news/rifles

I guess it’s started

Posted on by Caleb

Paul Helmke wants you to “ask the candidates why military guns are okay for the public“.

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said Thursday that the 30-round ammunition clips Robert Hawkins reportedly used in Wednesday’s shootings in Omaha would have been illegal to purchase under the assault-weapons ban.

Too bad that’s not true.  You just had to buy pre-ban magazines, which were perfectly legal.  Expensive at times, but if I wanted a 20 or 30 round magazine for someone, I just had to buy it.  In fact, for Christmas one year I got a girl three milsurp 30 rounders for her AR.

“If this is something that can take a 30-round clip and fire them off quickly, it should be banned. This is a weapon of mass murder,” he said.

You know, I’m actually glad that he said that.  It demonstrates quite clearly their criteria for what should be banned – which means that your Ruger 10/22 is on the list, your cherry Yugo SKS is on the list,  pretty much any semi-automatic firearm (except for shotguns) is on that list.

Helmke said Iowans should demand responses from the presidential candidates campaigning before the caucuses. He said they should ask why Americans are allowed to buy guns designed for the military.

“Basically, should the public be able to get the types of guns we use in Iraq?” he said.

And the final piece of the lie – the cherry on the sundae as it were.  These are not the kind of guns we use in Iraq.  These are semi-automatic rifles, they are not functionally different from semi-automatic hunting rifles, or expensive Benelli shotguns.  There is a significant technological difference between an automatic military weapon, and the semi-automatic rifles that share the same appearance.

Caleb

12 Comments

  1. Why should the public be allowed to buy guns designed for the military?

    According to the antis beloved Parker case, those are the only ones “protected…”

    Funny how that didn’t fly when I was Class III shopping, huh?

  2. Pingback: SayUncle » Brady Campaign: Ban all magazine fed guns

  5. Glad he is out there trying to ban more guns so he can make more victims so he can get more press time at the next shooting . .. . These folks have no connection to reality but I guess we all know that already

  6. thirdpower Says:
    December 7th, 2007 at 11:34 am
    Guns designed for the military? So that would include 1903’s, 1917’s, K98’s, Enfields, and Mosin-Nagants?

    I guess that would include my .58 1861 Colt rifle musket and .45-70 1874 Sharps carbine, they were designed for the Military…

    Helmke is such a idiot.

  7. Helmke is desperate to get the candidates talking about gun control. None of the Democrats want to touch the issue with a 2000 foot pole. Why? Because they want to win in 2008, and hold on to the house and senate.

    The worst thing for the Bradys is for no one to talk about gun control. The less people talk about it, the less people think about it. And the less people think about it, the less money for the Brady Campaign.

  9. Forget this Brady tool…he’s just spouting the usual mindless government enhancing tripe…..how did it work out with the girl and the 30 rounders? Any luck?

  10. At the time, pretty well actually. The best part was the box I used to wrap them in. 3 30 round AR mags in a Victoria’s Secret box.

    And she loved it.

  11. Hey, the question should be, “Why SHOULDN’T the population have guns designed for the military?” Why shouldn’t the government be afraid of (or at least respect) the people?

    If these leftball nutcases are so concerned about a fascistic central government, why would they not want to be able to resist on a level playing field?

    Me, I’ll take a Thompson, with an M-1 Abrams on the side, thanks!

Comments are closed.