Jason Alexander long twit on Assault Weapons

[Atypical Liberal]

190. It hits all the usual incorrect anti-gun talking points.

Despite these massacres recurring and despite the 100,000 Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence - these people see no value to even considering some kind of control as to what kinds of weapons are put in civilian hands.

Of course, this number also includes suicides. I think it is disingenuous to include suicides, as people who are committed enough to commit suicide with a firearm are probably going to find a way no matter what. Moreover, if someone wants to kill themselves, that is up to them. I'm not going to tolerate restrictions on my rights because of choices people make for themselves. Just like I do not advocate prohibition on drugs or alcohol, even though some people harm themselves with these things - that is a choice for adults to make for themselves, and we should not prohibit others from responsibly using them just because a few do not.

When you look at homicides, there are around 10,000 - 13,000 homicides annually using firearms in the United States.

When you look at homicides involving rifles, all rifles, not just "assault" rifles, there are only about 300 such homicides in the United States every year. This is half as many as are killed using hands and feet.

It's tragic, but hardly an excuse to go putting restrictions on the most popular center-fire target rifle in the United States (the AR-15).

So the patriots are correct, gun ownership is in the constitution - if you're in a well-regulated militia.

Clearly incorrect.

First of all, the second amendment merely indicates that service in a well-regulated militia is a reason to own firearms. It does not say that it is the only reason to own them.

It is like saying, "I am out of bread; I am going to the store." This does not mean that the only reason I am going to the store is to buy bread. Nor does it mean that I may not go to the store at other times to buy other things. Nor does it mean that stores only sell bread.

Second of all, the Dick Act of 1903 created both the Organized Militia and the Unorganized Militia. Every able-bodied man aged 17-45 not in the Organized Militia is in the Unorganized militia. It's sexist and ageist, but such was the era over a decade before women had the right to vote.

Finally, all nine supreme court justices agreed that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right irrespective of membership in a militia.

What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve? Let's see - does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes. Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes. Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes. So basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff, more fully, faster and from further away. To achieve maximum lethality.

Here the author shows his lack of familiarity with firearms.

The AR-15 in its standard 5.56mm (or .223 caliber) is not a particularly powerful round compared to many battle rifle rounds that preceded and followed its development. To be sure, the AR-15 is now available in a variety of different calibers, from the diminutive and ancient .22LR, to 9mm, to 5.56mm, to .223, to 7mm, to .308. Some are more powerful than others.

But there are standard semi-automatic hunting rifles that shoot the exact same ammunition in the exact same fashion, with the exact same ballistic performance.

There are also standard semi-automatic hunting rifles that shoot more more powerful rounds.

The most distinguishing features of the AR-15 is that it is based on a platform that was optimized for the harsh conditions of a battlefield, and that it can accept high-capacity magazines appropriate for warfare.

Now as long as that is only happening to liberals, homosexuals and democrats - no problem. But if they try it with anyone else - it's going to be arms-ageddon and these committed, God-fearing, brave souls will then use their military-esque arsenal to show the forces of our corrupt government whats-what.

The next standard talking point is the usual variation of "armed resistance is no longer possible" and/or "we will never need to rebel against our government".

But as the author admits, our government is clearly already being corrupted, perhaps beyond the point of no return, by corporate and wealthy interests. Since 9/11, our government has radically infringed on the rights of US citizens. From suspension of habeus corpus, to pervasive domestic surveillance, to torture, to extraordinary rendition (to enable torture), to outright assassination of US citizens, we are easily on the road closer to tyranny than away from it.

Now with the advent of Citizens United, we have the wholesale selling of speech to those with the most money, and as the middle class dwindles, so will its voice. Our government is responding less and less to the interests of regular Americans as it tailors policies favorable to those with the most financial pull.

So anyone who can think that they live in the epitome of representative government and will forevermore have the luxury of a government beholden to the interests of its people is beyond naive. They are just ignorant of our present situation and of history in general.

The other talking point is that armed rebellion is impossible against the US military. I would simply point out that the United States has lost or quit every military engagement it has fought in the last 65 years. And this was with a voluntary military that largely did not affect average Americans and did not cause economic devastation and erosion of its tax base at home. Civil War would be drastically different. And please note that I am not some Red Dawn worshiper who thinks that Civil War would be some pleasant opportunity to scream "Wolverines" and fight the bad guys. It would be the destruction of our entire way of life for generations.

Then there are the folks who write that if everyone in Colorado had a weapon, this maniac would have been stopped. Perhaps. But I do believe that the element of surprise, tear gas and head to toe kevlar protection might have given him a distinct edge. Not only that, but a crowd of people firing away in a chaotic arena without training or planning - I tend to think that scenario could produce even more victims.

