Spraying Lead

Thursday, February 28, 2013
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

As a veteran of WWII, and armorer for the 801st M.P. Battalion, I know what a military assault rifle does. It is designed to kill as many men as possible, as quickly as possible. Spray lead! Establish immediate superiority in fire power!

Why would anyone want such a vicious weapon? One could mow down a herd of deer or (God forbid) a crowd of schoolchildren, with ease. All military/assault rifles should be banned, now.

Why is the NRA defending assault rifles? Can it be that the NRA is planning an insurgency or revolution against the U.S. Army?


Independent Discussion Guidelines

"Why is the NRA defending assault rifles? Can it be that the NRA is planning an insurgency or revolution against the U.S. Army?"

Please tell us what the specifications are for the assault rifle you mentioned above. Please recount what the 2nd and 3rd Amendments to the Constitution state.

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
February 28, 2013 at 6:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank You for your Service.

Since you claim to be an Armorer, you should know that the military definition of "assault rifle" is "select fire". Select Fire arms have been federally regulated since 1934, before WWII, and are not legal in California unless you are Hollywerid.

Assault Weapon is a made up legal definition to make everyday "semi-automatic" rifles evil. The current bill before the California Legislature aims to make this Ruger 10/22 .22LR an "assault weapon just because it can accept a magazine over 10 rounds.

SB 374 – Senate Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D- Sacramento)
Summary: Ban and forced registration of all semi-automatic rifles (including rimfire)

So now .22 long rifle cartridges are now military cartridges. The Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) shot 30-06 with a 150 grain bullet not .22 long rifle with a 40 grain bullet.

Please study the real law and see they want to put many Centerfire and Rimfire rifles under the heading of "assault weapon" which is a made up definition.

Please read the bill.

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
February 28, 2013 at 4:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You do realize hgwmv that we're both attempting to point out the facts to folks that ignore the facts and only like our Constitution when it suites them.

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
March 1, 2013 at 5:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes I know, logic, truth and human history should not be part of the conversation. Thomas Jefferson must be rolling in his grave.

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
March 1, 2013 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Since when did we elect you Grand Ruler to tell us what we can and can't have?

RealityCheck22 (anonymous profile)
March 6, 2013 at 7:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

here are Amendments 2 and 4:
II - Right to keep and bear arms
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
IV - Right of search and seizure regulated
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The use of military assault rifles is not specified here. The government thus has the right to regulate them, and along with millions of Americans (including Brad Currey) I hope they are regulated more thoughtfully.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
March 6, 2013 at 1:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well folks, once again, the root cause of the problem isn't being addressed but guns--like marijuana--are divided among the liberal/conservative polemic and ultimately people clamor for more laws to be passed.

What about all the people who are cut down by drunk drivers? Why aren't the politicians doing something about that?

billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 6, 2013 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Politicians thrive on unresolved problems; leaders solve problems with or without public clamor..

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 6, 2013 at 3:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Seems like politicians and Californians ARE "doing something about that" in spite of keeping your eyes closed and ears plugged, "billclausen."

: : "Alcohol-involved crash fatalities decreased by 15.2% in 2010, the biggest decline since a decreasing trend started 4 years ago."
- - 2012 Annual Report of the California DUI Management Information System

I'm not optimistic that any facts presented will get between "billclausen" and his well-oiled rant, however.

binky (anonymous profile)
March 6, 2013 at 4:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe they'd even decrease more if they actually spoke out against drinking and driving, including the beloved tradition of "wine tasting".

By the way Binky, you might want to check out this link about Democrats and wine tasting.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 7, 2013 at 3:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Both Parties love getting donors liquored up. They'd get voters intoxicated too if they could.
Then of course there's Armendariz.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 7, 2013 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

That is true Ken, like the hyper-capitalists who run the Santa Ynez Valley (Republicans almost to the last person) but absolutely refuse to speak up against the wine bars.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 7, 2013 at 3:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gun ownership is on a voluntary decrease according to this report:

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2013 at 4:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)


The Bill of Rights does not Grant rights. Rights come from our Humanity and thus existed before Government. No where in the Bill of Rights is the right to an Abortion mentioned. By your logic Abortion should be banned by Government. SOTUS has ruled that Abortion is indeed a Human Right and Government should not interfere just as SCOTUS has ruled that RTKBA is a Human Right. Several Cases are in process that will define restrictions just as Abortion has Third Trimester issues.

I personally abhor Abortion but on the otherhand I don't believe its Governments business to be involved.

Your going to have to deal with your Hoplophobia at some point.

Rights are Rights not everyone is going to like all of them but you do need to learn to respect them and the People that don't want to be part of your Utopian Nanny State.


States do have the right to regulate booze, there is an Amendment for that, California could pass a "package liquor" law which would allow use in the home but not Public, why doesn't it, follow the Money.

The Current Left/Right are just the same, they just differ in what Rights they want People "they look down upon" to be able to have, nothing more. Nothing ever changes the Pendulum of Power just keeps swinging Left/Right. Tick Tock, Tick Tock.

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2013 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

thanks HGWMV, I learned a new word (and it is newis): "hoplophobia" is a neologism coined by Jeff Cooper in 1962 and means an inherent fear of weapons (and gadgets). I own a .22 bolt action rifle and have shot it with my son when he was about 12. I earned Marksman (pretty poor) on the M-14 at Ft. Benning ROTC boot camp and enjoyed firing the weapon. You are way off in your assessment, but it might teach you something about yourself and your own opinions and blind spots: you have your own eireno-phobia, another Greek neologist I just coined meaning "irrational fear of peace". You seem to think you have to be armed to feel secure. So sorry you're full of fear AND that negativity at the end of your post. Hey, it ain't that bad, pardner!
Many of us are against having such lax gun regulation in the US (Calif. is good, actually), and I possess the HUMAN RIGHT (your point) to express my opinions. I also vote my opinions, and try to sway others' views.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2013 at 5:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: