California Politician's Firearms Identification Guide (2010)

[RRichie09]

Yes.. Yes... the m-16 was designed for trench warfare... and all assault weapons during trench warfare times ( in the trenches lets not forget ) were designed to shoot from the hip. EXCEPT IF YOU SHOT FROM YOUR HIP YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SHOOT OVER THE ****ING TRENCH!!!!!

I think she thinks that both sides were in the same trench.

On a serious note, wasn't that why the shotgun was so feared during trench warfare, once you crossed no man's land and you got to their trench you were the man if you had the shotty right?

[faterikcartman]

Nice list... you left out the musket.

Yeah, no kidding: "famous for being the favoured weapon of revolutionary terrorists and anti-government agitators."

[jm838]

In an earlier comment someone said she was part of "Protest Easy Guns" (crappy name for a crappy organization). They are just the ones who posted the video. This woman's name is Jackie Kuhls, and she is part of "New Yorkers Against Gun Violence" (equally crappy organization, slightly better name). Their email is nyagv@nyagv.org. I drafted an email to them several months ago, but halted short of sending it for fear that it was too logical and may actually give them a basis upon which to form counterarguments. Here is what I wrote...


NYAGV,

I recently came across one of your youtube videos featuring Jackie Kuhls. It addresses assault weapons, informing viewers about what they are and why there should be laws regulating them. I understand that these types of firearms are controversial, but I take issue with the way your speaker describes them. There were several statements made throughout the video that were either entirely false or had misleading implications. For one, none of the weapons featured in the video were designed to be "spray fired from the hip". They are all semi-automatic, civilian firearms, and none of them can be readily converted to automatic or burst fire. In fact, many "assault weapons" have factory-implemented limitations that make a full-auto conversion more difficult than it would be on a standard rifle. Even the military issue weapons that these firearms are based on were never designed to be "spray fired". No military trains its soldiers to fire from the hip, as it is highly inaccurate and entirely ineffective. Using these terms to make a firearm sound more dangerous than it is serves only to capitalize on the fears of the uneducated. An "assault weapon" is not any more capable of rapid fire, or "spray firing," than any other gun on the civilian market.

It is stated multiple times during the video that bullets fired from assault weapons can penetrate bullet-proof vests and doors. This is partially true, depending on the ammunition used. Armor piercing rounds do exist, and they are difficult to stop with body armor. The standard ammunition used with these firearms, however, is no more likely to penetrate armor than any other round fired from a rifle. In fact, most "assault weapons" use less powerful rounds than most hunting rifles. These rounds are considered suitable for small game, but rounds designed for hunting deer and other large mammals are generally much more powerful, and much more likely to penetrate. The compact "assault weapons" shown in the video fire standard handgun rounds. Functionally, they are identical to any handgun available on the market. They are larger and less concealable, and as such less attractive to criminals than they are to collectors. They are both impractical and expensive civilian weapons in a military lookalike shell, and should not be considered a threat to anyone. If you outlaw guns capable of "increased firepower," as you call it, you outlaw nearly everything except "assault weapons".

You may cling to armor-piercing rounds as a last bastion for fear mongering, but in many jurisdictions these are already outlawed. Additionally, they are remarkably difficult to find on the civilian market. Armor piercing rounds can be fired from many different types of weapons, "assault" and otherwise. They are not a suitable basis for new legislation.

I understand that you have the best intentions. You want to make the world a safer place, and I respect you for it. The ethical way to do this, however, is not to lie. How do YOU feel when you are lied to? Do you really think that you have the right to trick the common man into supporting your cause? Is that really how democracy is intended to work? The socially responsible thing to do is to inform the public of THE TRUTH, and if you are in the right, then they will support you. If you are wrong, then why continue campaigning? Surely there is some better way to use your time. Gun control does not have to be a polarized issue. Even I believe in background checks and reasonable waiting periods. Surely if you focused on opening dialogue rather than mud-slinging we could find more solutions to our problems.

