2nd amendment, tactical rifles, and large capacity magazines

15 posts / 0 new
Last post
ao's picture
ao
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2009
Posts: 2220
2nd amendment, tactical rifles, and large capacity magazines

I just sent this letter out by e-mail in which I compiled information learned from others here as well as my own research, FWIW.

 

Years ago, I questioned why any private citizen would need an assault rifle or more accurately, a semi-automatic tactical rifle.  I also questioned why one would need magazines that held 20 or 30 rounds.  That questioning came out of lack of knowledge.  After becoming more informed on the subject, I'd like to discuss some details of the subject here since I have not yet seen a decent discussion of the subject in the mainstream media (which is highly biased against.ownership of these weapons or virtually any other firearm, for that matter).
 
First of all, it is illegal for private citizens (who do not have the special Class 3 license required for the ownership of National Firearms Act weapons) to own assault rifles.  Assault rifles are fully automatic weapons, reserved for the military and certain police operations.  It is, however, legal for a citizen to own a semi-automatic weapon (of similar external military-like appearance) which is more properly called a tactical rifle or, to use a term recently adopted by the US government, a "personal defense weapon" (even though the government applies this term to a true assault rifle).  The term assault weapon has, in fact, become a perjorative.  No one that I know who owns a tactical rifle plans on assaulting anyone with it.  It is designed for defense.  It is interesting, however, how the media, the government, and anti-gunners all erroneously call such weapons "assault rifles".  And that same government recently purchased 7,000 fully automatic true assault rifles for the Department of Homeland Security but, in this case, they called them "personal defense weapons". 
So it would appear that when your average law abiding citizen has a semi-automatic tactical rifle, it is referred to as an "assault rifle", but when the government has a fully automatic assault rifle, it is referred to as a "personal defense weapon" ... an interesting twist, worthy of Herr Goebbels.  The hypocrisy is compounded by the US government releasing 2,000 fully automatic assault weapons to criminal elements in Mexico via Operation Fast and Furious.
 
As the economic situation is the country continues to deteriorate (despite the campaign by the media and government to have you believe otherwise), we are seeing an increased incidence of home invasions around the country.  These home invasions are increasingly not being carried out by one, two, or even three individuals but rather by four, five, six, or more individuals in a gang.  They are typicall very violent and very dangerous.  You can find numerous security videos on YouTube showing just this type of activity.
Unless, you are an incredibly gifted shot and incredibly cool character, it is highly unlikely you would be able to take out six inidividuals with six shots from a .38 special revolver.  A recently case of a woman with a 6 shot revolver hiding in her closet with her two children had her shooting the home invader (who came after them where they were hiding in a closed closet upstairs in her home) with five out of six shots at point blank range in vital areas and still not killing him.  Luckily, she did put him out of commission and saved herself and her children from harm.
 
Similarly, when we look at the Argentinian financial crisis of 1999-2002, an event which is paralleled in many ways by what is and what will be occurring in this country, there were widespread incidents involving gangs of women perpetrating home invasions in which the home occupants were systematically tortured, raped, robbed, and killed.  It was only individuals who had the capability of defending themselves who were left unmolested.  Ferfal has written extensively about this situation.
Thus it can be seen that a tactical rifle with a 20 or 30 round magazine (not high capacity like a 50 or 60 round drum but normal capacity for this weapon) would provide a level of protection that could not be provided with a handgun with a lower capacity magazine.
 
Similarly, when I was going through FBI and police after action reports to see which type of weapon would be ideal for self defense in the widest range of scenarios, I came across a chilling report (which, unfortunately, I can't find the link for now).  A male criminal had engaged in a shoot-out with police.  He was of average size with a muscular build, similar to a lean high school wrestler and certainly not massive, and was wearing a leather jacket.  He was shot 5 times, center mass (i.e. in the chest) with .40 caliber Smith and Wesson rounds, a slightly more powerful round than the commonly used 9 mm.  NONE of the rounds penetrated his rib cage to puncture his lungs or heart.  He was still fighting.  He was also hit with a round in his hip (in the pelvis) which also failed to stop him.  Unbelievably, he was even hit with a round in the front of his neck which was stopped by his cervical vertebrae.  Even with this wound, although most likely dying, he was able to continue fighting.  It was only when a police officer, lying down on the ground and looking under a vehicle, spotted the ankle of the criminal on the other side of the vehicle.  The police officer, using an AR-15, fired a round into the ankle of the perpetrator, shattering his ankle and bringing him down where he was eventually finished off with additional gunfire.  Again, the case was made for the use of this type of weapon against a criminal who was not immediately stopped with a lower power round.
 
