Hysteria About “Assault Rifles”

Co-blogger, David Robertson, recently initiated a thread entitled Hysteria About Gun Control. In it, Robertson writes:

The American public generally favors logical restrictions on firearms and the quantity of ammunition that a firearm magazine can hold. However, as a USA Today editorial states, “The ever-powerful gun lobby stands in the way of such logical changes by twisting any move to limit the sale of certain kinds of guns into a menacing attempt to take away all guns.”

The accuracy of that last statement is displayed in an op-ed by Chris W. Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action. In it, Cox writes, “It’s time for us to admit that radical Islam is a hate crime waiting to happen. The only way to defeat them is to destroy them — not destroy the right of law-abiding Americans to defend ourselves.”

Cox is feeding the hysteria about gun control with such a statement. The politicians who demand stricter gun laws aren’t trying to “destroy the right of law-abiding Americans to defend ourselves.” They aren’t trying to eliminate the ability of hunters to buy the Browning, Henry, Marlin, Remington, Ruger, Savage, Thompson and Tikka rifles sold at Bass Pro Shops. The politicians aren’t trying to prevent the purchases of the pistols that Bass Pro Shops sell, either. People could still hunt with the aforementioned rifles and protect themselves with the aforementioned pistols even if the AR-15 and the Sig Sauer MCX were never again sold in the USA. Also, limiting magazines to a maximum capacity of 10 rounds wouldn’t stop Americans from hunting or from defending themselves.

I have frequently criticized David on these boards for his unwillingness or inability to understand an issue before commenting on it. The above remarks clearly show that he doesn’t have a clue what the pro-gun arguments are with respect to “assault rifles” or magazine capacity. If he showed a modicum of interest in what he is condemning, he would either change his views or at least broaden his ability to argue his points. Arguing from a position of ignorance is neither persuasive nor responsible.

On December 7, 2015, I posted The No-Fly List and the Assault Weapons Myth. Included therein is a quote from a well-known right-wing newspaper commonly called The New York Times:

OVER the past two decades, the majority of Americans in a country deeply divided over gun control have coalesced behind a single proposition: The sale of assault weapons should be banned.

That idea was one of the pillars of the Obama administration’s plan to curb gun violence, and it remains popular with the public. In a poll last December, 59 percent of likely voters said they favor a ban.

But in the 10 years since the previous ban lapsed, even gun control advocates acknowledge a larger truth: The law that barred the sale of assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 made little difference.

It turns out that big, scary military rifles don’t kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year. Little handguns do.

I added the following comments:

“Assault weapons” account for an extremely small number of murders, but the president wants to “make it harder for people” to get them. Why isn’t he focusing on handguns? To be certain, there’s no doubt that’s what he’d like to do, but political expediency comes before the facts with this administration. If the New York Times can finally admit the myth, the president should keep up with the Times instead of dwelling in his make-believe past. “Good guys” can stop terrorists so long as they have the means to do so. Targeting “assault weapons” does nothing to deter ISIS disciples. Citizens who can shoot back are an adequate remedy.

As we’ve said all along, Obama cannot really believe that his recommendations will work because he cannot tell us how his “solutions” will prevent the next attack. He can only hope that his dishonesty will convince a majority of Americans to adopt an incremental approach that will result in a total gun ban. Thus, the one who believes that it’s his responsibility to protect the American people believes that he is protecting them by taking their rights away.

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, stated, “We did have an assault weapons ban for 10 years, and I think it should be reinstated.” Does anybody remember how an “assault weapon” was defined? First, machine guns are regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. Many people assume that “assault weapons,” in the context of contemporary politics, are machine guns; they are not. The so-called assault weapons which were banned in 1994 were semi-automatic (a round fired with each trigger pull) rifles which could  accept detachable magazines and included two or more of the following features:   a folding or telescopic stock, a pistol grip, a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor, and a grenade launcher mount. Note, the distinguishing features of an “assault rifle” are cosmetic, not functional. An assault rifle is simply a semi-automatic weapon that looks like a soldier might carry it, but it is functionally no different than any other semi-automatic rifle. Semi-automatic pistols and shotguns were similarly regulated.

