Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Words Have Meaning

"Semi-automatic" seems to be the word du jour with regard to misunderstanding. The concept is so simple, but the pols and talking heads seem unable to comprehend it.

Try this: one trigger squeeze results in one round going down range. Pull the trigger and you get a shot off.

But that doesn't suit the agenda, does it? You can't disarm a people when you apply that definition.

How about these firearms:

  1. Pistol, i.e. semi-automatic weapon. Every cop in the land carries one. Most citizens who buy a hand-gun will choose one. They come in a variety of calibers from puny to significant and with magazines (not clips!) that carry anywhere from five to twenty rounds. 
  2. Revolver. One trigger squeeze results in a round going down range and a chamber positioned to do it again, hence "semi-automatic". 
  3. Shotgun: multiple flavors but other than single-shot versions, all can be described as delivering one shot per trigger actuation. 
  4. Hunting rifle (whatever that might mean today). Other than single-shot and bolt-action, they all turn out to be semi-automatic. 
  5. AR-platform rifles. All semi-automatic. Come in a huge range of calibers, barrel lengths, sighting formats, accessories, and magazine capacities. Used for everything from squirrels and prairie dogs to elk, moose and bear. They aren't "military" anymore. They are modern, efficient, quality and in demand. 
We've been down the "assault weapon" highway before. The result wasn't reduction in availability, it was a huge prod for development of new and more efficient systems. Prices went up because of demand, but the end game was that sportsmen, 2nd Amendment supporters, target shooters and collectors got more guns. The "high capacity magazine" ban didn't do diddly for supply, only for price. 

Then, while Dianne Feinstein rants about 100 round "clips" and military assault weapons notice the attack scenario in Aurora. 

Enter theater in full body armor. Deploy incendiary grenades (not gun first). In confusion commence firing with shotgun, not "assault weapon". Then when the AR is brought into play, the uselessness of the 100 round magazine becomes apparent. It jams. (If anything, Feinstein should seek elimination of smaller mags and demand only 100 round versions!)

Please, humor me this morning. Dig out a copy of the Constitution and read the 2nd Amendment. Read it to someone you love. Find the words "hunting" or "handgun" or "self defense" in the short sentence. 

Don't pontificate about "militarization" because that is precisely what the amendment deals with. It recognizes that the Revolution was fought by citizens against an oppressive government with their personal firearms. 

Don't tell me that can't happen again. It happened in the Balkans in WW II. It happened with the Resistance in France. It happened when the Viet Cong resisted the most powerful military in the world with a peasant army. It happened when the mujaheddin resisted the Russians in Afghanistan. It's going on again in several places around the world. 

When you hear some fool blustering about not taking your hunting rifle away, explain the concept to him. Use small words so he/she can understand.  


FlyingBarrister said...

I'll go further for the purpose of expounding and show the underpinning of the Second Amendment (and Bill of Rights in general) and the Declaration. It is the Virginia Declaration of Rights, and it is no historical secret that Jefferson and Madison relied the work of George Mason (the quiet genius) in drafting their own works. Articles III and XIII provide more insight into what the Revolutionaries that drafted the Constitution were really thinking.

III. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; of all the various modes and forms of government that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.

XIII That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.

immagikman said...

Dont forget, an AR is simply a .22 caliber rifle....unless its an AR-10 or some other variant. It's black and the Military uses some version of it so it = scary = evil.

foxone12 said...

As you said, Ed, the trouble is, people throw out words without knowing what they mean, or bothering to ask. But, in this case, the situation goes well beyond not understanding or not knowing the meaning of words. The anti-gun arm of the militant Democratic Party will use any possible speck of light to get their camel's nose under the tent. They don't care what the words mean. They don't care if their solution takes care of a problem or not. They thrive on power and power alone and The Mob mentality is how they get and maintain their power. They don't give a hoot about who was killed or why. They don't care if this was an isolated incident by a madman. By baying about the Second Amendment, they hope to bring the mobs out who will 'demand' that guns finally and forever be eliminated. The result, their solution wins. Their power increases. How many solutions have the Dems come up with over the past decades, 'solutions' that only created larger problems? I'm going to have to take off my shoes and use my fingers twice.

Old NFO said...

Well said sir! Well said!!! And I don't think you CAN explain it in small enough words!

hitman said...

