Thursday, April 19, 2007

From the forefront of Gun Control

Meet Carolyn McCarthy who has just introduced House Bill 1859 "designed to reinstate the prohibition on the possession or transfer of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and to strengthen that prohibition." Actually this is her single issue that she is continually bringing in front of the house at every opportunity. This should make her an expert on the provisions, you would think.

This would be funny if it weren't so darn scary. Who elects these people? With adversaries like this, Second Amendment supporters are probably OK for now.


Sirocco said...

A barrel shroud is an attachment which fits around the barrel of a gun, and protects the user from the heat the barrel emits when it is fired a large number times over a short period.

This heat is a reason many military machine gun models are water-cooled, for example. Back in the "olden days", the muzzles of cannons would get too hot to use.

The reason they should be baneed for commercial purpose is, really, what legitimate use do they have? Do you find yourself, while out hunting, firing so quickly that the barrel warms up to the point where the heat is too much to use the gun? If so, you are an awfully piss-poor shooter.

No, the only reason to have these is to, say, walk onto a school campus and shoot 30 individuals in rapid succession. (Note: I do not know whether or not Cho Seung-hui had barrel shrouds on his guns. No report I have read has said he did.)

Don't even bring the 2nd Amendment up here -- a barrel shroud is not an instance of an "arms", unless you intend to throw it at someone. It's an accessory. There is no Constitutional right to accessories.

Framer said...


Congratulations, I will encourage you to bring up legislation to the floor of the house concerning an issue you are familiar with (again, you will need to run as a Republican based on your squishiness on abortion). I may not support it though.

However, when you bring up a bill banning something that you do not have any idea what it is or what it does, how can you be taken seriously or expect your bill to be taken seriously? Especially when this is admittedly your ONLY issue?

It contributes to the notion that gun control advocates shoot from the hip of Emotion, rather than sizing up facts and research.

Anonymous said...

The ignorance of the left and in general the “I fear guns so I must ban them” crowd is hilarious. The “Barrel Shroud” also better known as a “hand grip” is nothing more than a low cost alternative to maple or walnut stocks. It’s far cheaper, easier and more rapidly producible to manufacture stamped metal and injection molded plastic handgrips than it is to carve or lathe out a stock from expensive wood.

It also increases the life cycle “life span” because the stock is not susceptible to environmental damage and warping from over exposure to water. It adds little in capability or “ability to kill” to a firearm and is mainly aesthetic. The left doesn’t like them because they make the firearm look “mean.”

If I were to fire my Ruger .270 (Hunting Rifle) a half dozen times and were dumb enough to grab the end of the barrel, I would get burned just like I would if I grabbed the barrel of an M4 Carbine (a real Assault Rifle). The shroud simply lets you handle a hot firearm.

As far as water cooled machine guns… Haa!!! We haven’t had water cooled machine guns in the inventory since the 50’s.

Another ignorant statement is the constant use of “hunting” as the basis for the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

The 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting and everything to do with ensuring the common citizen has the right to defend himself, his family and his property from anyone that wants to oppress them or rob them of their liberty. Whether it is a thief, a homicidal maniac or even our own government coming to take their liberty, the Bill of Rights makes it clear that the right of “the People” to keep and bear arms is there solely to provide security and preserve freedom, it says nothing about hunting.

The fundamental principle of the Constitution and the Bill of rights is to ensure that it is “the People” who control the government and it is “the People” that give consent to be governed to elected officials. When government crosses that line, as Bill Clinton and the 103rd Congress did back in 1994 when they passed the Assault Weapons Ban, “the People” withdraw that consent from those elected.

Luckily in this country we can change our government by peaceful means and our elected officials willingly step down when defeated. The Founding Fathers at times knew that might not always be the case so they installed the 2nd Amendment to give the people the means to do so with force if needed.

Bill Clinton admitted that one of the main reasons for Democrats losing control of the House in 1994 was because of the Assault Weapons Ban. I hope they are stupid enough to try this again. They stayed away from the gun issue in the ’06 election for this very reason.

The far left Democrats are fundamentally ignorant when it comes to guns. Just read the ’94 assault weapons ban and you’ll see why. They solely based the criteria on what was an assault weapon by the way the firearm looked, not on how it functioned or it’s lethality.

The U.S. Military defines assault rifle as: a hand-held, selective fire weapon, capable of firing in either an automatic or a semiautomatic mode depending on the position of a selector switch.

