Gun Control Myth: The AR-15 is Not Actually a Hunting Rifle

The AR-15 rifle has been the subject of extreme controversy and national debate in recent weeks.

Many gun control advocates such as CNN's Piers Morgan, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, FormerPresident Bill Clinton, and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) — whose proposed gun legislation would ban all AR-15's regardless of configuration — have argued that AR-15's are not hunting rifles, and should face significant gun control legislation. This contention is one that stems from ignorance or willful disregard for the facts. In reality, AR-15's make excellent hunting rifles and are normally used for that purpose. They are configurable via a separate upper and lower part that make it possible for the user to configure the rifle for various types of bullet cartridges. Depending on what game is being hunted, and what bullet the rifle is configured to fire, virtually all AR-15 rifles are useful for hunting.

The confusion may arise from the fact that the AR-15 rifle is what some gun enthusiasts refer to as a “platform,” which means it has modular components that can be swapped out. Rifles have what is referred to as a receiver. The receiver is the part of a firearm that houses the operating parts, like the trigger and firing bolt. AR-15 rifles have two major parts to the receiver, called an upper and a lower; the "upper" part can be changed on the same rifle. So while many AR-15's are chambered for .223 (5.56 metric), they can also be chambered for .204 Ruger, 5.7x28, .243 WIN, .260 REM, 6.5 Grendel, 6.5 Creedmoor, 6.8SPC, 7mm, .30 REM, 7.62x39, .308, .338 Lapua, .338 Federal, .450 Bushmaster, .458, .50 Beowulf, .50 BMG and even 9mm, .40 and .45ACP handgun cartridges.

The AR-15 platform is known for its accuracy, especially over longer distances. For some types of hunting, this characteristic is particularly useful for successful hunts. Each bullet type has varying effective ranges. The .223 is effective from 400-600 meters. An AR-15 chambered in .308 has an effective range to about 800 meters; .338 Lapua's effective range is about 1500 meters; and .50 BMG has the range of about one mile.

How useful are these various kinds of AR-15's for hunting? Well, Piers Morgan's claim that you wouldn't hunt a deer with one is only sometimes true — if, and only if — you are talking about .223 chambered AR-15's, and more critically, depending on where you live. In many states — but not all — it's not legal to hunt deer with this round because some believe the round isn't powerful enough to kill a deer, but just badly wound it. But some states allow deer hunting with .223 bullets for a variety of reasons and differing circumstances. At any rate, a .223 is perfect for small-game hunting, like coyote, fox, prairie dog, or other similar small-sized game. This is also sometimes referred to varmint hunting and many AR-15's are designed and marketed specifically as varmint hunting rifles. These typically have longer barrels to give the bullet better accuracy at the longer ranges typically involved when hunting this kind of game.

Besides small game and varmint hunting, larger-sized game can be adequately hunted with larger-sized bullet chambering. Boar hunters often use 6.8SPC or .308 bullets. Deer or Elk hunters may choose a .308 or .338 Lapua for large game hunting. Some hunters even hunt black bear with .338 Federal. The designers of .458 claim that it will stop or seriously impair anything that moves. Likewise, .50 BMG is an extremely powerful round, capable of taking out vehicles if fired into an engine block, and is quite suitable for large or dangerous game (think Safari hunting).

All AR-15's are useful for hunting some kind of game. AR-15's are capable of having the upper receiver changed so the user can hunt different kinds of game with the same rifle. So depending on what one wishes to hunt for, from prairie dogs and coyotes to water buffalo, and deer and elk in-between, AR-15's do in fact make excellent hunting rifles.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on PolicyMic. (Original publication February 1, 2013). 

The AR-15 Actually is a Hunting Rifle

by Matt MacBradaigh | Feb 1, 2013 | Gun Control Facts | 0 comments

The AR-15 rifle has been the subject of extreme controversy and national debate, with pro-gun control advocates, politicians and talking heads stating the AR-15 is not a hunting rifle – that no “self-respecting deer hunter” needs 30 rounds of ammunition. Education defeats propaganda, and the facts once again prove these claims wrong.

CNN’s Piers Morgan, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, Former President Bill Clinton, Senator Dianne Feinstein, and others, have argued that AR-15’s are not hunting rifles, and should face significant gun control legislation. This contention is one that stems from ignorance or willful disregard for the facts. In reality, AR-15’s make excellent hunting rifles and are normally used for that purpose. They are configurable via a separate upper and lower part that make it possible for the user to configure the rifle for various types of bullet cartridges. Depending on what game is being hunted, and what bullet the rifle is configured to fire, virtually all AR-15 rifles are useful for hunting.