Since there are calls for a renewed ban, isn’t it advisable to see how effective the last ban was? As the Times admits, “It turns out that big, scary military rifles don’t kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year. Little handguns do.” The ’94 ban expired in September of 2003. According to the FBI, 390 people were murdered with rifles in 2003. That amounts to 2.7% of murder victims. So, 10 years after the ban, with assault weapons flying off the shelves, has the murder rate risen? Nope. In 2014, the FBI again reports that 248 murders were committed with a rifle. So, rather than increasing homicides, the number of murders with rifles has actually decreased (2% of murders). Who started the “more guns, more crime” mantra? As I previously reported, the gun homicide rate is down 49% since 1993. Somebody’s been selling a lie to the American people and it ain’t conservatives.

The same FBI report for 2014 shows that knives were responsible for 1,567 murders. Moreover, 660 people were murdered with “personal weapons” that the FBI defines as “hands, fists, feet, etc.” That means you are nearly three times more likely to be killed by somebody’s physical body than you are being the victim of a rifle and over six times more likely to be killed with a knife or some other cutting instrument.

What about the kinds of weapons used in mass shootings? According to the Washington Post, a very wide assortment of weapons were used, but…

Shooters in the two deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history [not factoring in, of course, the latest shooting] carried models of the country’s most popular types of weapons. The gunman who killed 32 students and teachers at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007, used a 9mm semiautomatic Glock 19 (and a .22-caliber Walther P22, another popular caliber). These guns, used by many law enforcement officers, are generally light, inexpensive, easy to conceal and require little strength to control. In this tally of weapons, 9mm semiautomatic handguns show up more than any other weapon.

So, the weapon of choice for mass murderers appears to have been the 9mm handgun. David Robertson, if you’re so concerned about the number of potential victims of mass murderers, why don’t you take a cue from history and call for a ban of the 9mm?

The same Washington Post article states, “People killed in mass shootings make up less than half of 1 percent of the people shot to death in the United States. More than half of gun deaths every year are suicides. In 2015, more than 12,000 people have been killed by guns, according to the Gun Violence Archive.” There were 12,000 firearms deaths in 2015 with more than half of them being self-inflicted. The remaining figure of over 5,000 deaths includes accidental shootings, and, again, the historical weapon of choice is the 9mm.

Why, then, is David and those who think like him getting hysterical about scary-looking semi-automatic rifles? For liberals, their objective is and always has been to strip Americans of their firearms. Educated liberals are well aware of the above statistics, and they know that banning military-looking rifles will neither stem gun violence nor curtail mass shootings. They want America to accept their anti-gun philosophy incrementally because they know that the current political environment will not give them everything. That’s why they question your “need” to have certain types of weapons. That’s why they reflexively go ad hominem by questioning your sanity for wanting a 30-round magazine. Who needs an AR-15 to go duck hunting?? They ridicule the notion of keeping the federal government in check, apparently wanting Americans to forget that it was an armed populace that overthrew Great Britain’s tyranny and established our nation. So, by logical fallacy, ridicule and goalpost moving, they dishonestly relegate firearms ownership to hunting and home defense. Once they achieve dominance in other areas, including the overturning of the Second Amendment via the Supreme Court, they’ll use the above statistics to go after handguns.They obscenely grandstand on the bodies of innocent victims in order to prevent law-abiding citizens the means to defend themselves against such aggression. They know that the vast majority of murders occur with handguns, and once they get Americans to adopt their “guns are the problem” mantra, they’ll successfully undermine handgun ownership. They’ll argue, “If you can accept the banning of certain weapons which are used in less than 1% of mass murders, isn’t it insane to allow other weapons which kill far more people?” And how will the David Robertsons of the world answer such a question?

Clinton has already stated that she does not agree with the Supreme Court decisions recognizing a personal right to keep and bear firearms:

And she will not hesitate to nominate an anti-gun judge to our nation’s highest court.