The key word here is “automatic.” Automatic weapons are already heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and are further regulated in some states. Democrats know well and good that weapons that fire in the semi-automatic mode only ARE NOT, by definition, Assault Weapons. So they changed the definition by adding aesthetic aspects of the gun’s appearance to their new definition. This was done by the liberal Democrats in an attempt to placate conservative Democrats fears that hunting related firearms which are also semiautomatics would not be banned.

That takes me to the current event and the issue of gun control being raised once again by the far left.

The shooter at Virginia Tech had two pistols. None of them met any of the criteria of “assault weapon” according to the definition in the Democrat gun dictionary. No barrel shroud, no flash suppressor, no folding stock, no bayonet mount. The Glock 19 pistol used in the shooting would not have been banned under the ’94 law or the current one proposed in 2007.

Even if the detachable magazine, which can carry 15 rounds, were to be replaced with an AWB compliant 10 round magazine, do you think things would have been different? No. Cho was hell bent on killing as many people as he could. He would have just had to reload a few extra times to reach the same result.

What would have saved lives would have been an armed professor or student in one of those classrooms.

Virginia Law does allow students and professors to carry concealed weapons on college campuses. College campuses do not fall under Federal school zone firearm restrictions like elementary schools do; so it would not have been punishable by law if a student or professor carried a weapon to class to defend themselves. It was however a grounds for expulsion from the university or termination of employment if Virginia Tech officials caught you with a gun on Campus.

The true reality that no one wants to talk about is that the failure of the school wasn’t in the lack of notification to students; it was the failed policy of mandatory disarmament that left the student body and faculty sitting ducks for Cho or any other armed assailant.

The university’s “No Guns on Campus” rule did a lot of good stopping a homicidal madman like Cho didn’t it? All it did was give Cho a low risk, target rich environment to carry out his evil deed.

One thing I’ve learned over the years in the violent world I once worked in is that the “touchy-feely” “good intentions” approach doesn’t do much good when people are trying to kill you. I sadly had to deal with the reality that there are times when it is necessary to take another human life. I thank God I had a firearm in my hands and possessed the capability to do so or I wouldn’t be here today. Guns are tools, and when properly used and treated with respect do just as much to protect human life as they do to take it.

Just because you might be afraid of guns or you just can’t see yourself squeezing the trigger to kill someone in self-defense doesn’t give you the moral authority to deprive the rest of us from defending ourselves and our loved ones.

Frank Antenori

Sirocco said...

Hey Frank,

Thanks for the history lesson. I am well aware water-cooled machine guns date to the world wars, but they make for an easily understood example. We don't use civil-war era cannons now either.

The second amendment was initially intended as a defense against foreign invaders, and also against our own military attempting to "put down" the populace. It still doesn't apply to barrel shrouds.

As far as your argument that the best way to have prevented the VT horror, yeah, that's what we want to see -- dozens of armed, terrified kids with guns shooting them off. THAT would have helped matters. Absolutely. It's all so clear now.

By the way, I am more than comfortable with guns and shooting them, and have no qualms whatsoever with "squeezing the trigger" if I deem it necessary. Please don't make assumptions that just because I disagree with your position I am not informed on such matters.

Anonymous said...

Typical liberal assumption: "Thousands of terrified kids with guns shooting them off."

The same argument was made when Florida was the first state to pass no restriction concealed carry laws and the Castle Doctrine.

The left predicted "carnage" in the street. Never happened.

You make an excellent analogy of the difference between the liberal ideology and conservative ideology.

You see I trust the people. I believe that people that have concealed weapons permits are responsible, law abiding, rational people (and the data backs me up) and you believe they can't be trusted and government restriction of freedom is the answer.

It is legal for concealed carry permit holders in Virginia to carry a weapon on college campuses. I guess the Virginia assembly and governor aren't too worried about "kids" shooting up the place.

I see young adults; adults old enough to vote and old enough to die for their country.

You see immature "kids" that can't be trusted; typical, typical typical.

I had 18-21 year olds behind me, shooting over my head with large caliber machine guns. I have no doubt, that with some training (as you get when you apply for a CCW permit) that an 18 year old can be responsible with a weapon. My 11 and 12 years olds hunt along side me carrying guns with far more destructive and lethal capability than a little 9mm. I “trust” them because I have taught them gun safety and they have demonstrated to me they are responsible enough to carry a loaded gun.