One has to consider that nowadays, many police officers carry an AR-15 in their cruiser as a back-up weapon to their sidearm, often replacing the shotgun that had been used in the past.  That AR-!5 typically has a 30 round magazine.  Consider that the police officer is professionally trained in accosting criminals, is professionally trained in firearm use, usually is wearing a bullet-proof vest, and has access to back-up from fellow officers, both on the scene and reachable by radio ... and the AR-15 with that size magazine is the weapon of choice.  As a police officer, he feels he needs that type of weapon to counter the threats that may arise.  You as a civilian, however, are not usually wearing body armor and do not have back-up immediately available, in addition to other disadvantages.  Shouldn't you be similarly equipped to protect yourself from the same dangerous criminal?
 
This gentleman, Henson Ong, despite his apology for English not being his first language, makes an eloquent case for the use of tactical rifles by citizens.
He explains how the proposed additional gun control measures (specifically related to tactical rifles and large capacity magazines) will not work.  He also explains how the use of semi-automatic ARs and AKs enabled Korean-Americans to keep their businesses from being burned down during the LA riots.  In addition, he explains the ubiquitousness of the AR-15 in particular, which has become the modern equivalent of the musket used in Revolutionary War times.
 
He also makes the case for the true purpose of the 2nd Amendment.  That purpose is not to ensure the use of firearms for hunting, target shooting, or any other sporting use.  The purpose is to provide the citizens with the means to protect themselves from a government, if and when it becomes tyrannical.  The Founding Fathers had just fought a Revolution, prior to which, the British had attempted to take away their firearms.  If the British had been successful, America never would have acquired her freedom at that time.  People will say such a thing could not happen in our country but history is rife with examples of governments turning on their people.  Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-Il, Idi Amin, Qaddafi, and Castro are commonly cited examples but, in the course of history, almost every country, at one time or another, and especially during periods of political and economic strife, has turned against its own citizens.  One may say, what chance does a citizen have against a government armed with vastly superior weaponry?  Again, history provides examples of the Swiss being able to resist the Germans, Finns resisting the Russians, mujahideen resisting the Russians, Viet Cong resisted the Americans, etc.  When we have a government instituting such Constitution violating laws as the Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization act, when the DHS has bought well over a billion rounds of 40 cal S&W hollow-point ammunition (designed for use by law enforcement, not the military, and not designed for target use), when they are purchasing bullet resistant checkpoint booths, when they are increasingly setting up roadside checkpoints for random stops many miles away from our borders, when they are purchasing armored cars for increasingly small communities, when they plan on having 30,000 domestic drones in operation (with present debate as to arming some of them), when the NSA's Utah Data Center is monitoring EVERY single aspect of your life, when executive orders are compromising more and more freedoms, when there is an actively training and growing US military brigade designed to operate domestically in violation of posse comitatus, when a newly emerged "litmus test" in the US military officer corps is whether officers are willing to order US citizens to be fired upon, when the US has treaties with 15 other nations to bring their troops onto US soil in the event of widespread domestic disturbances, etc., one has to become increasingly concerned about exactly what is going on.    
sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 300
Well said, ao!

Couldn't agree more.  I believe that you are seeing the same "big picture" that I am.  Thanks.

ao's picture
ao
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2009
Posts: 2220
sand_puppy wrote: Couldn't

sand_puppy wrote:

Couldn't agree more.  I believe that you are seeing the same "big picture" that I am.  Thanks.

Thanks sand_puppy. 

I thought I had proofed this post but cracked up when I read that I had written "gangs of women" rather than "gangs of men" when writing about the Argentinian crisis.  Sorry about that! 

LogansRun's picture
LogansRun
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 18 2009
Posts: 1366
Great post!

I was wondering if you would get to the true nature of the Second Amendment, and was pleased when I read the last paragraph!

Defense from a Tyranical Government is the only reason for the Second Amendment.  And as you stated so well, the current government is arming itself for the purpose of controlling the citizens.  

We as citizens, because we have access to the "Assault Weapons", make much harder prey, than if we were only able to obtain revolvers, handguns, etc....Or no guns at all.

Being as the government is arming itself with more and more powerful weapons, the Citizen, under the Second Amendment, should have the right to do so itself.  And IMO, with the firepower that the Government has access to in this day and age, the Citizen should at least have access to what is considered Class 3 weapons, or better.

