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.