“Who needs guns then? Well, hunters need guns for the sport. Some peo­ple need guns for their pro­fes­sion– law enforce­ment, secu­rity guards, peo­ple who trans­port cash from busi­nesses to banks, etc., gang mem­bers, drug car­tels, felons, rob­bers and those who, with­out a gun, could not do their jobs.”
by Joan Peterson, writing as 'Japete'




"walls of the city" logo conceptualized by Oleg Volk and executed by Linoge. Logo is © "walls of the city".

expressed ignorance

In our modern day and age, when access to the internet is available from all manner of devices, euqipment, and locations, there is really no more excuse for ignorance. The information is out there, you just have to be willing to go get it… and, unfortunately, some people seem completely willing to express that amount of effort, at all.

For instance, we have this particular article at rochesterturning.com. The author begins by bemoaning the fact that a new “Assault Weapon Ban” seems to have little to no chance of being successful in the coming few months, if not farther in the future. Them’s the breaks, I suppose. But then the author in question continues on to write a few gems that deserve highlighting:

Where are we with this? We don’t need them on our streets. Assault weapons are for shooting people-no other reason to have them in your possession. I come from a hunting family. I understand owning sporting weapons.

Well, the author may have “come from a hunting family”, but he apparently knows next to nothing about firearms.

Firearms defined as “assault weapons” by the expired national “Assault Weapon Ban” and by the currently operational Kalifornistan ban of the same name are functionally no different than a large number of semi-automatic hunting firearms on the market today. Operationally speaking, a semi-automatic “hunting rifle” is not significantly different from an AR-15 – sure, one may be recoil operated as opposed to gas operated, some may have larger magazines than others, some may have removable magazines and some may not, but effectively speaking, the firearms are exactly identical – every time you pull the trigger, one, and only one, bullet will come out of the barrel.

The old “Assault Weapon Ban” and the current Kalifornistan one primarily ban firearms based entirely off aesthetic features that have no real significance on the operational aspects of the firearm – threaded barrels, removable magazines, etc. In the end, those do not significantly affect how the bullet will leave the barrel, nor does it make the firearm any less effective, and nor do they significantly separate “assault weapons” from any other semi-automatic firearm.

By way of example, what is the difference between these two firearms, one being covered by the Assault Weapon Ban currently enacted in Kalifornistan, and one not:


I will give you a hint: not a damned thing.

Both of those firearms are the ubiquitous Ruger Mini-14, but one is not legal in Kalifornistan, and one is. The latter of the two firearms, since it does not have a pistol grip, flash suppressor, or threaded barrel, is 100% legal in Kalifornistan, even though it can accept a removable magazine. The former, however, does have a pistol grip, a collapsible stock, a flash suppressor (and probably a threaded barrel underneath that), and removable magazines, and thus would not be legal within that Left Coast state.

Functionally, the firearms are no different, but one is an “assault weapon” and the other is not.

How does that make sense?

Oh, and the Mini-14 platform is frequently used for hunting purposes… not deer, mind you, but varmint-control and other small game.

So which firearm do we not need “on our streets”, and which is not a problem again?

And how much do you really “understand” about “sporting weapons”?

Oh, spekaing of sporting weapons, while we are on the topic, there were some rather significant competitive matches recently featuring firearms that supposedly have no “sporting” purposes, especially the uber-evil AR-15. So what do you mean by that word, exactly?

I understand the 2nd amendment.

If you are supporting a pointless ban on certain firearms just because of aesthetic additions, you do not understand the Second Amendment. If you are supporting reinstating a ban on certain firearms that accomplished absolutely nothing in its previous incarnation, you do not understand the Second Amendment. If you think it only applies to hunting and “sporting” purposees, you do not understand the Second Amendment.

Clear enough for you?

I’m sorry, but I don’t understand kow-towing to the NRA. Absolute power=absolute corruption.

And that quote was just thrown in for the fun of it… Mate, if the NRA had absolute power, I could walk down to my local Wal-Mart, and walk out 10 minutes later with a full-automatic, short-barreled KRISS. Seeing as how that is not the case, you are simply full of hoplophobic shit. Or, rather, your pants are…

2 comments to expressed ignorance