This is the common theme that armed citizens can't stop such tragedies, or that their would be blue-on-blue friendly fire.

The author is right in that when someone meticulously plans such an assault, the odds are very much in their favor. But the fact also is that in just about every mass shooting event in the history of the United States, the shooting was stopped when people with guns made the shooter stop. Usually it is police, but it's not the badges nor the uniforms that make the shooter stop - it is their guns that make the shooter stop.

And given that, I'll take anyone, police officer or civilian, who is heroic enough to be that man with a gun that stops such crimes in their tracks.

The fear of friendly fire, while a possibility, smacks very much of the old "there will be blood in the streets" we heard back before concealed carry became the law of almost the entire land. It never happened. Events like this are very rare, but when they happen, usually it's pretty obvious who the bad guy is.

Here is an example that happened just a week ago:

Two armed robbers attempted to rob an internet cafe in Florida. A CCW holder was present and fired on the criminals, striking them and causing them to flee. It's pretty obvious, even with the poor video quality, who the bad guys were, and who the good guy was.

Is it always going to be clear-cut? Of course not. Is it going to be clear in a dark, smoke-filled theater? Of course not. Should we discount the concealed carry of firearm by civilians because sometimes they might be powerless in spite of being armed? Of course not.

There is no excuse for the propagation of these weapons. They are not guaranteed or protected by our constitution. If they were, then we could all run out and purchase a tank, a grenade launcher, a bazooka, a SCUD missile and a nuclear warhead. We could stockpile napalm and chemical weapons and bomb-making materials in our cellars under our guise of being a militia.

Ah, the old "nukes for everyone" canard.

Just about everyone, particularly pro-gun people, agree that the second amendment is about small arms appropriate for infantry use. They are not about explosives, weapons of mass destruction, crew-served weaponry, or other indiscriminate weapons.

The "nukes for everyone" is a classic red herring.

No one is advocating nukes for everyone.

These weapons are military weapons. They belong in accountable hands, controlled hands and trained hands. They should not be in the hands of private citizens to be used against police, neighborhood intruders or people who don't agree with you. These are the weapons that maniacs acquire to wreak murder and mayhem on innocents. They are not the same as handguns to help homeowners protect themselves from intruders. They are not the same as hunting rifles or sporting rifles. These weapons are designed for harm and death on big scales.

Yes, these are military weapons, and that is precisely the kind of weapon that the second amendment is protecting. If the people are to serve in militias to insure the security of free states, that means killing people who would threaten the security of free states. That means military weaponry. The second amendment is not about hunting or sporting firearms.

But aside from that, the author is just plane wrong. All rifles, let alone assault rifles, cause far less harm every year than the handguns the author admits homeowners use to protect themselves from intruders. In fact, all rifles, let alone assault rifles, only account for about 300 homicides annually in the US. Hands and feet kill twice as many people.

SO WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THEM? WHY DO YOU NOT, AT LEAST, AGREE TO SIT WITH REASONABLE PEOPLE FROM BOTH SIDES AND ASK HARD QUESTIONS AND LOOK AT HARD STATISTICS AND POSSIBLY MAKE SOME COMPROMISES FOR THE GREATER GOOD? SO THAT MOTHERS AND FATHERS AND CHILDREN ARE NOT SLAUGHTERED QUITE SO EASILY BY THESE MONSTERS? HOW CAN IT HURT TO STOP DEFENDING THESE THINGS AND AT LEAST CONSIDER HOW WE CAN ALL WORK TO TRY TO PREVENT ANOTHER DAY LIKE YESTERDAY?

Indeed! Let's look at those hard statistics that I quoted from the FBI above. About 300 people are murdered using rifles of all kinds every year. Yet the AR15 is the most popular center-fire target rifle in the country, owned by tens of millions of people. It is not fair to punish the 99% of firearm owners over the actions of 300 people.

I'll say it plainly - if someone wants these weapons, they intend to use them. And if they are willing to force others to "pry it from my cold, dead hand", then they are probably planning on using them on people.

Oh Jesus Christ. I own three generations of my family's firearms. None of them has ever been used for violence against people. Many of them have been used for hunting, particularly when my family was poor and it was the primary way of securing meat. By me, my firearms have only ever been used for target shooting and, rarely, hunting.

I most certainly have bought firearms specifically for shooting people - a handgun and an assault rifle. I bought them so that I could defend my property and my family should the need arise. This does not mean that I "intend" to use them, any more than I intend to use my seat belts, my spare tires, my fire extinguishers, or my smoke detectors. They are tools that I buy hoping I never have to use them, but guarding against the possibility that I might have to use them.

The primary thing I purchase my firearms for is for target shooting, and I shoot competitively on a shooting team.