The ban on “assault weapons” is nonsensical from a gun-rights perspective. It is statistically wrong-headed and serves only to deprive law-abiding citizens of the weapons of their choosing. If a gun ban is to be adopted, shouldn’t the target be the type of weapon that causes the most carnage and death? That would be, as already stated, the handgun. Why, then, would somebody get twisted over a weapon that has historically been astronomically less threatening than handguns but would nonetheless passionately defend a weapon that has killed far more people? Such a person’s answer is our answer:  Self-defense is a fundamental human right and a firearm is one of the most effective means of accomplishing that. From over 60,000 to millions of times each year, Americans defend themselves with a wide variety of firearms. As with all dangerous equipment, there are inherent risks, including the fact that people will misuse the equipment and people will die. We all know that automobiles, as highly regulated as they are, kill more people than firearms, but we accept that as a consequence of using them. The majority of firearms deaths result from suicides, and if we ban all guns, Americans will find other ways to kill themselves. As shown elsewhere (including Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?), crime rates are not appreciably affected by such bans. So, the answer is not to ban guns. The answer is effective law enforcement, which includes enforcing the many gun laws we already have (with the full support of gun owners) and a strong security apparatus which includes the private ownership of firearms to both deter and to stop acts of crime. Gun-free zones are open invitations to mass murder.

Our detractors on these boards wonder what reasonable regulations gun-rights advocates support. That’s a rather odd request given the fact that many of us have numerous times stated our support for reasonable regulations. We all recognize that the unlimited exercise of certain acts may result in criminal liability. I may be free to speak, but libel may incur a stiff fine. As gun owners, we support background checks and keeping firearms out of the hands of felons and the insane. We support safety regulations, including restrictions on a minor’s use and ownership of firearms. We support the reporting of suspected criminal activity, including straw purchases on behalf of those who would be otherwise ineligible to purchase a firearm. We support stiffer penalties for criminal acts committed with a firearm and regulations and restrictions for non-citizens.

Without getting into the machine gun debate for the present, semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns, in spite of the wide variety of styles, function the same:  One trigger pull fires one round. There is a wide variety of standard hunting rifles that are as powerful or more powerful than so-called assault rifles. Given the absence of a functional distinction, the difference, as noted above, is merely cosmetic. Is this the rationale upon which to base a ban? Of course not. But wait, our detractors insist, what about magazine capacity? Doesn’t a 30-round magazine turn your “innocent” assault rifle into a killing machine far more lethal than your 30-06? Well, the ’94 ban included a 10-round per magazine limit, and we’ve already shown what kind of impact that had. If the objective is to reduce crime, it appears our opponents are barking up the wrong tree. Our opponents thus lack the logical footing to effectively argue against the continued legality of scary-looking weapons. They cannot point to crime statistics, and they cannot argue that a firearm that looks scary is any more lethal than the less scary-looking ones. So, what is the rational basis for a ban? There isn’t any. Again, “smart” liberals know this. They’re not after “assault weapons”; they’re after the weapon of choice for mass murderers. They are after the weapon “responsible” for the overwhelming majority of murders with firearms—the handgun.

If an act is constitutionally protected, then it is nonsensical to argue in terms of “need.” Why do you “need” to watch an R-rated movie (or higher)? Why do you need to read a profanity-filled book? Why do you need a nose ring? The answer is that we are free to choose our entertainment and how we express ourselves. Whether or not an act is constitutionally protected is not based on your subjective opinion of what somebody else needs. One must show from the Constitution why an act or possession of certain items are not protected. The argument is a legal one; it isn’t questioning the sanity of your opponents or ridiculing them with caricatures. If they have a legal argument, let them bring it. Otherwise, they’re just blowing smoke.

Instead of throwing more laws on the books that serve only to deprive honest citizens of their rights, we should insist that those in power stop dragging their feet on some of the laws we already have instead of pursuing a feel-good-do-nothing ban on scary guns:

 

Biblical Illiteracy Among Reporters
No Golden Ticket For Willy Wonka Candy Plant Workers
  • Commander_Chico

    This is all true. It is also true that availability of these weapons is a vulnerability which could be exploited to devastating effect. There have been only two obstructions to huge disasters, which are related to each other:

    1. Weak terrorist tactics. Too many big plots to blow up bridges, too many conspirators, too much of a focus on attacks on air travel and attacking big hard targets. Other than the anthrax attacks from within the government, the most effective and sustainable post-9/11 US terrorist attacks were the Beltway snipers. If the attackers had been a little smarter, more disciplined and with money, could have gone on a lot longer. The Beltway snipers used a Bushmaster AR-15 5.56mm type.

    2. Lack of human resources. These attackers like Mateen, John Muhammed and Nidal Hassan have been marginal losers with mental health issues. Other conspirators caught by the FBI range from the crazy to the retarded. It appears there are few or no people in America who are willing to pick up a gun and kill for terror who are not crazies on a suicide mission. Again, a disciplined terrorist who acted rationally within his frame could use the availability of these weapons to horrible effect.

    • Scalia

      Everado Custodio had a vulnerable crowd in his sights when he began firing into it, but a concealed-carry permit holder shot him down. That’s why I argue that the solution is not to strip Americans of their rights. We should rather ensure that those rights are protected. As we’ve often stated, gun-free zones are open invitations to mass murder. If the time ever comes, I want to be able to shoot back.

      • Commander_Chico

        There are numerous tactics which would not permit anyone to shoot back, e.g. Beltway Sniper and variants of that.

        You can engage with a Barrett .50 or a Lapua up to a mile.

        I don’t say take away rights, but acknowledge the possible price.

  • Brucehenry

    Since this is a “legal argument” what is the legal basis for the argument that the 1934 act is justified? Does the author of this post support its repeal, since some citizens may wish to obtain fully automatic weapons and consider them essential for self-defense?

    Also, yes, there are vastly more murders committed with handguns than with AR-15s and the like. But the impact on the national psyche of shootings like Orlando as opposed to domestic shootings or murders among drug dealers, etc is vastly greater, which helps explain why the outcry is so loud every time one happens. It may not be logical, but terrorism doesn’t provoke logical responses, now does it? If it did, we would never have invaded Iraq.

    • Wild_Willie

      You can buy an automatic weapon but the government has to approve and regulate. Due to the rise of gangsters at the time when people could not afford to arm themselves, there was a need to level the field. Also, Thompson, the maker of the machine gun was supposed to sell the weapon to only the military but broke that pledge. Then WWII came, etc. So your argument is moot. No one is clamoring for a machine gun. ww

      • They’re too expensive to feed these days, lol….

  • Par4Course

    Obama refuses to use “Islamic” in the same sentence as “terrorist” because most Muslims are not down with the jihad. He fails to note that 51% of American Muslims believe this country should adopt Sharia law and 60% of younger Muslims say they are more loyal to Islam than to the U.S. Instead, he wants to punish American gun owners, 99.9% of whom are both law abiding and loyal to their country. He refuses to acknowledge that most “gun violence” is committed by urban gang bangers with weapons that are already illegal or by those intent on self-destruction. “Gun control” would mostly result in disarming potential victims. If some of the targets at Pulse nightclub had been armed, there’s a good chance the number of dead and wounded would have been much lower.

    • Commander_Chico

      Polling like this means little

      1. Sharia law = 99 % Old Testament Bible law.

      That said, there is no central authority in Islam. Some Muslims say drinking is ok. There is a gay imam interviewed after Orlando who says Sharia ok with gay.

      2. How many American Christians would say America should follow Biblical law, put God, Christ before country?

      • jim_m

        Since we have existing examples of Sharia to draw upon and NO examples of “Biblical Law” as it would manifest itself in real life, your example and claim are a bunch of bullshit. As usual, you cannot say anything without including a bunch of BS.

        • Commander_Chico

          Compare 17th century Salem to Saudi Arabia now. Same shit.

          • In an ignorant pig’s eye.

          • jim_m

            Not really. Plus you are still going back 400 years or more. That proves the point that Islam is dangerously out of date and is a barbaric religion lagging behind civilization by many, many centuries and only idiots, bigots, and misogynists such as yourself defend it.