If you have read through this entire email, I commend you for it. Perhaps you are not as closed-minded as your video lead me to believe. If you actually considered the points I made, even better. If you release a video retracting your statements, or at least editing them, I will be very impressed. In all likelihood whoever reads this will delete it and never speak to anyone about it again. I urge you to reconsider. Please, do the right thing, and stop lying about guns.

Sincerely,

JM_838 (originally had my name here, but I don't really like posting that on public forums.)

[jm838]

If someone wants to send that to them, be my guest. I'd rather they didn't have my email address.

[RRichie09]

VERY well thought out and written response, however if you really want to reach them I would cut out the parts about them being fear mongers and liars.

She may infact beleive everything she said and had no intention of lying. You, nor I believe this, but you shouldn't make this assumption till she confirms it through her response.

Otherwise, a very good letter. Could be touched up for persons not familiar with firearms, but like you said, you don't plan on sending the letter.

[Animal Mother]

I don't think it's real. Especially since the Plasma Rifle is "still in the 'fictional' stage of development".

"Hey, just what you see pal"

[Animal Mother]

Are you guys telling me that none of you have seen that famous pic of an American Dough Boy chargining into the trenches with a Tec 9?

[maddoggie13]

LoL

[Doug L]

[Re: the YouTube video]

This female (I just can't bring myself to call her a lady) is an idiot.
She doesn't even comprehend, or acknowledge, the difference between full-auto and semi-auto.

I'll bet dollars to donuts, that she's also against all sentence-enhancing laws and the death penalty, as well, because those are just 'too mean' to the criminals.

[Arondos]

<sarcasm on> The AK-47 was not displayed because merely having a photo of such an evil device would cause such a distortion of the ying and yang in those viewing the video that they would immediately be forced to go out on a baby/puppy/kitten killing spree.<sarcasm off>

Wow while she might think she is well intentioned, talk about clueless.

[Milsurp Collector]

On a serious note, wasn't that why the shotgun was so feared during trench warfare, once you crossed no man's land and you got to their trench you were the man if you had the shotty right?

Yes. During World War I Germany protested that American use of shotguns in trench warfare went against the rules of war.

Although the Model 1897 was popular with American troops in World War I, it wasn't so popular with the German troops. "On 19 September 1918, the German government issued a diplomatic protest against the American use of shotguns, alleging that the shotgun was prohibited by the law of war." A part of the German protest read; "It is especially forbidden to employ arms, projections, or materials calculated to cause unnecessary suffering". "This is the only known occasion in which the legality of actual combat use of the shotgun has been raised." However, the United States interpreted their use of the shotgun differently than Germany. The Judge Advocate General of the Army, Secretary of State Robert Lansing carefully considered and reviewed the applicable law and promptly rejected the German protest. France and Britain considered using shotguns as trench warfare weapons during World War I. The shotgun in question was a double-barreled shotgun, which was not used because they were unable to obtain high powered ammunition and that type of gun is slow to reload in close combat.


German Response

The rejection of their protest greatly upset the German forces, because they believed they were treated unjustly in the war. Shortly after the protest was rejected, Germany issued threats that they would punish all captured American Soldiers that were found to be armed with a shotgun. This led to the United States issuing a retaliation threat, stating that any measures unjustly taken against captured American Soldiers would lead to an equal act by the United States on captured German Soldiers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Model_1897

[dantodd]

Yes. During World War I Germany protested that American use of shotguns in trench warfare went against the rules of war.

We never used short barreled shotguns, didn't your read Miller

[aileron]

Nice list... you left out the musket.

That would be a .50 caliber musket that can shoot down 747 jet aircraft. I would expect more from you... disappointed.

[luckystrike]

dont forget about baby skull seeking bullets- heat seeking rounds also known as incendary-tipped-bullet-gun-ammo

[D_fens]

don't you mean 40 KILOwatt range?