It's not just an issue of "misinformed." It's an issue of spouting a failed ideology that guns are the problem and government control is the solution. That because a gun looks mean and has certain accoutrements (Flash suppressor, barrel shroud, etc.) that have nothing to do with weapon lethality that it should be banned is the height of “misinformed.” If you think banning a gun based on aesthetics will solve the problem then yes, I think you’re “misinformed.”

The solution is arming the populace, not disarming them.

Robert A. Heinlein wrote: "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

He's spot on and in every country, state and city that encourages that principle violent crime and murder is down and in those that oppose it the opposite is true. Ever since D.C., the U.K., Brazil, Australia, Canada passed restrictive gun control, their violent crime rates have soared. They have literally removed the deterrent to criminal activity and the ability for one to defend themselves.

The question is who do you trust more to protect you? Yourself and your fellow American citizens or the government? Look what happened in New Orleans after Katrina.

As for me, I'll side with my fellow citizens every time.


Sirocco said...


You make some good points vis-a-vis the needed training. I actually don't have any real issue with individuals such as yourself own guns -- you have had long, extensive training in their use. Now, not all such individuals can be trusted in all circumstances, but in general they can be trusted to at least know how to use their guns properly and aim them at the right targets.

I'm sorry, but the training
one takes in order to purchase a gun simply isn't sufficient to rise to this level of expertise. No, I don't trust an individual, of whatever age, after taking such a course to be react properly in what amounts to a combat situation. Nor would you.

There is a big difference between those 18-21 year olds you had shooting over your head and the ones we are talking about at VT -- months of intense, repetitive, disciplined training and practice in the use of the deadly weapons they were using.

At no point did I say I was in favor of banning firearms at all (I am not; I do favor some restrictions), much less for aesthetic reasons. I did say I don't find barrel shrouds to be necessary or protected for any reason, aesthetic or otherwise. A barrel shroud is NOT a gun.

The Heinlein quote you give from his early work ... and he is, in fact, spot wrong (and I suspect, by the end of his life, Heinlein would have agreed). Some of the most "polite" societies (examples might include Norway and Sweden, Japan) are among the least armed. Meanwhile, some of the least "polite" (say Colombia, Sudan, maybe the United States) are among the most armed.

Frank Antenori said...

Just to add a bit more fuel to this topic. From the Federalist Digest:

It is now coming to light that in 2002, at the Appalachian School of Law just up the road from Virginia Tech, a Nigerian student, who had flunked out, returned to campus, murdered three people and wounded three others.

Fortunately, his killing spree was interrupted by two students who had retrieved handguns from their vehicles and held the murderer at gunpoint until police arrived.

This intervention was not unprecedented.

In 1997, an assistant principal in Pearl, Mississippi, retrieved a handgun from his car and apprehended a murderer.

A few days later, a copycat assault in Edinboro, Pennsylvania, ended after a nearby merchant wielding a shotgun forced the attacker to surrender.

Off campus, it is estimated conservatively that gun owners use their weapons defensively more than 1.3 million times each year.

With that as a backdrop, last spring Virginia Tech admonished a student for having a handgun on campus—never mind that the student had a state-issued concealed-carry permit.

That admonishment was a motivating factor behind a proposed bill before the Virginia legislature to prevent academic institutions from enacting “rules or regulations limiting or abridging the ability of a student who possesses a valid concealed-handgun permit... from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun.”

The legislation died in committee, prompting Tech’s associate vice president, Larry Hincker, to praise the General Assembly in a Roanoke (Virginia) Times op-ed:

“I’m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus. We believe guns don’t belong in the classroom. In an academic environment, we believe you should be free from fear.”

A month later, there was a murder near Tech’s campus, prompting a lockdown.

In response, Tech grad student Bradford Wiles penned an op-ed in the campus paper calling on the school to allow those with concealed-carry permits to carry guns on campus should they choose.

Larry Hincker emerged again, protesting, “[I]t is absolutely mind-boggling to see the opinions of Bradford Wiles. Surely, [the editors] scratched their heads saying, ‘I can’t believe he really wants to say that.’ Guns don’t belong in classrooms. They never will. Virginia Tech has a very sound policy preventing same.”

Congratulations Mr. Hinkler. Your “sound policy” created a “safe campus” for only one student—Cho Seung-Hui—who was able to slaughter 32 people without interruption.

Again it shows that the best defense is a good offense.

Frank Antenori

Sirocco said...


Please provide a link to a study with the "conservative" 1.3 million defensive gun uses per year figure. I have reason to think that figure is far, far too high.

Part of that reason can be related to this study, published in 2001. Among it's findings:

* Americans in general feel less safe rather than more safe as guns become more prevalent in their neighborhoods.

