Quote of the day
posted at 11:35 pm on October 4, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
“None of this is easy for someone raised to believe that the Second Amendment was the dividing line between the enlightenment and the dark ages of American culture. Yet, it is time to honestly reconsider this amendment and admit that … here’s the really hard part … the NRA may have been right. This does not mean that Charlton Heston is the new Rosa Parks or that no restrictions can be placed on gun ownership. But it does appear that gun ownership was made a protected right by the Framers and, while we might not celebrate it, it is time that we recognize it.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
It’s accepted that the founders were referring to individual weapons. One generally doesn’t “keep and bear” a nuke or crew-served weapon.
And look up the dictionary definition “regulated”. It includes a defintion that has nothing to do with the type of government restrictions we currently think of when we use the word, and that definition is what makes sense in the context of the wording of the 2nd Amendment.
Hollowpoint on October 5, 2007 at 7:02 PM
And what happens in a real world situation where the first part of an attacker’s body you hit is an arm raised to wield a weapon of their own? You’re not going to get the penetration necessary. Or if the attacker is wearing heavy clothing with a lot of body fat?
A “large, nasty” but shallow wound may not cause enough blood loss to incapacitate an attacker. The vast majority of self-defense experts I’ve read do not endorse that type of round. They may have specialized uses, but there’s a reason cops generally don’t use them.
I’ve yet to hear of someone seriously wounded or killed due to overpenetration- but I have heard of attackers who’ve been able to continue thier attack after being shot.
What looks good in a gelatin block may not work so well in a real life situation.
Hollowpoint on October 5, 2007 at 7:12 PM
All very true. Which is why you follow the standard Rules of Engagement;
1. Aim for the assailant’s center of mass, also known as the upper chest area (Think; between the nipples).
2. Fire at least two rounds into the center of mass.
3. Repeat as needed as long as the assailant is on his feet.
The signal to “Cease Fire” is when the assailant is on the floor and no longer advancing on you.
As for “shallow” wounds, most rounds of the Glaser and Magsafe type (Copper-alloy jacket with small shot inside with a plastic or Teflon cap to retain them, which penetrates and then “pops” inside the body) show approximately 8 to 10 inches penetration with wound channels roughly 2 1/2 to 3 inches in diameter at greatest extension, which generally occurs in the first 5 to 7 inches of internal trajectory. On most normal-sized human beings, the torso is from 9 to 11 inches front to back and from 16 to 18 inches in width. Assuming that the shooter aims at the correct area, the resulting cavity will include at least one lung, if not both, plus the heart.
As for hitting an arm upraised as a shield, that’s why you don’t cease fire after only one shot. As we used to say in the Advanced Marksmanship course, the First Rule of a hostile encounter is Murphy’s Law; Anything That Can Go Wrong, Will Go Wrong.
The answer is, of course, “Never Fire Only One Shot.”
cheers
eon
eon on October 5, 2007 at 10:45 PM
A victim-disarmament supporting troll hauls out the “Nuclear Strawman” again.
Automatic Fail.
Kristopher on October 6, 2007 at 1:11 AM
You generally see this kind of comment from some pro-victim-disarmament loser who thinks he has found some kind of magic fatal flaw in the Second Amendment.
No flaw here … just a failure to think.
Yes … the second amendment gives you the right to keep and bear arms … but it does not give you the right to point a loaded rifle at passers-by just for giggles.
An assembled nuke is the equivalent of a loaded rifle pointed at someone’s head … at the heads of everyone within 20 miles of you.
Point a loaded rifle at someone for no reason, and they would be justified in either shooting your sorry ass, or having the police do it for them.
Point a nuke at a county occupied by people ( i.e., merely assemble it ), and the residents there have every right to hang your stupid ass from the nearest lamp post, and then call in the Bomb Unit to haul the damned thing away.
When a leftard uses the “Nuclear Strawman” as an anti-second amendment argument, he has auto-failed.
Such a gaffe should not be graced with counter-argument, but should be treated as a Godwin’s Law level personal f*ckup.
Kristopher on October 6, 2007 at 1:22 AM
VERY good point.
Texas Nick 77 on October 6, 2007 at 9:06 AM
Good advice, pardner. There is no “one size fits all” in self defence. I was raised with firearms (little machines that you use to put food on the table, protect yourself, your family, and home) and have a small Thai born wife. She never shot a firearm until last year, when my brother and I gave her a bit of training. She is coming along nicely.
Point is, look at your surroundings, think of the dangers you may face, choose the best weapon, and maybe a backup or three. Be prepared, and think ahead.
Texas Nick 77 on October 6, 2007 at 9:21 AM
Glaser Safety Slugs were available for a while years ago. Are they still around now? (I’ve been overseas a decade, returning soon.)
Texas Nick 77 on October 6, 2007 at 9:28 AM
Doesn’t EVERYONE have an ICBM in their basement?
Get a life worm. Choose to be a victim if you want, but do not require me to be one also.
Texas Nick 77 on October 6, 2007 at 9:31 AM
Another alternative could be in the form of a pistol that fires a shotgun shell.
http://www.taurususa.com/video/taurus-theJudge-video.cfm
Texas Nick 77 on October 6, 2007 at 10:03 AM
As a frequent flyer, I would love to have that right. But I would prefer it allowed to only those willing to swear on an Old or New Testament that they are not going to hijack the plane using it.
Texas Nick 77 on October 6, 2007 at 10:14 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2