We’ve got mail: Why not just ban “assault-type” weapons?

George thinks Jim’s being unreasonable about 2nd Amendment rights, suggesting we redraw the line to ensure “assault-type” weapons that are really dangerous – as compared to the somewhat dangerous guns – are banned.

Here is the original email (dated Aug. 16) that I responded to. I have shortened the email a bit to exclude the introduction and the close. My own emphasis is in bold.

I am listening to you speak right now talk about guns. The right to bear arms is fundamental. I just don’t understand why gun rights advocates get their arms up about assault rifles and automatic weapons. Look, we aren’t allowed to buy tanks, bazookas, rocket launchers, and other weapons of destruction. Why aren’t you up in arms about that. There is a line somewhere that must be drawn to protect the general populous. The line needs to be drawn on one side or the other of these assault type weapons. Why can’t we move the line to disallow one more weapon type. When our forfathers gave us the right to bear arms, they were talking about muskets and pistols. So why can’t we accept owning rifles, shotguns, and handguns. All with a six shot limit. I feel safe. Why don’t you and the NRA feel safe with that? The right to bear arms is built on the premise that we should be able to protect our family and community from invaders and an oppressive government.

I just don’t understand why your opinions allow no room for discussion and a moving of your mind. I just don’t understand why you never have a moderate thought in your head. Lastly, I just don’t understand how the public can listen to you and Rush, day in and day out. It really sickens me.

I responded…

Steve here.

  1. Do you realize there is no difference at all between many hunting rifles and the so called “assault weapons” except for the way they look? These sport rifles/self defense rifles in many cases literally have the same ammunition, they just look evil and that seems to bother people. “Assault weapon” is a term made up by the anti-gun movement and no, ‘AR-15’ does not stand for “assault rifle 15.” In the firearm industry, I’ve heard the term assault weapon as referred to (exclusively) full auto rifles.
  2. Six rounds will not be enough in a self defense situation. Heck, 10 rounds may not be enough. I’m happy you feel safe with six rounds, just don’t limit my choice.
  3. 2nd Amendment advocates are not asking for the right to own a tank or a bazooka. Fully automatic weapons are rarely if ever used in a crime and they are heavily regulated by the federal government. Heck, sporting rifles are rarely, if ever used.
  4. Violent crime and murders have been down an average of 4.5% and 5.1% respectively for each year between 2007 and 2010. I’m not one to say that more guns have reduced the crime rate since many other factors are involved, but you’d be hard-pressed to prove more guns have contributed to a higher crime rate, or the rate would be lower with your proposed limits.
  5. Nonfatal firearm-related violent crimes are less than one-half of what they were in 1994.
  6. The percent of violent crimes involving guns has dropped from 11 percent in 1994 to 7 percent in 2008.
  7. The federal AWB expired in 2004, there has been zero uptick in crimes using “assault weapons.” It’s so infrequent, crimes with rifles barely make it into the overall statistics.
  8. Hi-capacity magazine limits don’t work. During the federal AWB, the Columbine shooters used both high-capacity and normal capacity magazines. [Once the federal AWB expired the] VT shooter used a Glock 19, for which he could have easily purchased 17, 19 or even 33 round magazines … he did not use them, rather had normal capacity 10 rounders plus a few 15 rounders.
  9. If the 2nd Amendment was written to “protect our family and community from invaders and an oppressive government” (your words) do you really think those invaders or the government will follow the six round capacity rule?
  10. Do you really think the government will be able to confiscate all of the 30 round P-Mags (as an example) that are out there? You realize the only people who turn them in would be the law-abiding citizen right? Criminals – by definition – don’t give a damn about the law.

So, my convictions are based on facts and the right to self defense, and your convictions are based on emotion. Can you see that?

You can not base your decisions on emotion and outlier incidents that rarely occur when you look at the grand scheme of things. Does that make the family of the victims feel better? Heck no.

We live in a free society where sometimes, tragic events occur. Kids die in backyard swimming pools, should we ban pools? Kids are hit by cars when they are on their bikes, should we ban riding a bike in the street? Home invaders use baseball bats, phone cord and gasoline to kill families. Females are raped by knife-wielding men in their own apartments. Do you suggest we start restricting access to baseball bats and knives? Maybe you’d suggest having TSA-level security at every baseball game, mall entrance, movie theater, office building and school?

In a free society we accept these things can and do happen. Risks do exist in a free society and sometimes those risks are devastating to people. It sucks.

I’ll take my freedom thank you. I’ll obey the law too. All of that said, maybe we should take a look at the real problem here when it comes to the ever-rare but devastating “mass shooting.” How do we treat and deal with those we know who might be mentally ill? I’m convinced that society – over the last few decades – has taught the public to ignore those who may need help … it’s always someone else’s problem.

Then, we have to put the violent criminals away in jail.

What say you?

After waiting for 16 days, George elected not to respond to me. Either he used a throw-away email or he is ignoring my response. Either way, it shows George really does not have a rebuttal or did not want to hear my response in the first place.

Posted in ,

Steve McGough

Steve's a part-time conservative blogger. Steve grew up in Connecticut and has lived in Washington, D.C. and the Bahamas. He resides in Connecticut, where he’s comfortable six months of the year.


  1. PatRiot on September 2, 2012 at 7:42 pm

    Thank you Steve !? Great info to have when another “George” appears.
    As I told a “George” friend at work:
    It is one of your rights, whether you exercise it or not.? To let anyone reduce this right just puts the other one’s at risk.

  2. Gary J on September 2, 2012 at 8:01 pm

    ? You give up your weapons and your rights you give away freedom altogether. Our Constitution is five the way it was written.? If you don’t like our country the planes and boats go away as well as come. you can walk across any border as well free of charge. Mexico is waiting for you !

  3. Dimsdale on September 2, 2012 at 8:06 pm

    “Just one more gun” and “six shot capacity makes me feel safe” are both more incremental liberal crap. ?What about the cringing gunphobes that can only feel “safe” with two shot guns or the eventual dream of no shot guns? ?Are they to be accommodated next?

    It never ends until these liberty crushing whiners get their way or they keep throwing tantrums.?

  4. Danbo11B on September 2, 2012 at 9:00 pm

    One thing to remember, when the Constitution was written, the playing field was level when it came to firearms. The average citizen had access to the same thing that the military had. Going with that logic, We citizens should have the right to own any small arm that the military issues. As it stands, we are outgunned and it’s very unreasonable to suggest that we limit capacity in our semi-autos an/or lever action fire arms. To paraphrase from Clint Eastwood’s “Unforgiven”. “?I don’t ever want to get killed for lack of shootin’ back.” I’m not saying that we’ll have to fight the military but we should have the right to defend without limitations. Our firearms kept the Japanese from invading in WW2

  5. PaulBartomioli on September 3, 2012 at 9:54 am

    @ George:
    Assault Weapons have been regulated in the US since 1934. ?Assault Weapons were defined in the late 1940s during the founding of NATO. ?Yes, my dates are correct. ?The 1934 law?regulated?machine guns and?sub-machine?guns. ?Since that time machine pistols have been produced, and are regulated under the 1934 law.

    In the ensuing 78 years, there is only ONE instance of a legally owned assault weapon being used in a crime. ?The criminal was a police officer, using his department issued machine pistol, to kill an informant.

    In 1986, the Firearm Owners Protection Act became law. ?One of its provisions was to halt the manufacture of assault weapons for civilian purchase. ?Currently, only law enforcement and military purchases are allowed. ?The market for civilian assault weapons was frozen at approximately 500,000. ?I can buy one of these firearms. ?All I need do is comply with the provisions of the 1934 National Firearms Act. ?First, I pay for the firearm; due to market conditions, supply and demand, a firearm of this type the price will be north of $1000; the one I am interested in is north of $5000. ?The police can buy a single version for about $1200. Their market is not limited by a law. ?After paying for the…

  6. ctyank20 on September 3, 2012 at 10:23 am

    Early American settlers viewed the right to bear arms as important for one or more of these purposes:

    ?. deterring tyrannical government

    . reprlling invasion

    . suppressing insurretion

    . facilitating a natural right of self-defence

    . participating in law enforcement

    . enabling the people to?organizing a militia system.

    There were no guns made in America so the English would have loved to have been able to confiscate the existing guns. Most of the guns used in the Revolution were left from the French and Indian War. The Battle of Lexington and Concord was fought to protect the armory where the powder and shot were stored for the militia. The militia “minute men” used their own rifles. They were not just for hunting but also to protect their lives and property. I suppose the times were worse than today,?”when help is needed in seconds, the police are only minutes away”.??????????????

  7. stinkfoot on September 3, 2012 at 12:41 pm

    “Hold it right there intruder… I have a bolt action nuzzle loader musket with powder, wadding, ramrod, and shot… and I’m not afraid to use it!”

    • stinkfoot on September 3, 2012 at 12:43 pm

      … that’s “MUZZLE loader”… stupid fingers…

  8. wildcat on September 3, 2012 at 10:02 pm

    If it were up to some liberals, sling-shots would be outlawed too.? You could shoot someone’s eye out ya know !

  9. JBS on September 4, 2012 at 11:49 am

    Superior job, Steve!! Kudos! Maybe George will see the light. It’s sad when one of our own is subverted by the Dark Forces and given to fuzzy thinkiing.
    The NRA and a few other pro-Second Amendment organizations realize that it is not about how a firearm looks, but the fact that it is a firearm. The Liberal / Progressives/ Socialists fervent dream is to ban all firearms. Banning one made-up class of firearms is only a step toward their perverted dream. Semi-automatics would be next. (Who needs more than ONE shot?) Then, it would progress toward something like Australia.?
    The line is drawn: We will not consider banning any firearm. As pointed out, there is no such thing as compromise with the anti-gunners. They want it all.
    Oh, you can own a cannon if you want. Go for it.


The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.

You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.

The site is not broken.