AO, you and I both know what the true End Game entails.  It can't be discussed on these forums (unfortunately), but we know.  It's becoming more and more apparent, that the Citizens will probably do the work themselves for the bastards.  But I do still have faith, that some of us, who understand the true nature of the beast, will have some say in how we live our lives in the future...or how we'll die.

Cheers!

westcoastjan's picture
westcoastjan
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 4 2012
Posts: 463
Thank you ao for this excellent essay

I have to say that up until recently my views on gun ownership and gun controls have had a typical Canadian slant, which tends to have us looking at our southern neighbours as gun lovers. I had never take the time to really and truly understand the Second Amendment, which by and large I just viewed as an "enshrined permission" to own guns, for whatever reason, which was being rather enthusiastically embraced by waaaay too many people for (my) comfort. This view is of course widely perpetuated in the MSM.

Since I started to follow this site and the great discussions with many of the exceptional people who take part, I find I am awakening to the fact that this view point is not as valid as I thought it to be. I have not grown up with any kind of mindset whatsoever that I need to fear my own government; that my own government would take action against its citizens; that I need to protect myself from my government.

While I still do not perceive nearly as much of a threat here in Canada, the blinders are now off, and I realize I can no longer ignore the realities of how things are evolving. The big picture is becoming more clear, and it absolutely appears to be evident that extra-ordinary preparations are taking place in the US in anticipation of wide spread social unrest. We are joined at the hip as countries, and as the US goes, so too do we. Do not forget that we have so many of the resources that are greatly coveted...when push comes to shove, we all know that our resources will be shared, willingly or not.

Having witnessed the sudden savagery of the mob mentality in the recent Vancouver hockey riots, as well as reading about the grave effects of the Argentine currency crisis, I can only imagine how the masses will react to another financial crisis, hyperinflation, or long term stagnation - essentially, when they realize how we have been royally screwed. So many are unaware and unprepared, and will be blindsided. Then they will get angry, really angry. We are getting glimpses of awakenings in the outbreaks happening all over the globe. The most dangerous people of all are the people who have lost hope, with nothing left to lose. The powers that be know this too, and thus the preparations they are taking. It is truly frightening.

The good and decent person in me wishes I did not have to think in these terms, much in the same way I wish that the financial calamity that is bearing down on us is just a bad dream. I am awake now to the fact that wishful thinking is useless, and must replaced with a dose of reality. I have not thus far taken seriously prepping for protecting myself and that which I own. It is time to add that element to my plan, based on the realities of where I live and the potential threats that might exist. I do this begrudgingly, knowing as always that it is better to be a year too early than a day too late.

Jan

natew's picture
natew
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 26 2008
Posts: 9
ao wrote:   The hypocrisy is

ao wrote:

  The hypocrisy is compounded by the US government releasing 2,000 fully automatic assault weapons to criminal elements in Mexico via Operation Fast and Furious.

 
Similarly, when I was going through FBI and police after action reports to see which type of weapon would be ideal for self defense in the widest range of scenarios, I came across a chilling report (which, unfortunately, I can't find the link for now).  A male criminal had engaged in a shoot-out with police.  He was of average size with a muscular build, similar to a lean high school wrestler and certainly not massive, and was wearing a leather jacket.  He was shot 5 times, center mass (i.e. in the chest) with .40 caliber Smith and Wesson rounds, a slightly more powerful round than the commonly used 9 mm.  NONE of the rounds penetrated his rib cage to puncture his lungs or heart.  He was still fighting.  He was also hit with a round in his hip (in the pelvis) which also failed to stop him.  Unbelievably, he was even hit with a round in the front of his neck which was stopped by his cervical vertebrae.  Even with this wound, although most likely dying, he was able to continue fighting.  It was only when a police officer, lying down on the ground and looking under a vehicle, spotted the ankle of the criminal on the other side of the vehicle.  The police officer, using an AR-15, fired a round into the ankle of the perpetrator, shattering his ankle and bringing him down where he was eventually finished off with additional gunfire.  Again, the case was made for the use of this type of weapon against a criminal who was not immediately stopped with a lower power round.

Great post, but 2 clarifications:

First the FF guns were not fully automatic, but the available semi automatic version.  It is still a travesty of justice any way you look at it, but accuracy of information is paramount!

