Jimmy Carter on gun control - I am ashamed...

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tucker 1371

New member
... that the only president to ever come from my state is Jimmy Goodfornothin Carter.

Watching the news tonight and apparently the former president (who lost by the largest margin any incumbent has ever lost by) now endorses an AWB thinks that anyone who owns or wants to own an "assault weapon" is planning on killing cops or shooting up schools.

Here are Mr. Carter's exact words

But none of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives. That’s why the White House and Congress must not give up on trying to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, even if it may be politically difficult.
Click to expand...
 
I'm not for banning them, but I am curious what most people use them for (it comes up frequently in discussions about guns with my friends). Target? Hunting? Presumably extremely intricate cleaning practice? :)

I like handguns and don't plan to own an assault rifle - but want to educate myself about their general purpose for others.

Again, I repeat, I am not for banning them!
 
Honestly they don't serve a purpose except for people who don't feel comfortable with either a shotgun or handgun for home defense. But neither do alcohol or cars that do over 75mph. They're just more fun to shoot for some people.

EDIT: You can hunt with them but in general they are for plinking and target shooting.
 
Fortunately Mr. Carter, whom I once respected for his humanitarian work, does not have any sway over national policy.

For the time being, the Left can crow about renewing the ban all they want. I remember 1993, and this isn't it. A new AWB won't pass muster in the legislature, and it won't stand up to a post-Heller legal challenge. More to the point, the general public no longer supports the idea.

There are sneakier, more subtle things they may try, but an outright ban isn't in the cards.
 
my answe rto the question of owning "assault weapons"

i like them. plain and simple. they are fun to shoot. and most all you can hunt with.


BTW anything you use to assualt someoen isa assualt weapon. punch or kick someone, and your fists and/or feet/shins are "assault weapons". also look up the University of Texas shootings and look at the gun Lee Harvey Oswald used, both bolt actions. so ANYTHING can be a "assault" weapon.
 
I'm not for banning them, but I am curious what most people use them for (it comes up frequently in discussions about guns with my friends). Target? Hunting? Presumably extremely intricate cleaning practice?
Click to expand...

I understand you have an open mind, and are not saying you wish to ban so-called assault weapons. Let me try to answer:

People use semi-automatic rifles for all of the same lawful purposes that they use any other firearm. Target shooting, hunting, self-defense, and competition. The rounds used by many military style semi-automatics are actually considered to be too under-powered for humane deer hunting practices, in some states. Most rifles use considerably more powerful ammunition than, say an AR15 (the one that looks like an M16). So the ammo isn't more dangerous than a common hunting rifle, in fact, it's often quite a bit less powerful.

Semi-automatic firearms ALL shoot one round per trigger pull. It's the same for any revolver, or semi-automatic pistol, shotgun and rifle. The ONLY variable is magazine capacity, but since an empty magazine can be easily changed in less than a second, even magazine capacity is a mute point in terms of enhanced performance. So, all guns available to civilians have exactly the same rate of fire. (the speed of your trigger finger)

You seem to have no bias against military style rifles, so the fact that your question quietly assumes there is a performance difference between what some people call an assault weapon, and any other semi-automatic firearm, is an indication of how deeply ingrained the so-called assault weapon myth is in the culture. And it IS a myth.

The real differences are purely cosmetic, as evidenced by the focus on cosmetic features by states that have laws banning them.

Ask yourself, besides cosmetics, i.e. scary looks, what do YOU think is the difference between a so-called assault weapon, and any other semi automatic firearm that makes you think that it more dangerous than other firearm?

If you can not definitively answer that, you're not alone, no one can. But you will hear politicians and activists characterizing the guns with phrases like "spray bullets from the hip", or, "these weapons of war belong on the battlefield, not on our streets", "What would anyone need an assault weapon for?"

And my favorite, "These guns are designed for only one thing, to kill people." This is a false argument. All guns are potentially lethal and dangerous in the wrong hands.

That last question begs another: What primary purpose should a gun have that was designed to defend your life against a murderer, rapist or terrorist? (remember the second amendment is still, in part, about our security as a free state)

And what primary purpose should a gun have that was designed to protect the security of a free state?
 
I like handguns and don't plan to own an assault rifle - but want to educate myself about their general purpose for others.
Click to expand...

Already we can see some confusion by the person who posted the above quote. I'm not trying to denigrate that poster, but it's important to point out some errors or potential errors in his above statement. He did mention that he wants to be educated, so here goes.

1. Assault rifle: Select fire, or capable of full auto or three round burst. This has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the "assault weapons" ban that was in place from 1994-2004, or that some people would like to put back in place. "Assault Weapons" is a made up term, but in general refers only to semiautomatic firearms. Please note the difference in the terms "assault rifles" and "assault weapons". The uninformed and the political agenda drivers will use the terms interchangeably, but it is improper to do so.

