The following is a video transcript.
The myths surrounding “common sense gun control” start with something very simple: the terms and phrases the anti-gunners have coined. Today, we’re going to get to the “real talk” behind the propaganda.
Assault Weapons
Assault Weapons: This one is easy. There is, quite simply, no such thing as an assault weapon. It’s not a legal term of art, and it’s not an industry term. You can bet when a gun control advocate uses this term, they are referencing any kind of modern sporting rifle. Get ready to start hearing this term used interchangeably with the newly coined anti-gun phrase “weapon of war.”
High Capacity Magazine
High capacity magazine: Like “assault weapon,” there is no definition of what constitutes a high capacity magazine. Pending federal legislation, and some state laws already in existence, would have you believe that any magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds should be outlawed as a high capacity magazine. Of course, gun owners all know that this would criminalize most factory magazines in rifles and handguns alike.
Machine Gun
Finally, one that is often tossed around to inspire fear: Machine gun. A “machine gun” is simply a fully automatic weapon. A weapon is fully automatic if, with one trigger pull, more than one round of ammunition is discharged. Fully automatic weapons are highly regulated through the National Firearms Act, and are incredibly expensive and difficult to come by, since the manufacturer of new full-auto weapons for civilian ownership has been banned since 1986. The gun control advocates would have us believe that a “machine gun” is any kind of AR platform rifle, and that machine guns are responsible for a high percentage of crime, but that is simply not the case.
Don’t get tongue tied by the anti-gunners terms. If you have any additional questions about this topic call U.S. LawShield and ask to speak to your Independent Program Attorney.
Mike McHenry, it depends on who trained you in the military. The military called them clips for years. Clips are stored in a magazine along with shells, powder, shot, bullets. If you want to get down to it, a magazine in an AR-15 is the space where the clip or detachable box magazine is inserted. Not the item that holds the rounds themselves.
I’m a veteran with a disability from Beirut ‘83 peace keeping mission. I tell you now, if it should happen here, I want my rifle with as many rounds I can cram in the magazine to defend my family and my life. I want one as close to the one I trained on too. And I refuse to get in the bus, the truck, or the box car for relocation. Semper fi
Another term that is confusing and needs to be defined is “submachine gun.”
What do the gun control people mean by “common sense gun control?” They toss this at you to make you feel foolish about opposing them.
Mr. Dickson, the term assault applies to many situations. Assault and battery aka attacking someone with either a bat, gun, knife or even the fist. Do we outlaw any of those items? And you say that an ar 15 or ak 47 is only mean’t to kill a person. Does that mean the weapons you own will not kill a person? One bullet will kill a person, one ball bat with a hit to the head or chest will kill. Strange reasoning on your part is a little skewed and unfounded. You might take another look at the 2nd Amendment, read the words and understand it does not limit what we chose to defend ourselves with not limit what we prefer to shoot in a shooting competition or for our own enjoyment. If you suggest changing or editing our Constitution to apply to only certain ideals or freedoms, you might ought to take a look at what you are asking for because that can become a very bad decision in relation to every amendment. BTW, can you expound on the firearms you own that will not kill a person as you seem to believe that only an AR or AK are the only ones that have that power. Remember, AR, Armalite Rifle.
I order to play the game we have going on here let’s call them “communist sense gun laws” which is way closer to the truth…
Good people have guns to help or save people. Bad people have guns to hurt or kill people. It’s just that simple.
I firmly believe in the Second Amendment. It was created for individuals to protect themselves. Back then, these men were all too aware of the government telling them what to do, when to do it, what they were not allowed to do and even told them what religion they could believe. Our nation was created so that every person could work at whatever profession they chose. They could practice their beliefs without fear of the government. This was to enable future generations to protect themselves from possible tyrannical rulers/government. With the unrest and strident, aggression towards each other I see today, I am thankful to know that I may have a weapon to protect myself. Whether it is a knife, baseball bat, heavy frypan, gun or mace spray, I will use whatever I can to defend myself. A gun, BY ITSELF, cannot harm anyone. Tell your representatives to give more support/money for mental care and education. Also, get more judges into courts who will uphold the laws and needed punishment for those who break the laws. It is sickening to read about someone raping or harming or killing a person. Then I read that that person has been let go and won’t serve time. Idiotic and NOT real justice!
I have a gun for the same reason I have a Car jack and fire insurance…………..just another tool.
Mr. Brown, you allude to “objective facts”, but don’t specify them. “Assault rifle” is NOT an objective fact, but a fabricated term to support an opinion, not a fact. And a clip greater than 10 rounds is only “oversized” in someone’s opinion, not an objective fact. It’s merely someone’s opinion. Bloomberg, O’Rourke, and others in that Klown Kar are peddling this opinions (i.e., fake news), but that doesn’t make them objective facts. And this forum is perfectly well suited for such a discussion, as we will not let them slide by with their nonsense.
And my favorite, “Gun Violence”
When the Constitution was written, America was still very vulnerable to outside intervention, i.e. war of 1812 where Britain tried to re-establish itself in America. The right to bear arm was related to local militias and the need of communities to be called to arms if there was an invasion. The right to own your own gun would put limits on the government’s tendency to over reach the control of its citizens as was witnessed by the colonies in their relationship with England. However, the United States was to be different than countries of Europe where groups armed themselves and took over governments. The Constitution provided an orderly way to handle injustice through laws and representation in Congress and legislatures. And yet the possession and display of weapons that can kill many people in seconds are an essential tool of intimidation for hate groups. Some of the responses to this article suggest that people see themselves in an armed conflict with the government to their death. The narrative that the government is not protecting ourselves enough from Jew, blacks, immigrants, muslims etc. gives rise to the notion that one must take care of that oneself. The writers of the Constitution had no intention of giving individuals the power to terrorize fellow citizens. I own a shot gun, hunting rifle and pistol. I am licensed to carry the handgun and believe that is sufficient for the protection of my family and myself.
Who said anything about any ethnic or racial group, Warren? If someone or a group of ‘someone’s’ break into my home, I want to protect my family or myself. What does race have to do with it? Why didn’t you include whites? Better yet, why did you include race at all? How about the black-on-black crime? Is that ‘terror’ to you?
You go ahead and defend yourself with your handgun when confronted with one or multiple armed people in your house at 2am. We’ll see if that is sufficient for your protection. Good luck.