Post

Britain france and ireland wrote:

IMO some gun control is ok, in that I can’t really see why anyone should own a rapid-fire assault rifle.

The most obvious error in your statement is that assault weapons in private hands are very rare here. To own one requires: A $200 tax stamp from the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for each weapon; Some kind of blessing from the head of local law enforcement; and navigation of a complex maze of state and local laws to make sure your new toy is not in violation of some Snowflake's useless attempt to outlaw them. Then one must be vigilant to make sure those same set of lawgivers don't outlaw your gun sometime in the future.

Like most people watching the news, you assume the talking heads know what they are talking about. They do not. An assault weapon has a fire select switch that allows the shooter to choose between single shot and fully automatic fire. Fully automatic means the weapon will fire and continue to fire as long as the trigger is held or it runs dry, whichever comes first. The latest generation of real assault weapons may also have an option that fires in bursts of three which is three shots per trigger pull.

The term assault weapon as it is bandied about by the lying sacks of fertilizer in the media and within the gun control advocate groups is being applied to weapons based on their cosmetic appearances. We are talking AR-15's (which really have no place on a battlefield), the Russian and Chinese SKS rifles (kind of a cheap civilian version of an AK-47), and Heckler & Koch's MR556 and MR762 highly customizable series of rifles. These idiots are are afraid of things that have no actual bearing on the weapon's ability to fire or rate of fire. We are talking about barrel shrouds, pistol grips, folding stocks, etc. If it looks like it came out of a Rambo movie, these professional victims get their panties all up in a wad.

As to why someone would want those types of weapons, I can only speak for myself. I do not hunt, but enjoy shooting. In particular I enjoy combat shooting on "Hogan's Alley" style ranges with both handguns and shotguns. I used to enjoy long range shooting out to a thousand yards, but I am too old, too shaky, and don't see as well as I once did. So I hang out on the 300 yard range with those weapons now.

However, none of these reasons are why the Second Amendment exists. Not to bring up a sore spot with our friends across the pond, but the founding fathers of this nation saw what happens when government disarms the population. As such they ensured the federal, state and local governments within the United States would never have a legal basis to disarm the population as a whole. This was done so the individual citizen would have the means to defend their home, their community, and their nation from all threats, including a domestic government that gets too far out of line.

It also bears pointing out those muzzle loading flintlocks and blunderbusses of the time were their "assault weapons." The founding fathers meant exactly what they wrote.

In my case, where I live the average emergency response time for the sheriff runs around 20-25 minutes. Should I be in a bad situation requiring armed backup, that situation is going to be over in 90 seconds. Should the fates ever frown on me enough to drop me into a mess like that, I would prefer to do my explaining to the police verbally rather than through the findings of the medical examiner. It is with that thought in mind that I choose to be armed to the teeth with the most efficient killing machines I can legally own.

Government control needs to be exercised on the mentally ill, the criminals, and anyone else expressing a desire to hurt others, not law abiding gun owners.

Britain france and ireland wrote:

Ultimately stopping people from owning handguns etc. doesn’t prevent the criminals from getting guns and other weapons, since they don’t do so through legal channels anyway - it just stops law abiding citizens from defending themselves.

Exactly!

Britain france and ireland wrote:

Plus target shooting is fun and I wish I didn’t have to be licensed to death to do it. My two cents anyway.

What an unimaginable pain in the tail. Sorry you have to go through that.

Trecdom2 wrote:

I don't plan on moving closer to the beltway. Might pop in for some tourist stuff but that's about it.

As a veteran of many a trip to DC, I have one serious piece of advice: Don't drive there. Unless you have a monthly parking gig somewhere, there is literally no place to park. None. Monday through Friday, weekends, it doesn't matter, the place is jammed during the daylight hours. And you will spend hours sitting in stopped traffic. Find the nearest Metro station with a parking lot and go into the city from there.

The Metro is your friend. Get to know it and it will treat you well.

You are going to love the Smithsonian Museums. The air and space museum is amazing. Many people don't know there is a second Air and Space museum in Chantilly, VA next to Dulles Airport. That one is actually attached to the runway system at Dulles and is stocked with an enormous number of aircraft that were actually flown there. It is larger than the Mall facility. Last I heard they were expanding it and I think they got one of the space shuttles.

As cool as all that is, do yourself a favor and allow a full day (or more) to wonder the Smithsonian American history museum. You may find that you cannot get enough of that. Everytime I go there, I want to see more of it. I've made TV in that building.

The best part is the Smithsonian museums are all free.

While not free, I like the Newseum and the International Spy Museum. It is my understanding the Newseum my be closing soon, possibly to relocate. Kind of sad that, some pictures I took in the wake of Sept. 11th and Oklahoma City Bombing are hanging in there. (My one claim to fame!)

Enjoy!