            Plus you prove my point that NOWHERE today does there exits the comparison that you are trying to make. You are a dishonest fraud and you side with the enemies of civilization.

          • Commander_Chico

            Yes, Islam is dangerously out of date. They take all that stoning shit seriously unlike most Christians.

          • Ha, ha!

          • jim_m

            Wait, I thought you were just arguing that Christians wanted that too? Or were you just being the lying bigot we already know you to be?

          • One must wonder why he has not taken this up with Richard and why Richard has had nothing to say on this thread nor on David’s…

          • Par4Course

            The point is apparently that Muslims today are as dangerous as 17th Century Christians. The difference is that Christianity evolved during the past 400 years, while Islam has either stayed the same or devolved. And it has more powerful means of killing “infidels.”

          • jim_m

            And that point would still be wrong. 17th century Christians weren’t seeking to kill people for non-belief. Nor were they believing that by killing the unbeliever that they were guaranteeing their place in Heaven.

            17th century Christians were not trying to force their religion by threat of death upon other people. In fact the very reason that there were Europeans in America in the 17th century was because they were not murdering people in Holland in an attempt to get the Dutch to forcibly convert to their beliefs.

            Christianity “evolved” long before that. Islam is stuck in the Dark Ages. They haven’t evolved their faith since Charles Martel drove them back to Spain.

          • Brucehenry

            Well, not that I think the “modern-day Islamic barbarity vs 17th century Christian barbarity” argument has much validity, but you are very very wrong on the facts if you think 17th century Christians weren’t seeking to kill people for non-belief.

            Ever hear of the Inquisition, the English Civil War, the Gunpowder Plot, or most importantly the Thirty Years War, which killed upwards of seven million people?

            http://necrometrics.com/pre1700a.htm#European

            The religious wars and persecutions of those who espoused the “wrong” belief or non-belief was precisely the reason those who became the Pilgrims had fled to Holland (an island of tolerance in a European sea of intolerance) in the first place.

            The very reason the Dutch were in rebellion against the Spanish Habsburgs in the 17th century was due to the Spaniards killing people to force their adherence to one brand of Christianity as opposed to another.

            Almost every time you reference historical facts you get them wrong.

          • Ha ha!

          • jim_m

            Yes, wars were started over religion, but interdenominational wars are of a different nature than launching wars of religious conquest. And yes, there were pograms against Jews and other groups but in the west these were the exception and not the rule.

            With 52% of muslims in Britain believing that homosexuality should be illegal it is hard to argue that islam takes the same view as Christians do today.

            No matter what you want to claim, the idea that islam and Christianity are the same today is nonsense and people like you and chico maintain that pose only because of your bigoted view of Christians.

          • Brucehenry

            No I agree that Islamic extremists today are not comparable to Christian extremists of today. I was just correcting you on the facts about the 17th century, about which you were deadass wrong.

          • Brucehenry

            As a matter of fact your fundamental wrongness about the events of the 17th century reveal how little you know of the subject as a whole. It was precisely the killing and persecution of the 17th century that led to the reaction called the Enlightenment, without which the Western world would be very different and the US as we know it might not exist.

          • jim_m

            And yet somehow after 14 centuries of unremitting barbarism islam has not changed one iota and you still cannot stop yourself from claiming that Christianity today is the same. You can’t hide the fact that you are still attempting to claim that Christianity is no different than Islam today despite the fact that Christianity shook off that sort of behavior and thinking centuries ago.

          • Brucehenry

            Nope you can’t read that is exactly what I just said, that the comparisons are not equivalent and that Christian bloodletting is in the past.

            But it IS there in the past, just not in the whitewashed version of history in your head. A version in which the Thirty Year War and the Inquisition were evidence that “17th Century Christians were not trying to force their religions by threat of death on other people.” Oh, and ignoring the reason that the English “Pilgrims” were refugees in Holland in the first place was because they feared persecution and murder in England.

            It’s a fundamental ignorance. Had it not been for the fact that there was, indeed, religious persecution and murder in 17th century Europe, all the things that were reactions to the same might never have happened — The Enlightenment, the American and French Revolutions, even conceivably the Industrial Revolution that followed.

