Control: Exposing the Truth About Guns, Page 6

  Fully automatic weapons (i.e., “machine guns”) are, on the other hand, not military-“style” weapons; they are actual military weapons—and they’ve generally been outlawed for civilian use since 1986. While the media and controllists don’t like to make that distinction clear, this debate has nothing to do with those weapons.

  YEAH, BUT IF YOU MODIFY ONE, IT BECOMES FULLY AUTOMATIC.

  “The AR-15, when it’s been modified by someone who knows what they’re doing, can fire four to six bullets a second and 100 bullets in one minute. These are killing machines. They are machine guns.”

  —PIERS MORGAN, December 21, 2012

  In his zeal to illustrate how overly deadly the AR-15 supposedly is versus other guns, Piers has finally revealed that he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.

  Since an AR-15 fires rounds at the same rate as any other semi-automatic weapon (be it a handgun or one of those dreaded “assault rifles”), he has to resort to this idea of the gun’s being “modified by someone who knows what they’re doing.” While he makes this sound easy, it’s not—it effectively involves replacing the entire firing mechanism inside the gun.

  But perhaps the best response to Morgan’s argument is also the simplest one: twenty years in prison.

  It is a federal felony to convert an AR-15, or any other gun, into a fully automatic weapon.

  Period. End of story.

  If we are really going to debate how criminals might access, modify, convert, or adapt guns to fit their needs, then we can put all of the other arguments behind us right now, because none of them make a difference.

  That said, it’s pretty telling just how weak your argument is when you have to resort to a “yeah, but criminals might . . . ” stance to make your point.

  I STILL DON’T UNDERSTAND WHY ANYONE WOULD NEED A SEMI-AUTOMATIC IN THEIR HOME.

  “Why does anybody in America who is not in the military or the police force need a semi-automatic weapon that can unleash hundreds of shots in a matter of a few minutes and slaughter innocent Americans?”

  —PIERS MORGAN, December 17, 2012

  “Semi-automatics have only two purposes. One is so owners can take them to the shooting range once in a while, yell heehaw, and get all horny at the rapid fire and the burning vapor spurting from the end of the barrel. Their other use—their only other use—is to kill people.”

  —STEPHEN KING, Guns

  I first want to offer my apologies to anyone who will read this section and say to themselves, Yeah, no kidding, what idiot does not know that? Unfortunately, there are plenty of people who either don’t understand the way guns work, or who purposefully confuse their terminology to push an agenda.

  The prefix semi comes from Latin and means “half.” Replacing semi with half in some common English terms would give us half-formal, half-final, and half-automatic. A semi-formal dance does not require formal wear; a semi-final in basketball means you still have another game to play; and a semi-automatic guns means that your weapon cannot fire a hail of bullets for as long as you pull the trigger.

  Semi-automatic guns are just as their name implies: semi-automatic. They can fire bullets as fast as one can pull the trigger. A semi-automatic does not fire anywhere near as quickly as a machine gun—otherwise known as a full-automatic weapon.

  Those who have a primal hatred for semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 usually aren’t reasonable enough to have a real conversation with. Most of them simply want the gun banned, without any thought as to what the alternative might be. Unfortunately, unlike many other products, there is no “in-between” when it comes to guns. There is no type of gun that would fire faster than a manually loaded gun, but not as fast as a semi-automatic.

  So, to answer the question posed by Piers Morgan and Stephen King as to why anyone would need a semi-automatic (and I hope you notice how both of them specifically use the term semi-automatic, which includes most modern handguns), it’s because the alternative is either a revolver, which can be fired almost as fast and would therefore need to be banned as well, or a manual bolt-action gun that requires way too much time to reload. Even experienced shooters can easily take several seconds to pull the bolt back, load another bullet into the chamber, and close the bolt again. If you miss with your first shot (and probably give away your location in the process), or if you are facing multiple armed criminals, you may very well need to fire many rounds rapidly.

  Some people consider that to be a dumb point. What are the odds that you’ll ever have to fend off multiple attackers or need to fire a bunch of shots? Well, consider these seven cases, all from December 2012, the same month of the Newtown tragedy, where victims faced at least three attackers.

  —Las Vegas, Nevada (December 24, 2012): “[F]our suspects—at least one of them carrying a firearm—knocked on the door of a first-floor apartment occupied by a couple and their infant. The assailants barged in when the woman occupant answered the door. The intruders were met with armed resistance.” Police described the scene as involving “a multitude of gunfire.” One of the attackers was killed and the three others fled and were at large.

  —Sacramento, California (December 23, 2012): A home invasion robbery left one intruder dead and three other intruders injured. The home was serving as a day-care center and several children were inside when the attempted robbery occurred.

  —Amarillo, Texas (December 19, 2012): A woman and her boyfriend arrived at her home to find several armed men inside. When the couple entered the home a gunfight ensued. One of the intruders was killed and the boyfriend suffered non-life-threatening injuries.