The confusion may arise from the fact that the AR-15 rifle has modular components that can be swapped out. Rifles have what is referred to as a receiver. The receiver is the part of a firearm that houses the operating parts, like the trigger and firing bolt. AR-15 rifles have two major parts to the receiver, called an upper and a lower; the “upper” part can be changed on the same rifle. So while many AR-15’s are chambered for .223 (5.56 metric), they can also be chambered for .204 Ruger, 5.7×28, .243 WIN, .260 REM, 6.5 Grendel, 6.5 Creedmoor, 6.8SPC, 7mm, .30 REM, 7.62×39, .308, .338 Lapua, .338 Federal, .450 Bushmaster, .458, .50 Beowulf, .50 BMG and even in handgun cartridges like 9mm, .40 and .45ACP. The AR is a very versatile platform. Technically, some of the larger round chamberings are in AR-10 rifles, which is slightly heavier than the AR-15. Most people, even many gun enthusiasts, would be hard-pressed to spot the difference by simply looking at the rifles unless they inspected them up close. It’s a safe bet many of the gun critics wouldn’t know the difference if they tripped over one.

The AR-15 platform is known for its accuracy, especially over longer distances. For some types of hunting, this characteristic is particularly useful for successful hunts. Each bullet type has varying effective ranges. The .223 is effective from 400-600 meters. An AR-15 chambered in .308 has an effective range to about 800 meters; .338 Lapua’s effective range is about 1500 meters; and .50 BMG has the range of about one mile.

How useful are these various kinds of AR-15’s for hunting? Well, the claim that you wouldn’t hunt a deer with one is only sometimes true — if, and only if — you are talking about .223 chambered AR-15’s, AND more critically, depending on where you live. In many states — but not all — it’s not legal to hunt deer with this round because some believe the round isn’t powerful enough to kill a deer, but just badly wound it. But some states allow deer hunting with .223 bullets for a variety of reasons and differing circumstances. At any rate, a .223 is perfect for small-game hunting, like coyote, fox, prairie dog, or other similar small-sized game. This is also sometimes referred to varmint hunting and many AR-15’s are designed and marketed specifically as varmint hunting rifles. These typically have longer barrels to give the bullet better accuracy at the longer ranges typically involved when hunting this kind of game.

Besides small game and varmint hunting, larger-sized game can be adequately hunted with larger-sized bullet chambering. Boar hunters often use 6.8SPC or .308 rounds. Deer or Elk hunters may choose a .308 or .338 for large game hunting. Some hunters will even hunt black bear with .338 Federal. The designers of .458 claim that it will stop or seriously impair anything that moves. Likewise, .50 BMG is an extremely powerful round, capable of taking out vehicles if fired into an engine block, and is quite suitable for large or dangerous game (i.e. Safari hunting).

All AR’s are useful for hunting some kind of game. AR-15’s are capable of having the upper receiver changed so the user can hunt different kinds of game with the same rifle. So depending on what one wishes to hunt for, from prairie dogs and coyotes to water buffalo, and deer and elk in-between, AR-15’s (and AR-10’s) do in fact make excellent hunting rifles.

This article was originally published on PolicyMic.com, now Mic.com. Original publish date Feb 1, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.

Gun Control Facts: Why a "High Capacity" Magazine Ban Would Not Prevent Mass Shootings or Reduce Homicides

Many gun control advocates, including Vice President Joe Biden are arguing for so-called “high-capacity" magazine bans that would restrict the number of bullets held in a single magazine to 10 or fewer.

Biden said last Thursday: “I'm much less concerned, quite frankly, with what you'd call an 'assault weapon' than I am with magazines, and the number of rounds that can be held in a [high-capacity] magazine.”

The term “high-capacity magazines” is entirely made-up. Emily Miller wrote in the Washington Times that “many firearms come from the factory with devices that feed between 15 to 30 rounds — some hold more, some less depending on their configuration and purpose. Ten is a number chosen out of thin air for reasons of political theater."

Is the claim that banning these so-called “high capacity” magazines would reduce crime or prevent mass shootings credible? Or would it be more accurate to say (borrowing another Biden quote) "That's a bunch of malarky"?

All of the existing “high capacity” magazines (and there is a nearly endless supply of them) would be grandfathered in under the proposed bills. This is what 60 Minutes discovered during the last assault weapons ban – it isn't really a ban at all. In fact, they found the legislation had virtually no impact on sales and availability of these so-called “high capacity” magazines. We have to ask ourselves “What would be different this time?”

Would so-called “high capacity” magazine bans prevent mass shootings?
It doesn't seem likely such a ban would prevent mass shootings. Consider that one of the Columbine shooters used a Hi-Point 995 carbine rifle, which uses 10 round magazines. He just carried 13 of them. Similarly, the Virginia Tech shooter used handguns and 17 magazines – mostly of 10-round (but also some 15-round). Two of the highest profile mass shootings in recent history and shooters used 10-round magazines; they just brought a lot of them. These magazines would not have been affected at all by the proposed ban.

How long does it take to change a magazine?
Magazine changes can be very, very rapid, taking just seconds. The Columbine shooters had all the time in the world to reload and reload. They shot in the cafeteria, they entered the library, the went back to the cafeteria, then they went back to the library, and finally the science area. The shooting started at 11:19am and they continued their carnage until they committed suicide at approximately 12:08pm - or nearly an hour. 

How many magazine changes could these guys do in an hour?

 Homicide victims are usually shot at less than 10 times
A Department of Justice report from 2004 about the previous Federal Assault Weapons Ban – a report which Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the creator of that ban, links on her official website – says that most studies say the information they can obtain shows fewer than 10 shots are used to kill most murder victims, meaning that a 10-round limit isn't likely to have a measurable effect on murder rates. “Specific data ... suggest[s] that relatively few attacks involve more than 10 shots fired.”

The report went on to say: “Gun murder victims are shot two to three times on average according to a number of sources, and a study at a Washington, DC trauma center reported that only 8% of all gunshot victims treated from 1988 through 1990 had five or more wounds,” though they note that number of gunshots may not be representative of the total number of shots fired.

However, the report also states: “the few available studies on shots fired show that assailants fire less than four shots on average, a number well within the 10-round magazine limit” adding “it is usually unclear how many cases, if any, involved more than 10 shots."

Why should average citizens have more than 10-round magazines?
For one thing, some law enforcement officials support it. The County Sheffifs of Colorado (CSOC) is a joint association of Colorado’s 62 sheriffs. A position paper released by the CSOC states law rnforcement officers carry magazines with more than 10 rounds because sometimes more than 10 is needed to neutralize a threat. For this reason, the CSOC believes law-abidding citizens should also have the right to higher capacity than 10-round magazines, noting that in high-stress situations it may take several rounds to stop an attacker. The CSOC cites instances (like the recent Georgia mother who defended against a home invader) in which, if there had been more than one attacker law enforcement would be attempting to solve a crime (the murder of a family), rather than arresting a criminal stopped during a crime.

The CSOC further calls the proposed 10-round limiit "arbitrary," stating: "When seconds matter, County Sherrifs of Colorado do not want to deny a law-abiding citizen the ability to defend himself and his family based on an arbitrary limit on how bullets should be in one magazine."

What good would a so-called “high capacity” magazine ban do?
Perhaps a better question is “What good would an arbitrary magazine ban do for the public?”. The answer seems to be “not much good at all” - it would not have stopped mass shootings like Virginia Tech or Columbine; it won't impact the majority of homicide victims who are shot at less than 10 times; determined mass shooters can – and have – just carried more magazines anyway. And it may end up doing more harm than good if law-abiding people aren't able to effectively defend themselves in their own homes. As one of my previous articles pointed out, facing multiple attackers is not an unusual occurrence, but rather happens fairly often.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on PolicyMic. (Original publication January 30, 2013).

A “High Capacity” Magazine Ban Would Not Prevent Mass Shootings or Reduce Homicides

by Matt MacBradaigh | Jan 30, 2013 | Gun Control Facts | 3 comments

Many gun control advocates, argue for so-called “high-capacity” magazine bans that would restrict the number of bullets held in a single magazine to 10 or fewer. However, research does not support this as a policy that would either reduce firearm murders in general or mass murder shootings.

Vice President, Biden said: “I’m much less concerned, quite frankly, with what you’d call an ‘assault weapon’ than I am with magazines, and the number of rounds that can be held in a [high-capacity] magazine.”

The term “high-capacity magazines” is entirely made-up. Emily Miller wrote in the Washington Times that “many firearms come from the factory with devices that feed between 15 to 30 rounds — some hold more, some less depending on their configuration and purpose. Ten is a number chosen out of thin air for reasons of political theater.”

Is the claim that banning these so-called “high capacity” magazines would reduce crime or prevent mass shootings credible? Or would it be more accurate (borrowing a quote from Biden) to say: “That’s a bunch of malarky”?

All of the existing “high capacity” magazines (and there is a nearly endless supply of them) would be grandfathered in under the proposed bills. This is what 60 Minutes discovered during the last assault weapons ban – it isn’t really a ban at all. In fact, they found the legislation had virtually no impact on sales and availability of these so-called “high capacity” magazines. We have to ask ourselves “What would be different this time?”

Would so-called “high capacity” magazine bans prevent mass shootings?It doesn’t seem likely such a ban would prevent mass shootings. Consider that one of the Columbine shooters used a Hi-Point 995 carbine rifle, which uses 10 round magazines. He just carried 13 of them. Similarly, the Virginia Tech shooter used handguns and 17 magazines – mostly of 10-round (but also some 15-round). Two of the highest profile mass shootings in recent history and shooters used 10-round magazines; they just brought a lot of them. These magazines would not have been affected at all by the proposed ban.

How long does it take to change a magazine?Magazine changes can be very, very rapid, taking just seconds. The Columbine shooters had all the time in the world to reload and reload. They shot in the cafeteria, they entered the library, the went back to the cafeteria, then they went back to the library, and finally the science area. The shooting started at 11:19am and they continued their carnage until they committed suicide at approximately 12:08pm – or for nearly an hour. 

How many magazine changes could these guys do in an hour?

Homicide victims are usually shot at less than 10 timesA Department of Justice report from 2004 about the previous Federal Assault Weapons Ban – a report which Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the creator of that ban, links on her official website – says that most studies say that fewer than 10 shots are used to kill most murder victims, meaning that a 10-round limit isn’t likely to have a measurable effect on murder rates. “Specific data … suggest[s] that relatively few attacks involve more than 10 shots fired (emphasis added).”

The report went on to say: “Gun murder victims are shot two to three times on average according to a number of sources, and a study at a Washington, DC trauma center reported that only 8% of all gunshot victims treated from 1988 through 1990 had five or more wounds,” though they note that number of gunshots may not be representative of the total number of shots fired.

However, the report also states: “the few available studies on shots fired show that assailants fire less than four shots on average, a number well within the 10-round magazine limit” adding “it is usually unclear how many cases, if any, involved more than 10 shots.”

Why should average citizens have more than 10-round magazines?For one thing, some law enforcement officials support it. The County Sheffifs of Colorado (CSOC) is a joint association of Colorado’s 62 sheriffs. A position paper released by the CSOC states law rnforcement officers carry magazines with more than 10 rounds because sometimes more than 10 is needed to neutralize a threat. For this reason, the CSOC believes law-abidding citizens should also have the right to higher capacity than 10-round magazines, noting that in high-stress situations it may take several rounds to stop an attacker. The CSOC cites instances (like the recent Georgia mother who defended against a home invader) in which, if there had been more than one attacker law enforcement would be attempting to solve a crime (the murder of a family), rather than arresting a criminal stopped during a crime.

The CSOC further calls the proposed 10-round limiit “arbitrary,” stating: “When seconds matter, County Sherrifs of Colorado do not want to deny a law-abiding citizen the ability to defend himself and his family based on an arbitrary limit on how bullets should be in one magazine.”

What good would a so-called “high capacity” magazine ban do?Perhaps a better question is “What good would an arbitrary magazine ban do for the public?”. The answer seems to be “not much good at all” – it would not have stopped mass shootings like Virginia Tech or Columbine; it won’t impact the majority of homicide victims who are shot at less than 10 times; determined mass shooters can – and have – just carried more magazines anyway. And it may end up doing more harm than good if law-abiding people aren’t able to effectively defend themselves in their own homes. As one of my previous articles pointed out, facing multiple attackers is not an unusual occurrence, but rather happens fairly often.

This article was originally published on PolicyMic.com, now Mic.com. Original publish date Jan 30, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.

Gun Control Debate: The Second Amendment Makes Clear Guns Aren't Just For the Military

A common misconception about the Second Amendment is that it only protects arms for the militia, or in modern day, the National Guard or other government-organized military group.

This is simply untrue; a belief arising from ignorance about the language used in the Second Amendment and understanding its meaning as it was understood originally when the Bill of Rights was ratified. Fortunately, the Supreme Court helps us understand the original intent of the Second Amendment and the words used in their historical context. 

In the landmark Supreme Court case, D.C. vs Heller, the court explains that all citizens are the militia; the Second Amendment is an individual right, just like every other right protected in the Bill of Rights, and is independent of membership in any organized group or military unit.

The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

There are two clauses that comprise the Second Amendment, an operative clause, and a prefatory clause.

Operative clause: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The operative clause is the actual protected right; kind of the 'meat and potatoes.' The court wrote: "1. Operative Clause. a. 'Right of the People.' [used 3 times in Bill of Rights] ... All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not 'collective' rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body." (p.5).

Prefatory clause: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."

The prefatory clause is the lead-in that “announces a purpose” for the operative clause.  The court stated: "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms"(Heller law syllabus p.1).

The court also stated: "The Amendment could be rephrased, 'Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.'” (Heller law syllabus p.3, emphasis added).

Note: “syllabus” in law briefs is not like a college course summary, but “a short note preceding the text of a reported case that briefly summarizes the rulings of the court on the points decided in the case."

 The Militia is all of the people
The court states: "It was clearly an individual right, having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia" (p.20), adding "Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people” (p.7).

It's clear from the court's ruling regarding the relationship between the prefatory and operative clause (p.25) that the militia meant that all of the people were armed.

“The 'militia' comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Anti-federalists feared that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved” (Heller law syllabus, p.2, emphasis added).
“Keep arms” was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else" (p.9).

Congress creates the Army and Navy, but not the already existent militia
The court states that while Congress is given the power in Article I of the Constitution to create the Army and the Navy, it may simply organize the militia because it already existed:

"Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create, the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power ... to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence," (p.23).

Second Amendment doesn't mean any organized military unit
We find on page 11: "In numerous instances, 'bear arms' was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia," adding further that, "It is clear from those formulations that 'bear arms' did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit" (p.11-12).  Fun fact: The National Guard, as it exists today, wasn't created until 1903.

So we see that at the time of its writing, it was clearly understood that the Second Amendment protected the right of all citizenry to have and carry arms. Our ignorance of the terminology, and perhaps the phrasing of the two clauses has clouded this truth, so obvious to our Founders. The Second Amendment means all of us, since we are all since we are all the militia, and in no way means only an organized military unit or the National Guard.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on PolicyMic. (Original publication January 28, 2013).

The Second Amendment Doesn’t Limit Guns To Just Military or Militia Service

by Matt MacBradaigh | Jan 28, 2013 | 2nd Amendment Facts | 1 comment

A common misconception about the Second Amendment is that it only protects arms for the militia, or in modern day, the National Guard or other government-organized military group.

This is simply untrue; a belief arising from ignorance about the language used in the Second Amendment and understanding its meaning as it was understood originally when the Bill of Rights was ratified. Fortunately, the Supreme Court helps us understand the original intent of the Second Amendment and the words used in their historical context.

In the landmark Supreme Court case, D.C. vs Heller, the court explains that all citizens are the militia; the Second Amendment is an individual right, just like every other right protected in the Bill of Rights, and is independent of membership in any organized group or military unit.

The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

There are two clauses that comprise the Second Amendment, an operative clause, and a prefatory clause.

Operative clause: “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The operative clause is the actual protected right; kind of the ‘meat and potatoes.’ The court wrote: “1. Operative Clause. a. ‘Right of the People.’ [used 3 times in Bill of Rights] … All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not ‘collective’ rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.” (p.5).

Prefatory clause: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.”

The prefatory clause is the lead-in that “announces a purpose” for the operative clause.  The court stated: “The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms”(Heller law syllabus p.1).

The court also stated: “The Amendment could be rephrased, ‘Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.’” (Hellerlaw syllabus p.3, emphasis added).

Note: “syllabus” in law briefs is not like a college course summary, but “a short note preceding the text of a reported case that briefly summarizes the rulings of the court on the points decided in the case.”

 The Militia is all of the peopleThe court states: “It was clearly an individual right, having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia” (p.20), adding “Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people” (p.7).

It’s clear from the court’s ruling regarding the relationship between the prefatory and operative clause (p.25) that the militia meant that all of the people were armed.

“The ‘militia’ comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Anti-federalists feared that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved” (Heller law syllabus, p.2, emphasis added).

“Keep arms” was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else” (p.9).

Congress creates the Army and Navy, but not the already existent militiaThe court states that while Congress is given the power in Article I of the Constitution to create the Army and the Navy, it may simply organize the militia because it already existed:

“Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create, the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power … to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence,” (p.23).

Second Amendment doesn’t mean any organized military unitWe find on page 11: “In numerous instances, ‘bear arms’ was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia,” adding further that, “It is clear from those formulations that ‘bear arms’ did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit” (p.11-12).  Fun fact: The National Guard, as it exists today, wasn’t created until 1903.

So we see that at the time of its writing, it was clearly understood that the Second Amendment protected the right of all citizenry to have and carry arms. Our ignorance of the terminology, and perhaps the phrasing of the two clauses has clouded this truth, so obvious to our Founders. The Second Amendment means all of us, since we are all since we are all the militia, and in no way means only an organized military unit or the National Guard.

This article was originally published on PolicyMic.com, now Mic.com. Original publish date Jan 28, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.

Dianne Feinstein is Misleading the Public With Her Assault Weapons Ban

Dianne Feinstein is Misleading the Public With Her Assault Weapons Ban

Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced a bill Thursday to ban so-called “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines.

When Feinstein appeared on PBS' Newshour to discuss her assault weapons bill, she said “it gets quite technical" and stated so-called assault weapons are “developed for military purposes to kill in close combat” adding “they aren't used for hunting."

Feinstein seems to be willfully ignoring facts to deliberately mislead you about these so-called “assault weapons.” First, she says “it gets quite technical.”

OK, let's look at the technical information about these guns. They are not “military weapons"; they look similar, or bear cosmetic resemblance, to military weapons, but they are not used by the military. The AR-15 as sold in the U.S. to civilians is a semi-automatic gun that looks like the military M4A1 carbine rifle or the M-16 battle rifle. They look nearly identical. As former Marine Joshua Boston would tell you, they are not military guns. Military soldiers mock the AR-15 calling it an “M-forgery's” a play on “M4” precisely because they are not military guns. They have functional differences. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle which can only fire one bullet per trigger squeeze. The M4A1 is capable of either burst (several rounds with one trigger squeeze) or fully automatic fire (fires until the trigger is released or there are no more bullets left) by use of a selector switch. Select fire capability is what makes an actual assault rifle what it is (for example, Connecticut – where there is a current state-level assault weapons ban – acknowledges this technical definition in their legal definition).

AR-15's are not designed for “close quarters combat,” and neither is the military M4A1, which is designed for intermediate range combat with an effective range of 400–600 meters. By contrast, sub-machine guns are designed for shorter range and potentially usable in close quarters combat.

AR-15's are hunting rifles, depending on what you're hunting and how the rifle is configured. AR-15's chambered in the standard .223 (5.56 metric) are used for varmint hunting precisely because of it's accuracy at a long distance. But AR-15's have an “upper” and “lower” part of the weapon that can be changed out – even in the field – allowing the weapon to be chambered in larger rounds, including 6.8 and .308. These rounds are used for hog hunting, and .308 may be used for hunting deer or elk.

However, contrary to the political hype, the standard .223 is not an especially dangerous round, and aside from varmints is not useful for hunting. Many states will not allow deer or elk hunting with a .223 for the very reason it is not powerful enough. By contrast, hunting cartridges like 7mm, 8mm, 270WIN, .303, 30-06 fired from bolt-action rifles are vastly more powerful.

So-called “assault rifles” are targeted because they have been used in a few high-profile shootings. They receive inordinate media attention because they look like “military-style” weapons (Note: style – or cosmetic appearance – is the key word). But these guns are not responsible for most gun violence in the U.S.
Rifles, of which so-called “assault rifles” are a subset, accounted for just 2.55% of all homicides in 2011. Mass murder accounts for less than 100 dead out of nearly 13,000 homicides. And not all mass shootings involve so-called “assault weapons”.

The Virginia Tech shooter used handguns and 19 magazines – mostly 10 round magazines. Neither his handgun, nor the 10 round magazines would be affected by Feinstein's proposed ban.

Feinstein must mislead us in order to make it seem that so-called “assault weapons” are more dangerous than they really are, made for purposes that they are not, and don't have the legitimate purposes that they do.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on PolicyMic. (Original publication January 25, 2013).

Lies You Are Told About Assault Weapons

by Matt MacBradaigh | Jan 25, 2013 | Gun Control Facts | 2 comments

Anti-gun activists and politicians mislead the public and their constituents when they talk about “assault weapons” and “assault rifles”. When high-profile anti-gun politician Senator Diane Feinstein appeared on PBS’ Newshour to she claimed that so-called “assault weapons” are “developed for military purposes to kill in close combat” adding “they aren’t used for hunting.”

Anti-gun crusaders, like Feinstein, are either grossly ignorant, or willfully ignore the facts about so-called “assault rifles”. The net effect is to deliberately mislead you about them. Feinstein herself said in the PBS Newshour interview, “it gets quite technical.”

OK, let’s look at the technical information about these guns. They are not “military weapons”; they look similar, or bear cosmetic resemblance, to military weapons, but they are not used by the military. The AR-15 as sold in the U.S. to civilians is a semi-automatic gun that looks like the military M4A1 carbine rifle or the M-16 battle rifle. They look nearly identical. As former Marine Joshua Boston would tell you, they are not military guns. Military soldiers mock the AR-15 calling it an “M-forgery‘s” a play on “M4” precisely because they are not military guns. They have functional differences. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle which can only fire one bullet per trigger squeeze. The M4A1 is capable of either single shot fire, or burst fire, where several rounds, typically three, are fired with one single trigger squeeze. Some other non-civilian variants that are not technically the M4A1 may be configured for fully automatic fire; this means the weapon continuously fires until the trigger is released or there are no more bullet cartridges left. Changing from single-shot to either burst, or full auto fire is achieved by use of a selector switch. Select fire capability is what technically makes an actual assault rifle what it is. For example, Connecticut – where there is a current state-level assault weapons ban – acknowledges this technical definition in their legal definition.

AR-15’s are not designed for “close quarters combat,” and neither is the military M4A1, which is designed for intermediate range combat with an effective range of 400–600 meters. By contrast, sub-machine guns are designed for shorter range and potentially usable in close quarters combat.

AR-15’s are hunting rifles, depending on what you’re hunting and how the rifle is configured. AR-15’s chambered in the standard .223 (5.56 metric) are used for varmint hunting precisely because of it’s accuracy at a long distance. But AR-15’s have an “upper” and “lower” part of the weapon that can be changed out – even in the field – allowing the weapon to be chambered in larger rounds, including 6.8 and .308. These rounds are used for hog hunting, and .308 may be used for hunting deer or elk.

However, contrary to the political hype, the standard .223 is not an especially dangerous round, and aside from varmints is not useful for hunting. Many states will not allow deer or elk hunting with a .223 for the very reason it is not powerful enough. By contrast, hunting cartridges like 7mm, 8mm, 270WIN, .303, 30-06 fired from bolt-action rifles are vastly more powerful.

Fun fact: AR-15 rifles are used for actual hunting. AR-15’s can be configured to shoot a variety of different bullet cartridges and are used from varmint hunting to hog hunting and dangerous game. For more, check out this article.

So-called “assault rifles” are targeted because they have been used in a few high-profile shootings. They receive inordinate media attention because they look like “military-style” weapons (Note: style – or cosmetic appearance – is the key word). But these guns are not responsible for most gun violence in the U.S.

Rifles, of which so-called “assault rifles” are a subset, accounted for just 2.55% of all homicides in 2011. Mass murder accounts for less than 100 dead out of nearly 13,000 homicides. And not all mass shootings involve so-called “assault weapons”.

The Virginia Tech shooter used handguns and 19 magazines – mostly 10 round magazines. Neither his handgun, nor the 10 round magazines would be affected by Feinstein’s proposed ban.

Feinstein must mislead us in order to make it seem that so-called “assault weapons” are more dangerous than they really are, made for purposes that they are not, and don’t have the legitimate purposes that they do.

A version of this article was originally published on PolicyMic.com, now Mic.com. Original publish date Jan 25, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.

Dianne Feinstein Assault Weapons Ban Could Be the Start Of a Total Gun Ban

Dianne Feinstein Assault Weapons Ban Could Be the Start Of a Total Gun Ban

Gun rights advocates worry that an assault weapons ban — like the one proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) — would be the start of a slippery slope that would end with a total gun ban in the U.S., as has happened in the UK and Australia.

There already have been some calls for outright confiscation, including from New York Governor Andrew Cuomo as well as from other lawmakers. Feinstein says this isn't her intention. But do gun owners have anything to worry about?
Feinstein said on PBS Newshour that she would not attempt to ban and confiscate all guns. But is this political posturing — a falsehood meant to lull Americans into accepting her bill? Can Feinstein be trusted not to attempt gun confiscation, when she has stated that her true wish is for all American's to turn in their guns — if only she could just get the votes?

PBS Newshour's Gwen Ifill asked Feinstein directly about gun owners’ fears of banning all guns.

Ifill: What do you say to people who support the right to own arms that this is the 'camel's nose under the tent' — that the next thing, you'll be after concealed carry weapons, you'll be after other kinds of gun rights?"

Feinstein: Well that's just not true. It wasn't true with the prior bill that was the law for 10 years, and I just think, candidly, 'that dog doesn't hunt.

Ifill: Why shouldn't it be true? Why wouldn't you go after those other laws?

Feinstein: Because it's not what I've done in the past and it's not what I'm doing right now.

Taken at face value, Feinstein isn't going after all guns. However, at the end of the day, she is a politician; which is to say (magnanimously) that a position taken today may just be convenient, or (unmagnanimously) that politicians are liars. Which is more likely in this case?  Let's look at a previous comment on record.

Feinstein: If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. & Mrs. America, turn them all in — I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here.

Some may believe that confiscation could "never happen here;" after all this is America right? But it has happened here in America — in Chicago, as well as illegally in New Orleans following Katrina. Even abroad, there is historical precedent that registration of guns — as in Feinstein's proposed bill — leads to confiscation, even if down the road. Registration followed by confiscation occurred in Nazi Germany, as well as New Zealand, Australia and Canada (it's interesting to note that both New Zealand and Canada eventually gave up with registries, citing cost and ineffectiveness in aiding police).

Confiscation has happened here; it's happened abroad. Feinstein has stated that if she could get the votes, she'd be happy to have all American's turn 'em all in. She says that's not what she's going after now. This doesn't seem to be a credible claim.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on PolicyMic. (Original publication January 26, 2013). 

An Assault Weapons Ban Could Be the Start Of a Total Gun Ban

by Matt MacBradaigh | Jan 26, 2013 | Gun Control Facts | 4 comments

Gun rights advocates worry that an assault weapons ban — like the one proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) — would be the start of a slippery slope that would end with a total gun ban in the U.S., as has happened in the UK and Australia.

There already have been some calls for outright confiscation, including from New York Governor Andrew Cuomo as well as from other lawmakers. Feinstein says this isn’t her intention. But do gun owners have anything to worry about?

Feinstein said on PBS Newshour that she would not attempt to ban and confiscate all guns. But is this political posturing — a falsehood meant to lull Americans into accepting her bill? Can Feinstein be trusted not to attempt gun confiscation, when she has stated that her true wish is for all American’s to turn in their guns — if only she could just get the votes?

PBS Newshour‘s Gwen Ifill asked Feinstein directly about gun owners’ fears of banning all guns.

Ifill: What do you say to people who support the right to own arms that this is the ‘camel’s nose under the tent’ — that the next thing, you’ll be after concealed carry weapons, you’ll be after other kinds of gun rights?”

Feinstein: Well that’s just not true. It wasn’t true with the prior bill that was the law for 10 years, and I just think, candidly, ‘that dog doesn’t hunt.

Ifill: Why shouldn’t it be true? Why wouldn’t you go after those other laws?

Feinstein: Because it’s not what I’ve done in the past and it’s not what I’m doing right now.

Taken at face value, Feinstein isn’t going after all guns. However, at the end of the day, she is a politician; which is to say (magnanimously) that a position taken today may just be convenient, or (unmagnanimously) that politicians are liars. Which is more likely in this case?  Let’s look at a previous comment on record.

Feinstein: If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. & Mrs. America, turn them all in — I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.

Some may believe that confiscation could “never happen here;” after all this is America right? But it has happened here in America — in Chicago, as well as illegally in New Orleans following Katrina. Even abroad, there is historical precedent that registration of guns — as in Feinstein’s proposed bill — leads to confiscation, even if down the road. Registration followed by confiscation occurred in Nazi Germany, as well as New Zealand, Australia and Canada (it’s noteworthy that both New Zealand and Canada eventually gave up with registries, citing cost and ineffectiveness in aiding police).

Confiscation has happened here; it’s happened abroad. Feinstein has stated that if she could get the votes, she’d be happy to have all American’s turn ’em all in. She says that’s not what she’s going after now. This doesn’t seem to be a credible claim.

This article was originally published on PolicyMic.com, now Mic.com. Original publish date Jan 26, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.