Second the shootout you are refering to, over 100 total rounds were fired, the man was hit 17 times and STILL had to be wrestled to the ground to be handcuffed.  He did die later from his wounds, but a handful of trained officers and SWAT officers had to fire over 100 rounds on one man.  I can't get a direct link to the report (work firewall) but you can find it via google (google:FBI report shot 17 times, and it will bring up different forum discussions with the link).  WARNING VERY GRAPHIC Photos are contained inside the report

But overall, great post and thanks for the info!

ao's picture
ao
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2009
Posts: 2220
you are correct

Natew,

Thanks for the clarification.  You are indeed correct.  That is the case that I was looking at.  I was working off of memory from about 3 years ago since I couldn't find the link.  I had assumed from looking at the autopsy pictures that the perp had expired at the scene but I was wrong and I had forgotten about the other rounds that he was hit by as well.  But the plus side of this example is that it actually makes an even stronger case for the semi-auto rifle in self defense than I had thought.  Sorry about the automatic vs. semi-auto thing with F&F.  That got by me.  Once again, thanks.  

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 2714
so many rounds

In a handgun safety course I took a few years back, the instructor, a US Marshall, told us of an incident he was part of while working on a drug task force in the NYC region (if I remember correctly, this happened on Long Island).

They raided a house of suspected drug dealers.  As it turned out they were nationals from some Caribbean nation, unaccustomed to the climate.  Although most natives would have thought the temperature quite comfortable, the dealers found it chilly so were dressed in several layers.  One fellow emerged from the house firing at anyone in sight.  He, in turn, was hit numerous times by police fire, but continued moving about and shooting until one officer took part of his head off with a shotgun blast.  It turns out that layered clothing acts as fairly effective body armor, at least against small arms fire.

Doug

natew's picture
natew
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 26 2008
Posts: 9
ao wrote: Natew, Thanks for

ao wrote:

Natew,

Thanks for the clarification.  You are indeed correct.  That is the case that I was looking at.  I was working off of memory from about 3 years ago since I couldn't find the link.  I had assumed from looking at the autopsy pictures that the perp had expired at the scene but I was wrong and I had forgotten about the other rounds that he was hit by as well.  But the plus side of this example is that it actually makes an even stronger case for the semi-auto rifle in self defense than I had thought.  Sorry about the automatic vs. semi-auto thing with F&F.  That got by me.  Once again, thanks.  

Absolutely agree it makes a great case for needing the fire power! There are TONS of these types of cases out there where someone has been shot multiple times and continues to fight, even without the influence of drugs (the man in said FBI report only had trace amounts of THC in his system!).

Add that to the fact that the wonderful new game called 'home invasion robbery' is usually perpetrated by 3-4 assailaints and your standard sized magazine becomes woefully under armed.

A general rule I hear many police I know state is (paraphrased) "In a gun fight you miss half the time (real data shows you miss about 70%) and it takes 2 hits to stop someone".  That rule which is overly generous means in theory you need 12 rounds to defend against 3 attackers or 16 to defend against 4... Or if you are me, you have a reinforced panic room where you go hide and cry like a small child.

joesxm2011's picture
joesxm2011
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 16 2011
Posts: 237
Video Sent To CT Legislators

This video was produced today and is being sent to all of the CT legislators to help them understand the facts related to the home defense system that they are proposing to eliminate.

Chris Fields runs the King 33 Training Center in Southington CT where he trains civilians in various aspects of personal protection and safety, both armed and unarmed, individuals and families.

Chris has served in the Army Special Forces and as a DoD protection contractor.  He really knows his stuff.  I hope they listen to what he says.

The woman demostrating her AR-15 is a mother and grandmother from Sandy Hook CT.

Here is Chris at the same legislative hearing as Henson Ong mentioned earlier.  There were 1500 people there who had to freeze in line for two hours due to metal detectors that were set up special for the event and some of whom had to stay until 2:30am to get their chance to testify.

Rector's picture
Rector
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 8 2010
Posts: 322
Old Joke - Texas Sherriff

I too cracked up reading about the gangs of women!  truly scary thought. 

Great summary of the issue and much appreciated contribution. The rifle has always been the primary weapon of self defense.  Reminds me of this old Joke:

"An old time Sheriff showed up at the church social wearing his revolver. An elderly lady asked, "I see you brought your sidearm, Sheriff, are you expecting trouble?" The old lawman politely replied, "No ma'am, if I was expecting trouble I'd have brought my rifle."

I will pass assault rifles to my children and grandchildren - regardless of any outside dictates, social norms, or risk.  