  —Atlanta, Georgia (December 18, 2012): Very early on a Wednesday morning three men entered a home to commit a robbery. In the ensuing gunfight, one of the invaders was wounded and fled, though he was later arrested when he went to a hospital for treatment of his gunshot wound. Another robber jumped out a second-story window to escape, but he died from the fall.

  —Boardman, Ohio (December 15, 2012): On a Saturday evening, four people tried to break into the home of James Truman. Two of the attackers had guns, and at least one of them fired shots. The homeowner was able to successfully drive the attackers away.

  —Apple Valley, California (December 6, 2012): An “elderly man” is described as firing “multiple rounds” at three intruders who broke into his home. The homeowner found the criminals inside his home when he arrived at about 10 p.m. The newspaper report describes how the man’s assailants tried to attack him from different sides, but that the homeowner was able to drive them out of the house.

  —Oakland, California (December 3, 2012): Three armed men broke into a house on a Monday morning. The homeowner exchanged a large number of gunshots with the criminals, wounding one of them. Police later caught the other two.

  This list is not meant to be comprehensive, but it should illustrate the idea that being attacked by multiple people—especially in cities where gangs are a problem—is not all that far-fetched. And to Stephen King, I hate to break it to you, but in the event people ever try to invade my home, you’re right: my AR-15 semi-automatic has only one intended use: to kill them.

  I’VE HEARD THAT YOU PLAN ON DEFEATING THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES MILITARY WITH YOUR ASSAULT RIFLE.

  “This is the survivalist argument that lies at the heart of the assault weapon defense: Being able to kill U.S. soldiers.”

  —JOE SCARBOROUGH, January 15, 2013 (via Twitter)

  “If you’re girding yourself for a massive battle with a despotic black copter über-government, stocking up on guns, ammo, and Campbell’s’ Cream of Mushroom soup, and it doesn’t happen, then you just look like an a**hole with a soup fetish . . . . The only way that your life would end up being truly meaningful is if the tyranny talk comes true, which puts you in the difficult position of having to argue tyranny hypotheticals.”

  —JON STEWART, January 17, 2013

  “[I]n their view, to do right by the Constitution you and I need to be able to defeat the U.S. military i
n battle. We need to be able to overthrow the U.S. government . . . . This is not hyperbole if you believe the gun radicals’ philosophy about guns—that gun rights are to protect our ability to overthrow the government—then we need to be able to destroy the U.S. military so we can overthrow that government . . . . [I]s that what gun rights are for?”

  —RACHEL MADDOW, January 14, 2011

  It’s amazing what a few hundred years can do to perspective. When the Founders added the first ten amendments to the Constitution in December 1791, they included the right to bear arms because it was necessary to the security of a free state. Put yourself in their shoes: after establishing the first-ever society meant to be governed by the people, not by some monarch or despot, they were understandably more than a little paranoid about a tyrannical government performing an Extreme Makeover: Dictator Edition.

  Two hundred and twenty-one years (and no monarchs, kings, or dictators) later, the idea that Americans would ever need to bear arms against a tyrannical government is used quite literally as a punch line. Those who talk about it are usually mocked, belittled, and ridiculed by the controllists. And since government tyranny is now a thing of the past, they argue, what other possible reason could there be to own a “killing machine” like an AR-15?

  Well, Joe, Jon, Rachel—I’m glad you brought it up. This “gun radical” is more than happy to explain it to you. As comical as the idea may seem to you guys as you sit in your Manhattan office towers, the primary objective of gun rights is to protect American citizens against a tyrannical government. You can laugh all you want—but the unarmed and vulnerable masses in the former Soviet Union, fascist Italy, and Nazi Germany weren’t laughing as they and their friends and families were sent to their mass graves. (Yes, I did get the memo that talking about genocides allegedly makes you sound even crazier—but I shredded it.)

  The people who mock this idea usually rely on a few standard tricks to make the whole concept seem ludicrous. One of those tricks is to paint a battle scene in which a lone person is trying to fight against the entire government.

  You want an assault rifle so that YOU can take on the entire United States military? That is ridiculous!

  I completely agree, that is ridiculous. I would definitely not be able to defeat the United States military in battle. In fact, if disaster strikes and Rachel, Jon, and Joe evacuate Manhattan and come take refuge on my ranch, I probably won’t even be able to protect them from roving bands of gangs looking for food. But the best part about the Second Amendment is that, as long as it exists, I will probably never have to try. Any government would be certifiably insane to attempt to overrun a country composed of 80 million people owning 300 million firearms.

  If a government is someday dumb enough to attempt it, at least citizens stand a fighting chance. To head off the usual retort, yes, the U.S. military does have tanks and jets and bombs—so what? The odds that an armed citizenry is ever taking on the armed forces as we know them today are Powerball-winning small. If things were ever to get to the point where armed conflict became necessary—especially if the underlying issue was an abandonment of the Constitution by our leaders—we’d likely see most soldiers refuse to fight or even flip sides and join the masses.

  Of course, those are hypotheticals that do nothing to make the case anyway. People who believe that to be a laughable scenario (and I agree that, right now, it is) will never be convinced, because they don’t want to be. For the rest of us, the Second Amendment is the ultimate deterrent, a German shepherd sitting on the front porch, frothing at the mouth and barking like mad.

  If we continue to stand for our rights, none of us alive today will ever have to pick up a weapon against our government. The bad news is that if those rights are watered down or taken away, the risk of tyranny will increase with each passing generation.

  In the meantime, there are plenty of other reasons why a law-abiding American household may choose to have a semi-automatic gun like an AR-15 in their home. During the 1992 Los Angeles race riots, hundreds of violent looters targeted average citizens and businesses. According to the History Channel:

  Traffic was blocked, and rioters beat dozens of motorists, including Reginald Denny, a white truck driver who was dragged out of his truck and nearly beaten to death by three African-American men . . . . Los Angeles police were slow to respond, and the violence radiated to areas throughout the city. California Governor Pete Wilson deployed the National Guard at the request of Mayor Tom Bradley, and a curfew was declared. By the morning, hundreds of fires were burning across the city, more than a dozen people had been killed, and hundreds were injured.

  Rioting and violence continued during the next 24 hours, and Korean shop owners in African-American neighborhoods defended their businesses with rifles. On May 1, President George [H. W.] Bush ordered military troops and riot-trained federal officers to Los Angeles and by the end of the next day the city was under control. The three days of disorder killed 55 people, injured almost 2,000, led to 7,000 arrests, and caused nearly $1 billion in property damage, including the burnings of nearly 4,000 buildings.

  Sounds like fun. How would you like to have been a business owner in that area armed with nothing more than a baseball bat or a single-shot pistol? Think you’d stand much of a chance against a violent mob? And what about those who were trapped in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, when armed looters ruled streets that had been virtually abandoned by police?

  “It’s downtown Baghdad,” tourist Denise Bollinger said about New Orleans. “It’s insane.”

  “The looting is out of control. The French Quarter has been attacked,” Councilwoman Jackie Clarkson said. “We’re using exhausted, scarce police to control looting when they should be used for search and rescue while we still have people on rooftops.”

  If you’re caught in the middle of that, what do you do—just dead-bolt your door and hope for the best? Maybe pull out that antique six-shooter against a violent gang of looters?

  In the New York City area, Hurricane Sandy proved to many who had previously scoffed at the so-called survivalists just how fast civilization and the rule of law can break down. After just a few days of no electricity, gas lines began to stretch for miles. In New Jersey, state troopers were deployed to all stations along the major interstates to calm nerves. In New York City a man had a gun stuck in his face at a Queens gas station after complaining that another customer had cut him off in line. A Lowe’s store manager in New York said, “You see the worst in people at a time like this. We’re trying to be there for them, but they get angry when they can’t get batteries or flashlights.”

  That was less than a week without electricity—what happens in a real, long-term disaster? What happens when food supply lines get cut off, or an epic storm cuts a large swath of people off from the outside world? Would you rather be hunkered down with a handgun holding a maximum of seven rounds (which is now the limit in New York), or an AR-15 with a magazine large enough to ensure that your entire family is protected?

  I could go on—but here’s the thing: I don’t have to. As of now this is still a free country and I have a right to defend myself and my family as I see fit. I do not need to come up with a list of justifications to make New York media elitists like Piers Morgan, Rachel Maddow, and Jon Stewart happy.

  All I need is the Second Amendment—just the way it is.

  I’M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THE SECOND AMENDMENT UP AGAIN. YOU HAVE TO ADMIT THAT IT’S PRETTY OUTDATED.

  “I don’t think the Founding Fathers had the idea that every man, woman, and child could carry an assault weapon.”

  —MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, December 16, 2012

  “When they passed the 2nd Amendment, they had muskets. It took 20 minutes to load one, and half the time, you missed, OK? The 2nd Amendment didn’t take into account assault weapons . . . . ”

  —DEEPAK CHOPRA, December 21, 2012

  “[T]hey always hide behind the Second Amendment. They’re fabulous at doing that. But the Second Amendme
nt does not give you the right to bear any kind of arm. And technology has changed. And, of course, the design has changed. The proficiency of the manufacturing has changed.”

  —ED SCHULTZ, December 19, 2012

  This is a pretty popular argument that’s made all the time by those who really want to click their heels together three times and pretend that the Founders were imbeciles who had no clue that technology would ever advance. Fortunately, it’s also an argument that’s been roundly rejected by a little group called the United States Supreme Court.

  In the landmark 2008 ruling District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court observed:

  Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. (emphasis added)

  That is such a clear and resounding quote that it’s probably counterproductive to even attempt to add to it, but there are a few other things that the mayor, Deepak, and Ed would be wise to understand.

  It is true that the people who wrote and ratified the Second Amendment did not specifically intend to protect the AR-15 or other modern-day weapons. It’s also true that there was no specific intent in the First Amendment to protect the right to say whatever you want on the Internet or to broadcast ridiculous opinions on MSNBC. And when our Founders wrote the Fourth Amendment they had no idea that they’d someday be protecting the right to talk privately on a cell phone (although whether or not the government is actually respecting that right is for another book).