          • You should write an article for us all to ignore. For the nonce I recommend folks ignore you and this digression.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes pardon the digression.

            “For the nonce.” LOL

          • jim_m

            OK. So let’s accept you point that BECAUSE there was unremitting violence in the name of Christianity, there was an elightenment.

            What then is wrong with islam that it has yet to have such an enlightenment and that its adherants yern for a return to the 7th century?

            Why is there no sense of morality or of the sanctity of human life in that religion? Even in the darkest times of Christianity there was a sense that the unbeliever was still human. That has never been the case with islam. Perhaps that is the secret of why it never reforms.

          • Brucehenry

            Perhaps it will still come. The Enlightenment occurred 17 centuries and more after Christianity’s founding. It has been 14 centuries since the founding of Islam.

            What evidence do you have for your assertion that “even in the darkest times of Christianity, there was a sense that the unbeliever was still human”??? Certainly that evidence is not found in say, the Crusades, or the Inquisition, or the Salem Witch Trials, or the Iconoclasm controversy, or the Albigensian Crusade?

          • jim_m

            You have evidence that any of those actually claimed that the targets were NOT human? The whole point was that they were human. The crusades, inquisition, etc were about saving souls. Radical muslims do not believe that nonbelievers are equally human with believers.

          • Brucehenry

            And, in a gesture of defiance to the First Rule of Holes, Jim returns three days later to further demonstrate his total ignorance of history.

          • jim_m

            You have done nothing but made an unsubstantiated claim and I have made one that is. Sorry about the delayed response. It’s called being gainfully employed, something you are obviously unfamiliar with.

          • Brucehenry

            You made an implied unsubstantiated claim of your own — that Islamic terrorists today do not consider their victims human. You don’t know that to be true, but in your rebuttal to me said that “even in the darkest times of Christianity there was a sense that the unbeliever was still human.” That implies, in the context of our discussion, that the terrorists of today do not have that sense. I am unaware of any Islamic terrorist claiming that unbelievers “aren’t human.” Are you aware of any such claim?

            I took your typical over-the-top rhetoric to be a euphemism for “What Christians did back then wasn’t so bad.” Isn’t that what you meant to imply?

            I think it was, but you’ll probably deny it, because you are dishonest as well as ignorant.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            Interesting you bring up the Albigensian Crusade. I had to write a paper on it in school and found it to be interesting, if for no other reason than it was initiated by Pope Innocent III and introduced genocide as a means to an end on behalf of religion.

            Additionally, allowing nobles to seek out and dispense with “heretics” was enthusiastically embraced due to the fact that they would be able to keep the lands of the vanquished.

            It is amazing that the Crusades lasted 500 years and utilized religion as the convenient excuse for land consolidation or conquest.

          • Brucehenry

            To be fair I’m pretty sure Innocent III wasn’t the first ruler to use genocide as a means to an end on behalf of religion.

          • jim_m

            In 627 Mohammad committed genocide against the Banu Qurayza tribe of Jews utterly destroying them as a society.

            That’s 6 centuries before Innocent III. Now who doesn’t know their fucking history.

          • Brucehenry

            That’s what I just said, JIm — that Innocent wasn’t the first, You illiterate dumbass.

            Mohammed wasn’t the first either.

            So to answer your question, “Now who doesn’t know their fucking history?”: Still you.

          • jim_m

            I didn’t claim that mohammad was the first, only that he was before Innocent III. Learn to read

          • Brucehenry

            Which is what I also pointed out. Why you can’t take yes for an answer is a mystery. Oh wait, no it isn’t.

            “Learn to read,” says Jim. L. O. Fucking. L.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            There were undoubtedly instances that fit the description of genocide. It is merely the case that the Albigensian Crusade was entirely consistent within the strictest definition of the word.

            Raphael Lemkin, well known as the coiner of the term genocide (which was not used until 1943), referred to the Albigensian Crusade as “one of the most conclusive cases of genocide in religious history”.

            Others have disputed this designation, but Mark Gregory Pegg, who is recognized as the foremost expert on not only the Inquisition, but also the Albigensian Crusade, suggested that,
            “The Albigensian Crusade ushered genocide into the West by
            linking divine salvation to mass murder, by making slaughter as loving an act as His sacrifice on the cross.”

            None of this is definitive as they are only opinions; perhaps it would be identified as an event that is among the most consistent with Lemkin’s definition.

          • Brucehenry

            It was a very interesting period. Didn’t Simon de Montfort play a key role in this so-called “Crusade?”

          • Clitoridectomies, burquas and headhacking?

            Ah, yeah…. no.

          • Commander_Chico

            1. Egyptian Coptic and Ethiopian Orthodox Christians find religious justification for FGM, too. It’s neither in the Bible nor Koran.

            2. Burqas a bit extreme, but women used to wear headscarves in Christian Europe. I remember when required for mass.

            3. Headhacking, used to behead people in Christian Europe, too, don’t know where that came from. If you have death penalty, only question is the method. USA used to burn people to death with high voltage, gas them, firing squads, hanging. Now “humane” injections.

          • Moral equivalence! WE ARE AS BAD AS THEY ARE!!!! So we can’t say anything’s wrong!

            Such reasoning – though it may be accurate, is extremely counterproductive. Basically you’re giving excuses for the practices in Islam that we find reprehensible in the West, and pointing out we’re no better than they are so we shouldn’t criticize them.

            Women are stoned for not wearing the burqua properly. Gays are killed. FGM’s ‘acceptable’. Putting up headcutting videos isn’t even to be frowned at.

            Isn’t there a point where we go “Yeah, we did crap like that – and we’re trying to do better” and actually get credit for trying to change? Or is is just the typical ‘hate on the West’ while getting a thrill out of embracing a culture that’d gladly kill all they disagree with?

      • “Sharia law = 99 % Old Testament Bible law.”

        We’ll put you down as either math impaired, or ignorant of both the Bible & Sharia law.

  • Retired military

    Less than 3% of the murders in 2015 were accomplished by the use of a rifle.
    As usual the left makes much ado about nothing. More poeple died from drunk drivers last year than by rifles and there are fewer cars in the US than firearms.

  • Wild_Willie

    I was just reading the comments below in regards to the shooting incident. It saddens me to see so many so called ‘smart’ people have no idea about constitutional law. ww

  • “They aren’t trying to eliminate the ability of hunters to buy the…Ruger…rifles sold at Bass Pro Shops.”

    Except the Ruger Mini-14 is virtually identical in caliber and functionality to the AR-15 and the Sig Sauer MCX. What kind of law can you write that bans one and not the other?
    “Wood stocks good. Black stocks bad” ?

    My local dead tree paper recently had an editorial to ban the AR-15. That day’s paper contained an insert from Big 5 advertising a sale on the Mini-14. (They also sell AR-15 knock offs)

    • Mini-14 accuracy leaves a lot to be desired.

      • No worries! Most of today’s wayward youth never bother to aim anyway!

      • jim_m

        Worked well enough in the Miami Shootout.

  • Par4Course

    “The American public generally favors logical restrictions on firearms and the quantity of ammunition that a firearm magazine can hold.” David Robertson. “The ever-powerful gun lobby stands in the way of such logical changes by twisting any move to limit the sale of certain kinds of guns into a menacing attempt to take away all guns.” – USA Today

    There is nothing “logical” about disarming potential victims. And there is no question that, because gun control does not reduce “gun violence,” it just leads to more gun control. It’s like every other failed liberal program, the more it fails, the more the leftist politicians want to expand it. “We just haven’t gone far enough,” they always claim. So if we ban AR-15s, and there is a gun attack using a different weapon, the gun grabbers will say, “The AR-15 ban didn’t go far enough.”

  • Vagabond661

    Secure borders of all legal and illegal immigration (we did it before. 60 years in fact. So the ones here could assimilate, not Press 2 for Spanish). Carry the fight overseas to ISIS and destroy them.

    Simple. Otherwise lose our sovereignty.