An M16 is an assault rifle, an AR-15 is now called an "assault weapon". But only if it has more than two cosmetic features, such as a detachable magazine, an extended pistol grip, a bayonette lug, a grenade launcher, a folding stock, a muzzle flash suppressor, a barrel shroud, a collapsable stock, etc. Look up the AWB94 and you can find the cosmetic features which magically turn a semiautomatic rifle into an "Assault Weapon".
A Ruger Mini-14, even though it is functionally the same as a Colt AR-15, was not considered to be an "assault weapon" under the old ban because it only had one feature, that being a detachable magazine. It just didn't look scary enough to make the grade. One of my firearms is a Colt Sporter, which is nothing more than a Colt AR-15 with a shorter barrel (16") and without enough cosmetic features to make it an "assault weapon". Go figure.


2. Assault weapons can also include handguns if they have certain features, including the detachable magazine. So, just because you are limiting yourself to handguns, don't necessarily believe you don't own an "assaut weapon" under the definition used to describe them.

3. Assault weapons can also include shotguns. See point #2 above.


With the above information in mind, assault weapons can make excellent hunting guns. Guys use AR-15's and clones of those to hunt prairie dogs and other small varmints. Some states allow the use of center fire, .22 caliber rifles for hunting deer. Minnesota recently went that route. I wouldn't personally do it, but hey, to each his own if it's legal. There are some riflles such as an AR-10 which fire .308. That's an excellent caliber for some big game, such as Muley's or Whitetails. One of my hunting buddies took a moose with a .308. He's also taken elk with it.

Assault weapons are used for competition target shooting matches. They are used for just plain old target shooting and plinking. They are fun to shoot. Some folks like the design aspects of certain guns and assault weapons are no different in that regard. Some tend to have less recoil so you can shoot many more rounds without getting a sore shoulder or recoil fatigue.

For some handicapped shooters, assault weapons may be more advantageous to their handicap when it comes to shooting or hunting.

I could go on, but hopefully you get the picture. I like the idea that even though you don't plan to own an "assault weapon", you are not for banning them. Check with the original ban however. One of your handguns may already fall under the silly label of "an assault weapon". That label is and was a political tool invented to ban a whole new class of guns. Charles Krauthammer publicly stated that this was the case.

Also, one of the virulent anti gun group leaders stated that the confusion over semiautomatic vs. machine guns could only help to ban a whole new class of firearms. Remember this if you remember just one thing regarding "assault weapons": It was a term that was invented to further gun control and to eliminate as many firearms from the hands of citizens as was politically possible at the time. They would love to do it again, but the political winds are not blowing with enough force to have the "gun- ban" windmills generate the political energy required to do it.
 
Last edited:
There is really no difference in efficacy between sporting appearance brown guns (like a Mini-14) and an AR. One might argue about mag capacity but Minis can have higher cap mags also.

It's basically a psychological debate over appearance and a way to ban all guns except for limited sporting use weapons like O/U shotguns and limited mag bolt guns - which would have to be extensively licensed.

As far as handguns - one might argue there is no need for semi auto handguns. The average joe can defend his house from most threats with a SW Model 10.

So let's cut to the chase and have only Model 10s and some duck gun or 3 shot bolt action rifle as acceptable to the public. Now, that's been proposed several times from the sporting gun culture.

Also, limit cars to 55 mph and have governmental radio controlled chastity belts.
 
I like handguns and don't plan to own an assault rifle - but want to educate myself about their general purpose for others.
Click to expand...

One more point on this quote:

Handguns are the firearm of choice for most criminals. Handguns are the predominant firearm used in crimes. So called "assault weapons" are way down the list when it comes to firearms that are used in the commission of a crime.

The reason I point this out is that I've heard some holier than thou folks make the claim that "no one needs an assault weapon and that assault weapons are the guns most often used to shoot cops and commit crimes". I looks like Jimmah Cahtah falls into that category of losers. Handguns are the gun most often used to shoot cops and kill humans. Why don't the anti's go after those first? Because there are too many gun owners who would raise a stink because they own handguns. But when they want to ban assault weapons, those same handgun owners say, "Fine. Go ahead. I don't own any. No one needs one." This is commonly referred to as "divide and conquer". They'll eventually come after the handguns too. Then the shotgun owners and bird hunters will scoff at the notion that anyone needs a handgun in the first place. I've heard it with my own ears. And don't forget the pure sporting arms owners, like Jim Zumbo, who also scoff at the idea that anyone would need an "assault weapon". He got himself fired from a magazine he wrote for by wriiting an article stating that assault weapons are not useful for hunting. I forget if he said he was OK with banning them. But his problem was that many gun owners understand that assault weapons can be used for hunting, and even if they weren't that useful for hunting, the 2nd A. is not about hunting and target shooting. That's where the rubber really meets the road in the political arena.
 
So let's cut to the chase and have only Model 10s and some duck gun or 3 shot bolt action rifle as acceptable to the public. Now, that's been proposed several times from the sporting gun culture.
Click to expand...

