Sober Talk From New Hampshire Democrats on Assault Weapons?
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 05:32AM 
The Union Leader has an editorial out this morning that quotes some members of New Hampshire Democrat leadership as tip-toeing around the current wave of rhetoric and discussion on what to do about guns.
Instead, they are asking what are probably important questions about mental health services but I suspect that their interest here is more about using Newtown as a way to grow the state budget…for mental health. Rolling back the right to self defense is not necessarily the quickest route to more government and it is important to keep your eyes on the prize.
State Senate Democrat Sylvia Larsen, however, is reported as wanting to take a more aggressive approach on guns. She is all in on an assault on assault weapon and would like to roll back stand your ground laws, and restrict carry rights in the State House. So perhaps this would be a good time to ask? Do you wait for the assailant to change clips before you draw your weapon (assuming you are permitted to have it with you) or are you just supposed to run away and hope their aim stinks?
Update: The NH House rules committee, now run by Democrats, predictably banned guns from the House controlled portions of the State House yesterday by a vote of 6-4. The measure must now go to a floor vote.
You are reading "Sober Talk From New Hampshire Democrats on Assault Weapons?" by Steve Mac Donald originally posted at GraniteGrok.com (Home)
Steve has been recognized as the Americans For Prosperity Blogger of the month for December 2012
Democrats, Gun Ban, Gun Control, Guns, New Hampshire in Democrats, Gun Rights, Liberty Deniers, NH, Second Amendment
Reader Comments (10)
The Second Amendment has the words "...well-regulated..." If words in our Constitution are to mean anything -- and they do -- how do you interpret those words?
Is there no common ground, or do the profiteers of the NRA and the gun industry just want to make as much money out of this as they can?
First, if you are going to argue "need" then you concede that guns, no matter what kind on some level are needed? I meet people every day that foolishly tell me, "You (meaning me) do not need "a" gun...not a pistol, not a rifle, nothing...that is what the Police are there for. So you acknowledge that we "need" guns. And the same people will also argue that we need cars....I agree. Cars are transportation. But why you need a Lexus? why not just buy a Yugo? You don't need a Lexus...A Yugo has the same four wheels and engine that will get you from point A to Point B.
"Pumping out 100 bullets a minute" Ignorant statement commonly made by those utterly unfamiliar with Firearms, how they operate and their limits. Anything capable of pumping out 100 bullets per minute would likely be damaged and dangerous to the shooter in a semi-automatic capacity. Machine guns are regulated through the BATFE (Class III) and there is not much of a likelihood he would have gotten access to that type firearm. Modifying a semi-auto to shoot full auto is a dicey and risky thing to do and it commonly isn't done. It takes a certain skill set and knowledge body to do so.
James Eagen Holmes the Colorado Movie Theater shooter used a 100-round beta mag that jammed long before he got to 30 rounds. He was a nutjob, who took a series of actions prior to shooting where several people DID NOTHING. He was under the care of a psychiatric professional who has a journal of his rantings, yet she made no reports to Law Enforcement.
Finally, if you review all of the details of the majority of mass murders, scary black guns were rarely used. The common firearms used were pistols. Moreover, more regulations restricting firearms has no effect on criminals and nutjobs, only law abiding citizens. There is a wealth of data that supports that assertion, no matter what confabulative fictions you liberals create.
Firearms are tools of Utility. I hunt upland game with my fully-trained German Shorthaired pointer Chloe. She has been trained, I have training and years of experience. I use a break-action 12 gauge shotgun. holds only two shells. That shotgun is "specific" to upland hunting. Inversely, I use a semi-automatic shotgun for waterfowl because the birds fly very fast and it is difficult to get them on the first shot. Another example of a specific use.
Years ago, when I competed in slowfire long distance rifle competition, I used a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle with a 20-round magazine. This enabled me to stay focused on the paper 500 yards down range, not having to stop and chamber a round each and every time. I have a Weatherby Vanguard in 300 Winchester Magnum with a variable power scope. I have taken very long shots at game out on open plains...In my view, all rifles are specific to the task I am trying to achieve.
You cannot argue that any one of those rifles are specifically for killing people, for ALL of them have that capability when used wrongly and illegally. They are just as capable of killing as was a 2006 Jeep Grand Cherokee that mowed down a bunch of students going to and from class at UNC Chapel Hill some years ago. I have a Machete for clearing brush....that will kill as well. And of course the media was silent about the Chinaman that killed 28 kids with a knife.
So the whole "need" argument is a red herring. When you restrict and take away those firearms at some point, when do we next determine that people don't "need" revolvers, pistols, muzzleloaders or other dangerous weapons like Atlatls or Bows and Arrows or sling shots?
Keep demonizing and focusing on firearms and when they are all gone (if you people get your own way) you can stand around outside the next massacre wondering what went wrong. No focus on Mental Health laws, School Security and obligations to fellow people, making it somebody elses problem is short-sighted and ignores the real problem.
Just would like to know the underlying context and thesis for your position. Don't try to distract from those questions -- because you're not winning this in the national debate, and you won't until you join the rest of the world and be reasonable.
Let's have some sober talk.
– C. dog wishes once again a merry X-mas to Jimbo and a hope he gets his ticket to Nanny Land
Your premise on the concept of "limits" is not only corrupt, but intellectually flawed...
A .22 caliber "rimfire" bullet (just the lead projectile) is a diameter of .222. A .223 Remington, also known as a 5.56 x 45mm NATO. UNDERSTAND that only 1/1,000th of an inch separate these two projectiles in size (diameter). a .22 rimfire bullet, on average is 40 grains in weight. A .223 projectile is between 55 and 62 grains on average. And that is where the similarities end.
a .223 Remington round (or 5.56x45mm) round, with a 55-grain Nosler Ballistic tip has a velocity of roughly 3,200 feet per second, depending on the charge strength. An average .22 caliber rimfire bullet has a muzzle velocity of roughly 1,065( +/-) feet per second. Obviously, there are different accuracies at different distances...but that is not relevant in the context you "fish for," now is it? Distance is not on the table because most shooting sprees are up close and personal.
Enter the larger bore rifles. I own a lever action Rifle chambered in 45-70 Govt. The projectile it shoots is .458 in diameter. in this context that is, "huge." The bullet weighs 500 grains...that is "heavy". When one squeezes the trigger, the rifle packs quite a wallop to the shoulder. Then there is the Armalite AR-50's, MacMillan TAC 50, and the Barrett M82A1, all of which employ the massive 50 caliber, (.510 diameter) 650-800 grains in weight. These are all designed as long range shooting rifles.
All of the rifles I have mentioned above have one overarching aspect in common: They all WILL end human life when criminally used. Their power, size and round capacity is of no consequence when people are dead as a net result. Dead is dead, no matter what caliber or how many bullets. It only takes one bullet to induce mortality. Just one.
If you read my entry, "A Common Thread" I gave specific examples of mass killings where "non-scary black guns" were used. In fact, one was a bolt-action .22 Rimfire rifle.
Finally, I point to a firearm I own that is intriguing. I own a .17 HMR. (Hornady Magnum Rimfire). A 17 caliber bullet is the SAME SIZE as what is sold for projectiles used in air rifles (pellet guns). Only, the .17 HMR leaves the muzzle at roughly 2,600 feet per second and is lethal at long ranges, putting down woodchucks and coyotes. The bullet size is miniscule in comparison to others.
So your question what limits would you place on size is based on a flawed premise. Thus, I do not have an answer. But you just go right ahead and mischaracterize what I have shared because thats what you liberals do. You folks will continue to selectively focus on the implement, while ignoring other implements selected in homicides (bats, knives, cars, iron pipe, etc.) Because you all are soft on criminals, oppose death penalties and do not wish to hold anybody accountable for their behavior.
So, you're losing the debate, my side is winning. Because no matter how you try to detract from the core issue here, trying to wrap your view in "freedom" and "the government's coming after me," the values that Americans have are going to win out.
We're winning back our country. And the insanity of gun nuts is being turned back.
God bless America.
Oh, and Merry Christmas to you.
Other than recantations of your DNC talking points, can't muster the I.Q. to address my questions? What the matter, all those words in the rule book too challenging? By the way, your side winning likely to be a Pyrrhic victory when you run out of guans to fund your Lib lifestyle. I'll be cheerleading from the sidelines: Go BozO, Go!
– C. dog, with visions of rainbows, diversity of education choices, and unicorns in his head
I'm really hoping Harold catches on to this.
I think he may have taken someone a bit too seriously.
Harold emails me from time to time I'll try cut and paste few things together so he gets it.
He is a serious guy and shouldn't fall for the talking points stunt. Harold treats everyone as an equal, you can't always.