Remember the "Assault Weapons Ban" Every time the media did a piece on that, they showed someone shooting a full auto AK-47. They never bothered to explain the difference because that's how they operate. The average Joe didn't know the difference and the people that did weren't going to change thier minds anyway. I don't know how many times I heard someone say "I don't know why anyone needs a machine gun" and then having to explain the truth. Most of the time, they didn't believe me. Everyone here know that the 2nd Amendment doesn't have a damn thing to do with duck hunting.

The Donald said...

Words Have Meaning...but not so much a world full of anti-semantics.

The actor Jason Alexander tweeted the other day about the Aurora tragedy. While his essay lacked the condescension and snarkiness of a Jon Stewart, Michael Moore, or Bill Maher, it still fell flat in terms of factual integrity.

It still surprises me that liberals cannot grasp the context and purpose of the prefatory phrase of the Second Amendment. Contextually, that 'well regulated' today would mean 'well practiced', as well as that the whole of the people comprised the militia, not a select few. In terms even Woody Harrelson could understand, the phrase might be as follows: "Dude, so this $#!+ [revolution] don't have to happen again, let's all practice shooting a lot, yo!"

Thankfully, the F²s (Founding Fathers) were more eloquent.

I was also amused at the ignorance of the hoplophobes in asserting that the AR-15 is much more powerful and deadly than "hunting rifles".

My .270s (1 bolt, 1 Farquharson)would take acute umbrage at that statement.

FlyingBarrister said...

I don't know anyone that "needs" an abortion. But just try to place some "common sense" and "reasonable" restrictions on the left's favorite bloody sacrament and see what they do. The Second is an express amendment and protects formative, foundation rights that are underlie the freedom and existence of this country. Abortion "rights" (which really are more like an a bloody atheist sacrament to the left) exist at the federal level exclusively due to a contrived judicial fiat. But the Left, being the principled and intellectual bunch they believe themselves to be, would impose extreme restrictions on the the rights protected by the express Second amendment, while demanding absolute freedom of restraint on the fiat rights of abortion. They advocate extreme constraint even abolition of gun rights on the grounds that someone might die, while ignoring that under the fiat of the abortion sacrament someone dies every time.

If any stats are correct or to be trusted, the number of Americans that have died as a result of abortion dwarfs the number of civilians killed by civilians in gun crimes.

bongobear said...

Okay, I give up. I can not find 'hoplophobe' in any dictionary I own. What do it mean?

Ed Rasimus said...

First for Bongobear: hoplophobe is somone with a psychotic fear of weapons.

Then for "Barrister"--the 9th Amendment tells us that just because rights aren't mentioned doesn't mean they don't exist and the people retain them regardless. So we can have a "right to privacy" which is what Roe v Wade is based upon.

The first amendment freedoms of association and expression imply privacy in who you associate with.

The third implies privacy since you can deny lodging in your home.

The fourth implies privacy since you can't be subjected to unreasonable search/seizure.

The fifth implies privacy because it supports confidentiality between spouses, attorneys, healthcare practitioner, and clergy.

And the 14th allows for that privacy to be incorporated.

Bottom line is that "choice" is protected and the solution isn't to outlaw abortion but to provide such alternatives that the right choice is the choice made.

FlyingBarrister said...


The problem with the Ninth Amendment argument is the Tenth Amendment pre-constitutional history and regulatory history before Roe v. Wade. The decision in Roe is very unprincipled and ignores the clear history that demonstrates the colonies and states had the power to regulate abortion and understood themselves to have such power at the time of ratification. Nothing changed in the text of the constitution, and that power to regulate was reserved under the 10th, which came later in time to the 9th. Moreover, there is nothing in the 9th that states it was intended to eviscerate Article IV and give judges a way to rewrite the constn and avoid the prescribed manner to amend it. A principled decision in Roe would have resulted in a holding that there was no federal bar to state abortion laws or a federal right protecting abortion, and it was therefore up to the states as it had been since colonial times.

hitman said...

For Bongobear. I think the word "hoplophobe" was first coined by the late Col. Jeff Cooper. You might try an internet search on him for more info.

bongobear said...

Thanks, Hitman...I'll look him up.

bongobear said...

For Hitman.
As a retired Marine I can not believe I've never heard of Jeff Cooper. I'm daily amazed by the things I don't know.