Rector

Rector's picture
Rector
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 8 2010
Posts: 322
How Refreshing

Thanks for being intellectually fit enough to change your long held beliefs and admit it. A very rare thing these days. Come to Texas sometime and go shooting at the ranch.  You'll love it. 

ralfy's picture
ralfy
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 31 2008
Posts: 60
Actually, the purpose of the

Actually, the purpose of the Second is to justify the formation of well-regulated militias. The right to bear arms should require no approval from government because it is an intrinsic right, part of the right to self-defense and of English common law. But because the need to defend others is not intrinsic, then the right to bear arms as part of defending oneself was used as justification to form militias needed for people to defend their country.

"State" was used in place of "country" because militias that were already formed were used as slave patrols. Thus, as state legislators could use the militias for whatever purpose was needed for their region, the federal government could also use the same militias to quell rebelling whites as well as Amerindians. Proof can be seen in Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the Militia Acts.

The same Militia Acts required conscription (removed much later), i.e., all white males of a certain age range had to arm themselves and serve in militias regulated by state legislators and answerable to the federal government.

Thus, the claim that the Second is meant to allow people to protect themselves against the government is wrong. The purpose of the Second is actually the opposite: to make people serve the government through militias using the right to bear arms as justification.

Finally, examples involving the Soviets, etc., show not only the effects of gun control but also the effects of the opposite, i.e., arms proliferation and mechanized armies. That's why even in the U.S. the police and military have better armaments and provisions such as surveillance and prison systems, all ironically supplied by the same arms industry that lobbies for gun control and costs passed on to citizens. The same arms industry, through lobbying, is also able to profit from arms sales to other countries. In several cases, the same government uses those sales as part of military aid to influence some countries and destabilize others, with costs once more passed on to citizens.

ao's picture
ao
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2009
Posts: 2220
cyber warriors

ralfy wrote:

Actually, the purpose of the Second is to justify the formation of well-regulated militias. The right to bear arms should require no approval from government because it is an intrinsic right, part of the right to self-defense and of English common law. But because the need to defend others is not intrinsic, then the right to bear arms as part of defending oneself was used as justification to form militias needed for people to defend their country.

"State" was used in place of "country" because militias that were already formed were used as slave patrols. Thus, as state legislators could use the militias for whatever purpose was needed for their region, the federal government could also use the same militias to quell rebelling whites as well as Amerindians. Proof can be seen in Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the Militia Acts.

The same Militia Acts required conscription (removed much later), i.e., all white males of a certain age range had to arm themselves and serve in militias regulated by state legislators and answerable to the federal government.

Thus, the claim that the Second is meant to allow people to protect themselves against the government is wrong. The purpose of the Second is actually the opposite: to make people serve the government through militias using the right to bear arms as justification.

Finally, examples involving the Soviets, etc., show not only the effects of gun control but also the effects of the opposite, i.e., arms proliferation and mechanized armies. That's why even in the U.S. the police and military have better armaments and provisions such as surveillance and prison systems, all ironically supplied by the same arms industry that lobbies for gun control and costs passed on to citizens. The same arms industry, through lobbying, is also able to profit from arms sales to other countries. In several cases, the same government uses those sales as part of military aid to influence some countries and destabilize others, with costs once more passed on to citizens.

Aaron provided a fine answer to this dubious statement in another thread.  I'd refer you there put I don't have the link offhand. I think you've read it though. 

And may I remind everyone again of cyber warriors.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/52923

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
Good Thread

This is a good discussion.  People need to think about self defence in a serious way as in the not too distant future you may have to defend yourself.  One thing I keep thinking is why does the government not want us to be able to defend outselves.  If they don't trust me with firearms then I don't trust them with firearms as the government is basically us.  For the most part the government is made up of Americans - us.  There are people who live all around me who are armed to the teeth and I never worry about them coming over to the house to kill us.  Just the opposite, I am glad they have firearms and know how to use them.  We may need that in the coming months and years.

I know there is a political agenda in the Dem party to try to get our firearms and it seems like they are willing to run an extensive media campaign in an effort to inflame public opinion to get them.  That is backfiring on them and firearm sales are at an all time high as a result.  I do not believe the Repubs will agree to a law to take our guns but you never know - the Repubs keep surprising me to the downside.

It really comes down to the constitution.  Are we a civil society operating under the rule of law grounded by the constitution or not ?  It is all coming down to that one question.  Are we or aren't we...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments