Feinstein's Proposed Gun Control Law

Today, Senator Diane Feinstein introduced legislation that will ban, so called assault weapons, certain types of handguns, and shotguns, as well as some types, based on capacity, detachable magazines.  And that while you can own one of these banned weapons if you obtained before the ban goes into effect, you must register it with the federal government, and you can never sell or trade it.

If you look at the two rifles on the right, you may be surprised to learn that there is no difference in either as far a caliber (bullet size), action (semi-automatic), or capability to use  high capacity magazines.

The big lies you are being told:

1.  The assault rifles that are sold to the general public are "Weapons of War."

The general public cannot own "weapons of war."  Unless of course you live in Mexico where the criminals use hand grenades, fully automatic weapons, grenade launchers mounted on rifles, etc...  And that is with a very strict ban on weapons in place.  All combat rifles issued to U.S. servicemen are capable of fully automatic fire.  The only semi-automatic rifles the military uses are for snipers.  No U.S. citizen can own a fully automatic rifle without special permitting from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

2.  By banning large capacity magazines, fewer people will be killed in a mass shooting scenario.

Not true.  If you figure it will take the police at least 5 minutes (I am being very generous to police response times here) to confront an active shooter once the they receive the call, an average person can shoot and reload a magazine of say 10 bullets in about 15 seconds....in that 5 minutes of time until he is confronted by the police he can discharge a couple hundred rounds.  With 30 round magazines the number will be higher but not by that much.  Again, 200 rounds tops the number of shots fired at any of the mass shootings in the last 50 years.  And I can't think of one of those incidents where the police confronted the shooter in less than 5 minutes.

3.  Assault rifles are never used for hunting.

Assault rifles (actually semi automatic rifles that allow you easily attach optics, lights, and other items to increase the functionality of the rifle) make great hunting rifles.  And they are used extensively in the hunting of predators, varmints, and other small to medium game.  Their popularity for hunting is growing every day.

4.  Assault rifles cannot be used for self defense.

Assault rifles make very good home self defense weapons.  One reason is because it is easy to mount special optics (quick sights/lasers) for increased accuracy, and it is easy to mount small flashlights to the weapon for use in the dark.  More and more police departments are using assault rifles for their defense in day to day operations.

5.  Bans work.

Oh yeah they do....alcohol, drugs, etc.....

6.  If guns were registered there would be less crime.

Another line of BS.  Criminals will not register their guns...get it?  The only thing a government list of guns will accomplish is that the government will have a list of legal gun owners.  That is not good for legal gun owners.  See incidents in New York where the newspaper published a list of gun owners and their addresses.

6.  Any law is worth it even if we save only one life.

Sorry, that does not wash in America.  Our freedoms are much more important than a single life.

The bottom line is that I hope these proposed laws are defeated and that we will enforce the laws that are already on the books.

PS, those that are trying to paint the NRA as a "terrorist organization, or evil gun lobby who cares more about guns than human life........you are fools.

Women Allowed in All Combat Positions - Be careful what you wish for.

Gives new meaning to the term Ma-Deuce..for those that know

Now that the current administration has opened all combat MOS's (Military Occupational Specialty) to women, I have to wonder how some women will react to the news.

That is where you come in ladies, let's hear what you think.

I personalty have no problem with certain women serving in any combat role.  What I do have a problem with is what could happen if a group of feminist is not happy with the washout rate of women who want in combat arms positions is significantly higher than men (which it will be).  Will they do as they have done in the past, and want the prerequisites for the position changed to accommodate the woman combat soldier?  Will the training standards have to change?  Of course they will, if we are to integrate men and women in to cohesive combat units, they will have to train together at the squad level.  That means sharing tents, latrines, and all other things a solider and his/her squad faces in the field.

The effectiveness of this policy will be seen once the military commanders begin the process of complete integration.

One thing I think men and women, especially fathers and mothers might want to ponder is what will happen to the DRAFT?  You know, that requirement that people involuntarily serve in the military during a serious conflict.  We have not had the draft since the 1970's, but could in a matter of minutes, have it reinstated depending of the whims of some of the insane leaders in this volatile world.  (Note today's headline about N Korea and their nuclear weapons delivery platforms (rockets) being tested for use on the U.S.)

Will this change in policy mean young women who reach the age of 18 will now have to register for selective service, as all young men do today?  If you say no, why not?

Again, I am not sure that this new policy may have been well thought out.  But of course, we have come to expect that with our politicians.