You mean Saturday Night Specials, baby-killing shotguns, and high-powered sniper rifles? :rolleyes:

(Someone wanna come up with a better pejorative for the duck guns for me?)

Make no mistake, Bloomberg and Schumer and Feinstein and Brady (et al) won't be happy until *all* guns are banned from private hands. (not that I think they'll ever be successful) They never rest, so we have to always be vigilant.
 
Psych hat on from studies:

1. There are two gun cultures, with some overlap:
a. Sporting, hunting, rural - guns may have an auxiliary use in self-defense but not a prime focus.
b. Urban, suburban self-defense (little or no interest in hunting or sporting clay types of things)

There can be folks who overlap but that's not the main groups.

2. The sporting culture folks have been tested as to their views of assault rifle vs. hunting or brown rifles. On average they are negative to the the EBRs. Supposedly because they are designed primarily to kill. My secret Ouiji link to some sports guns organizations indicate they lack sympathy for the 1b. culture but folks are trying to educate them on the need to stand together.
 
Honestly they don't serve a purpose except for people who don't feel comfortable with either a shotgun or handgun for home defense.
Click to expand...

Do you not consider hunting or sports as a purpose, along with self-defense? "Assault rifles" are frequently used for hunting activities, including varmint hunting were the .223 shines. They are also used in service rifle competitions as well as three-gun competitions. These weapons are the type most consistent with the 2nd Amendment itself, which is purpose enough.

We really need to start educating the gun owning community about the facts surrounding so-called assault weapons.
 
Let me also provide some antecdotal evidence of how successful the antis and the media have been in demonizing "assault weapons" and confusing the general public on the issue of semiautomatic vs. machine guns.

I have a step daughter who was not raised around firearms, until I came into the picture. Heh, heh, heh. I bought my first AR-15 when she was about a Jr. in high school. She's a good kid, so don't take this the wrong way.

I had just purchased that gun and was at home unboxing it when she came home from school. I held it up and said, "How do you like my new toy".

She got this "I just pooped my pants" look on her face and said, "Oh my God! That's a machine gun! Isn't that illegal?". She seemed very scared, and was frozen in her tracks.

I immediately saw the "teachable moment", got her calmed down and explained the differences to her. After that she's been very accepting of firearms. She is now armed with the truth and the proper data, where before, she was filled with the alarmist information that the media and the antis have purposefully pushed into the public realm.


By her intitial reaction, this must have been her thought process, fueled by faulty information:

1. That looks like a machine gun, therefore, it must be a machine gun.

2. Machine guns can go off at any time spraying bullets everywhere and killing anyone within close proximity.

3. Machine guns are illegal and anyone who would own one is a criminal or is at least very dangerous.

That thought process is exactly what the anti gun folks and the anti gun media want to take place. This is why NBC, when reporting on the potential passage of the assault weapons ban prior to 1994, showed video on the nightly news of govt. officials shooting full auto M16's and Uzi's. That was not an accident on their part, nor was it merely misinformed reporting. It had a purpose.
 
The sporting culture folks have been tested as to their views of assault rifle vs. hunting or brown rifles. On average they are negative to the the EBRs
Click to expand...

It's too bad that the sporting culture folks don't pay attention to the debates. They would have heard their duck hunting shotgun referred to as an assault weapon, and their scoped rifle as a "sniper rifle" that needs regulation if not prohibition.
 
Jimmy Carter considers Hamas among his friends, so I'm not sure how state of the art his thinking is at the moment.

Assault weaspons are very useful IMO.

Without them, we would be at the mosque praying and facing mecca,
or speaking German.

Thank goodness our military has them.

I have no issues what so ever with citizens owning them. I know one individual who owns over 3 dozen of these weapons and he bought most of them just for spite towards Bill and Hilary.

We target shoot with them at a rifle range. That along with some chicken and cole slaw make a real nice saturday afternoon.
 
You mean Saturday Night Specials, baby-killing shotguns, and high-powered sniper rifles?

(Someone wanna come up with a better pejorative for the duck guns for me?)
Click to expand...

OK, how about "street sweeping shotguns". Now, "The Street Sweeper" is a specific model of shotgun and I believe it was banned under the original AWB94. I could be mistaken about that. However, the antis never let any facts get in their way. Calling all shotguns "street sweeping shotguns" can serve to misinform the ingnorant public yet again and help to gain tighter control, if not outright bans, on all guns.

They'd like to get us to the UK model where you can typically only own double barrel scatterguns which are kept at a licensed gun club for which you must be a current member and be licensed as well. You must also have any and all guns you own registered with the govt.
 
The sporting culture folks ought to take a look at what's happened in other countries. By the time the antis have got done, it is a hassle to even own a BB gun or a .22 single shot.

In England they are even trying to discourage airsoft, because they want to quash any vestige of the gun culture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top