than a standing army. Do you really think that men who had just fought a war to secure the rights of free men (against the standing army of their previous rulers, no less), one of which was the right to personal arms for the defense of self, family, community, and country (in that order, by the way) would consider the rise of standing army to be an argument for the disolution of that right?

And, since it is so important, I must mention it in closing, the right to own firearms is not 'just a second amendment thing,' it is an intergral part of the dearest right of all; the right to be secure in your own life (i.e. "not be murdered" to put it sloppily) is meaningless without the right to defend that life (i.e. fight back against a violent aggressor, i.e. the right to self defense), which is meaningless without the right to own and be armed with the tools to effect that defense.

[POS Industries]

Actually, the explanatory clause is quite clearly the key here, as it defines the boundaries to which the right given in the amendment can and cannot be infringed. It very specifically states that the right to bear arms is intended for the maintenance of a regulated militia. That is all it says in the Constitution.

Now, while I can't say I agree with your interpretation of the Tenth Amendment (except to point out that you are actually citing the Ninth), the amendment itself does bring up an interesting point. You see, the Tenth Amendment states that the Federal Government has no authority to force the states to do anything that itself isn't expressly stated in the Constitution itself. Yes, the Federal Government can pass any and all laws it wants (providing they go unchallenged to the Supreme Court), but no state agency has any obligation to abide by them if they don't want.

This is, however, counteracted by what is referred to as the "Commerce Clause" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution), which dictates that the Federal Government can regulate anything that involves or can potentially involve interstate commerce. It's actually bullshit that the Feds use whenever they really want to keep control over something under the law, but it has worked to strike down the California state law allowing the growing of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

By this logic, the Federal Government could impose a ban on any firearms they liked and defend it in court by saying that, since guns can be transported from state to state, it falls within their jurisdiction to force the states to uphold the ban. All very silly stuff, but similar maneuvers have worked before.

Also, there's no specifically stated right to living securely stated in the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence does, of course, mention the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", but that document has no official bearing on the laws of the United States to my knowledge.

[Odjn]

Quite honestly I have opinions on the subject but not enough knowledge. However, I don't believe there's enough reason either way to say having a semi automatic gun designed for killing other people, which is what an assault rifle is, should be available at all.

[Sesshoumaru]

Hmmm, rememeber people, if its late and your tired, you should probably double check stuff that you make central to an argument.

Originally Posted by Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Originally Posted by Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Although I'd say that they both apply, albeit under different circumstances (such s the state vs federal thing you touched on above).

This is, however, counteracted by what is referred to as the "Commerce Clause" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution), which dictates that the Federal Government can regulate anything that involves or can potentially involve interstate commerce. It's actually bullshit that the Feds use whenever they really want to keep control over something under the law, but it has worked to strike down the California state law allowing the growing of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

This is an extraordinary dangerous line of reasoning, as it excuses every abuse and official oppression that agents of 'benevolent government' have committed in the interest of protecting us unwashed peons from ourselves. By arguing thats its allowed because they do it you have, by definition, conceded that they can do whatever they want (well, ok they can, but not legally). You're right though, the Interstate Commerce clause has arguably been the most horribly abused of any provision of of the Constitution. And they only get away with it becuase we let them claim that the governemnt is the master of the people, not the other way around, as it is supposed to be.

By this logic, the Federal Government could impose a ban on any firearms they liked and defend it in court by saying that, since guns can be transported from state to state, it falls within their jurisdiction to force the states to uphold the ban. All very silly stuff, but similar maneuvers have worked before.

Which is why we, the People, need to remind them that we are the master not the servant of the government; which is something that FAR too many people have forgotten, or never knew in the first place. We are citizens, not serfs, and we damn well better remember it.

Also, there's no specifically stated right to living securely stated in the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence does, of course, mention the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", but that document has no official bearing on the laws of the United States to my knowledge.
__________________

Another extraordinarly dangerous line of reasoning. If the government decided to round up dissenters into cattle cars, would it be ok? After all, theres nothing in the Constitution about "thou shall not round up political dissenters into cattle cars." Of course it wouldn't, because we recognize that the Constitution is not the be all end of rights, and I think most people would agree that we have a right not to be rounded up like animals and sent to death camps. Which leads into:

Also, there's no specifically stated right to living securely stated in the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence does, of course, mention the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", but that document has no official bearing on the laws of the United States to my knowledge.

This is exactly the reason for the ninth and tenth amendments. Now, it has been forgotten (or rather, purged from the national pysche by people that do not have you or I's best interest in heart), but it is perhaps the most important point of all. The Constitution limits federal power, there is NO debate over what the intentions of the founders were, they saw a too strong federal gov't as a totalitarian state waiting to happen (whether we're that point is a whole 'nother thread entire, although I for one would like to think there is still hope, but not if we keep letting the gov't get away with spitting on the rights of free citizens). Using the Constitution to justify stripping the rights and dignity from the citizens is the highest form of treason to your nation, and your countrymen.

Of course, all this is totally apart from what I wanted to do, expose people like the Brady leadership as the disgenius, lying knaves that they are. So...

Quite honestly I have opinions on the subject but not enough knowledge. However, I don't believe there's enough reason either way to say having a semi automatic gun designed for killing other people, which is what an assault rifle is, should be available at all.

That is exactly what I've been talking about; you haven't had an occausion to look into it for yourself, so you've accepted the lies they've told you (see: "illusion of credibility"). Tell me, why is a semiautomatic rifle (I'll assume you meant rifle anyway, correct me if I'm wrong though) based on a "military" appearence "design only to kill people," but a semiautomatic rifle based on a "traditional" appearence is "an ok rifle for 'sporting purposes'" (note: first mention of the 'sporting purposes' test was the Nazi gun laws, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership does not believe it is a coincidence), or "just a hunting rifle"? Especially considering, as I mentioned before, that the 'assault rifle' (a complete misnomer, seeing how an assault rifle is a select fire weapon designed for suppressive fire in a military situation, while the rifles they've been calling 'assault weapons' funtion no differently than any common semiautmatic hunting rifle). That of corse ignores the fact that an entire branch of the shottign sports uses those "evil black rifles" in traget competition (you got a a large kitchen knife? FIEND surely such a large knife has no other purpose than killing people!). The 'assault weapon' bullsh** is just the latest in a 30 year campaign of lies and perfidy; and they will continue to get away with it, unless each of you decides to take time out of your lives to investigate their lies for yourself.