Gabby Giffords: “Congress Is Afraid Of The Gun Lobby”
So how advanced does the technology of a weapon have to be to enable a rate of fire of 10 rounds per minute?
I have a muzzle-loading rifle, and, if I really hustle, I can get off two rounds per minute. However, there are muzzle-loading firearms that are capable of firing 10 rounds per minute. Consider the Colt Model 1851 Navy Revolver.
It was probably the most common revolver used during the Civil War. It takes a long time to load the six-round cylinder, but the cylinder is easily removed and replaced. It was not uncommon for soldiers to carry spare loaded cylinders. It’s possible to fire three cylinders (18 rounds) in under a minute.
However, there are even older weapons capable of firing 10 rounds per minute. Consider the weapon shown at the left. Henry V was able to use massed fire from such weapons to devastate an attack by a force that greatly outnumbered his happy few, his band of brothers, at Agincourt.
There are other, even simpler, weapons that can deliver a high rate of fire. David only took five stones when he fought Goliath. He was a good shot and only needed one to kill the giant, but an expert with a sling can get off 10 shots in a minute.
A sling is a stone age weapon.
Mayor Bloomberg was first caught using New York City IT resources to further his Mayors Against Illegal Guns gun control agenda. Today, JWF posts that he’s be caught sending a city employee to Nevada to lobby for a Nevada gun control bill. Instapundit suggest that this a matter that should be investigated by the New York Attorney General.
Yeah, it’s probably wrong to use city resources that way. I wouldn’t be surprised to find that the server hosting the MAIG’s assets has a big gulp hard drive that holds more than 16 Gb. Hypocrite. Arrogant hypocrite.
Heidi Yewman has a post over at MsBlog about her spending a month with a Glock pistol.
Her behavior is prime example of the fact that not everything that is legal is wise—or, in her case, responsible.
She bought a 9 mm Glock, took it home, and freaked out when she opened the box and found a magazine in the pistol. She found a cop (who was doing a traffic stop) and asked him to remove the magazine for her.
The cop thought I was an idiot and suggested I take a class. But up to that point I’d done nothing wrong, nothing illegal.
Nonsense! She had done something very, very, very wrong. She was fooling around with a firearm and had absolutely no training, not even the Eddie Eagle safely class the NRA offers for kids.
She began her … quest … fool’s errand … whatever … because she’s opposed to Starbucks’s policy of not hassling customers who carry firearms in accordance with local laws.
I was right to protest Starbucks policy. Today, they have a woman with absolutely no firearms training and a Glock on her hip sitting within arm’s reach of small children, her hands shaking and adrenaline surging.
Did I say, “irresponsible”? Let me also add, “immoral”! If she is so afraid of her own self-control that she doesn’t trust herself to be armed, why does she assume that she has the moral right to endanger others.
UPDATE—Zed from Day by Day asks a good question here.
Will there be a universal background check on each member of al Qaeda that we arm in Syria?
Principal Charles Hill maintains that children who play with toy guns may not take real guns seriously. He’s quoted as saying, “If we want older kids to not think guns are cool, we need to start early.”
Well, as Oscar Hammerstein observed about bigotry:
You’ve got to be taught
To hate and fear,
You’ve got to be taught
From year to year,
It’s got to be drummed
In your dear little ear
You’ve got to be carefully taught.
Dingy Harry may be back to trying to get a gun control bill through the Senate. Although he won’t be specific about plans, he’s said that he wants to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.
The Senator should consult the current version of 18 USC 922, which reads in part:
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—
(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) is a fugitive from justice;
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution …
It’s already illegal to sell or even to give guns to crooks or wackos. You know, it might be simpler for the Progressives to state their real policy objective, viz.:
[O]rdinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.
It would be more honest to offer an Amendment to repeal the Second.