* A college gun owner was 3.5 times more likely to be threatened by someone with a gun than a non-owner.

* A college gun owner was 3 times as likly to drive after binge drinking than a non-owner.

* A college gun owner was 2 times more likely to vandalize property than a non-owner.

* A college gun-owner was almost twice as likely to get in trouble with the police than a non-owner.

(Note -- the combination of the above three correlations indicates college-aged gun owners are significantly more likely to place themselves in situations where there is an increased likelihood of trouble occurriing than non-owners).

* States with high levels of gun ownership account for a disproportionate number of gun threat incidents. One example - a student in the mid-Atlantic states (of which Virginia is one, and Virginia is a high-ownership state) was 2.2 times as likely to be threatened by a gun as a student in New England).

Yeah, binge-drinking, drunk-driving vandals are _exactly_ the type of college student I want carrying guns around on campus. I'd feel _so_ much safer with these folks "shooting over my head".

Anonymous said...

Whenever all the talk about gun control reducing crimes of violence erupts, I think about how effective the drug laws have been to suspend narcotic sales and use.

Why would someone hell bent on violating the greatest law of a secular society, do not take the life of another, abide by a restriction on the purchase of an instrument necessary to complete his goal? What sort of logic says this person would not buy a gun illegally? And back to the drug issue; street corners of certain parts of any town are full of opportunities to purchase illegal drugs. Pass a gun ban and it will be a one stop shop…guns and drugs.

Sirocco said...


It's quite true that an individual who wants nothing more than to kill a few people before dying is unlikely to abide by the law. This same mindset is what makes stopping suicide bombings so difficult.

However, why make it easy for them?

Really, though, gun-control proposals are geared toward preventing unthinking decisions. A fight in a parking lot escalates, and next thing you know someone gets a gun from their car and there is a shooting. This time o crime can be severely curtailed.

The entire "why have a law anyway if you know it will be violated" argument is specious anyway. If a law had to be 100% effectve to be useful, we might as well get ride of laws against rape, assault, etc. Just take them off the books now -- I mean, if someone is really going set on doing it anyway ... well, you see the logic pattern.

Framer said...


I may regret doing this, but I call into question your statistical analysis. I would argue that your statistics would fall pretty close to a rural-urban divide, as rural students would be far more likely to own a gun that an urban student. Not to mention the often misleading "2.5 times more likely" deflection that when looked at closely probably still falls within the margin of error. (I checked, it does).

In any case, Frank was referring to students with Concealed Carry Permits, which would be an entirely different universe than college students who own guns.

Anonymous said...

No one ever questions the motorcycle owner with such ridicule as to why he wants to put lights on his bike that reflect on the ground, to which his answer would most likely be, "Because it looks better!" (It could also be to increase the likelihood of being seen while riding at night.)

Nor is it likely that anyone would question with a pre-set mind why a woman might wear higher-than-reasonable heels just to look good, as that is reason enough, right?

So why is it that, although 99.9% of legal and lawful gunowners are constantly scrutinized for accessorizing their collectibles? Furthermore, does anyone really believe that the average gun-toting after-school-special-waiting-to-happen will take time to buy this or that accessory? PLEASE!

Sirocco's right, though: there's no constitutional right to accessories... but he seems to forget that there's no law banning them, either. (Thank goodness, because I dig high heels on the ladies!) A further point of his that needs to be used against Sirocco is, a barrel shroud (or any other accessory, for that matter) is NOT considered "arms" (or, in other words, a "weapon"), nor do they really do much to enhance a shooter's ability to handle his weapon.

Let's face it, Sirocco: frowned-upon accessories like muzzle-breaks, pistol grips, bayonet lugs (or bayonets, even), collapsible stocks, and many others aren't any more likely to entice a person with murder on their mind to go kill people; fact of the matter is, murders like those in Columbine could've been done with revolvers and the shotgun with which your father hunts.

I suppose then you'll say something emotional like, "Let's do away with ALL guns, then, accessories and all!" Well, as previously stated, the majority of gun owners are NOT prone to throwing round after round into a crowd; however, every one in four DRIVERS are prone to road rage, talking on their cell phones and texting while driving, and drinking or being drunk while driving.

So, PLEASE: get emotional on the REAL CAUSE of what drives some insane people to shoot innocents, not a symptom.

Remember, if you outlaw guns, criminals won't care, and law-abiding citizens will be defenseless against criminals and communists alike.