Sorry it's been a while, I've been distracted by other things. But, as promised, here is my next salvo in my ongoing personal war against Paul Helmke and his ilk to make their blood pressure soar and to gnash their teeth in anger and frustration. I know I'm wishing on that last part as I would be highly flattered if my words actually managed to be read by the Brady Campaign and caused them pains as a result.
Another reason it has been awhile is the Virginia Tech shooting. I just didn't feel it appropriate to post a little gun porn until things had settled down a bit. But that is also the reason I'm doing it now. In the wake of the shooting, as any gun rights follower can tell you, there is the inevitable calls for banning, restricting and regulating the weapons used by the madman who killed 32 innocent people. With guns, blame the tool not the user, is the game of the day.
The cries from the gun controllers in the wake of Virginia Tech aren't original. The are the same cries you hear after each and every single shooting. As a result of VT, the calls are for restrictions on those deadly semi-automatic "assault weapons" and restrictions on magazine capacities that made this massacre possible.
If you don't know anything about guns, what do you think when you hear the term "assault weapon"? Most likely, you picture some nasty looking fellow holding an AK-47, right? The AK-47, after all, is the most recognized assault rifle in the world. Or you might picture US soldiers with M-16 assault rifles slung across their chests on a patrol somewhere in Iraq or Afghanistan. This is what I would expect of any reasoning person who watches the news at least once a week.
So tell me, when did a 9mm Glock 17 handgun suddenly become an "assault weapon"?
I'm sorry, Paul, most people can differentiate between a military looking rifle and a common handgun. Especially a Glock since they are ubiquitous among police officers and television. Folks may not the difference between various models and calibers but they can identify a Glock on sight due to its black color and blocky shape. And they know that a Glock handgun and a rifle that looks like an M16 are not the same thing. The only things they share in common are the facts they are both semi-automatic firearms and both are black.
As a gun rights advocate, I take a perverse pleasure in watching Helmke and his ilk expand the definition of "assault weapon", itself a made-up term, to essentially encompass any semi-automatic firearm. But only those semi-automatics that look evil or have been used in mayhem, killing and destruction. They're not after your traditional looking hunting semi-automatics (yet).
I take pleasure in this because the more they do it, the more they look like fools because over time enough people are going to learn the difference, get pissed off at being lied to and marginalize Helmke and people like him into utter insignificance. This process is already starting to occur in that great bastion of liberal spew, the New York Times.
This is a game about perception. If I place a military-only M16A3 and a civilian AR-15 with the same upper configuration side-by-side with the right-side facing you, not even an experienced firearms enthusiast will be able to figure out which is which from a few feet away. That is how Helmke and the Brady Campaign can get away with beating this drum because the reality is about function, not form. Only by either flipping over the guns to see the fire selector switches (and the manufacturer markings) or by breaking the guns open can you differentiate the two. Once you do, the differences are glaringly obvious (for this example, the bolt carrier and internal firing mechanisms are totally different).
But they aren't interested in facts like this. It is all about confusion, ignorance and misinformation. Most people, once shown the reality of these types of guns and realize the only differences are in appearance and the choice to have a detachable magazine, begin to back off the call for bans on "assault weapons".
But some people aren't like this. For them, like a lot of our world, perception is reality. Thus, they equate the scary looking gun with horrific deeds and automatically assume anyone who possesses such a weapon is automatically suspect and will commit such deeds. Most are ok with firearms ownership since "they don't care about hunting or target guns, just the bad ones". They've been boxed in by their perceptions. They want to see comfortable, traditional, proper looking guns in the hands of civilians and black, powerful, deadly guns in the hands of the police and military. I don't agree with this idea but I can understand it. I was not unlike them in my younger, stupider years. Times change.
So, to shatter your perceptions, I at long last present you with this entry in the Bite Me, Brady series...
This strange rifle is an AR-15 "assault weapon". It is made by DPMS as a match grade target rifle. It is called the Arctic Panther for reasons that should be obvious. This was the first demonized rifle I ever purchased and I bought it because it was white. Not many people own white rifles. Plus, it fits right in with that "Armed Canadian" image. You could easily picture some Canadian hunter or soldier patrolling the Arctic with one of these.
"But!", you stammer, "This isn't an M16!". For those you you unfamiliar with guns, believe it or not, this is almost the same thing as the M16. With a couple of special tools, or a new upper section and some spray paint, this rifle could look like a military rifle in under an hour.
But it doesn't and for a good reason. When people talk about the AR-15 being the most popular target rifle in America, this is one of the forms it commonly takes. This configuration is known as a "race gun". It is designed as a competitive target rifle. The fact it is white just makes it stand out on the line.
Notice the heavy fluted barrel. This is one of the features that mark it as target rifle. This barrel is much thicker than a military grade heavy barrel. In the gun community, this is called a "bull barrel". It is nearly an inch at the muzzle and even thicker under the handguard.
Which is the other feature. That white tube covering the barrel isn't a handguard. It is a free float tube rigidly attached to the receiver. The barrel has no contact with the tube. By doing this, when the rifle is held or rested, the pressure on the tube isn't transferred to the barrel which would otherwise cause it to flex. The bending of the barrel is very minute but after a few dozen rounds with a hot barrel at ranges out to 300-400 yards, that minute pressure can bend the barrel upwards and cause rounds to move off target. In a game where tenths of a inch matter, that can be the difference between a trophy and going home empty handed.
People like Carolyn McCarthy want to ban features like this because the only purpose they serve is to hold the barrel while killing people. As she so eloquently responded to a question of what a "barrel shroud" was, it is that "shoulder thing that goes up". I should send her a free copy of the NRA Rifle Basic course. It has pictures in the book and might help her.
Under HR.1022, my rifle would be banned for having that tube that improves accuracy. Oh, you thought that bill was about crime?!? Nope. It cut off the supplies of rifles such as this.
Another feature of a rifle such as this is cost. This is a specialized rifle. It has no iron sights and no provision to fit them. This rifle is intended to be scoped. With two 10 round magazines, this rifle retails at little over $1000 (not including the scope and mount which adds several hundred dollars more). Not exactly something a criminal is going to try to obtain in a straw purchase. Not to mention the fact it has a 20 inch barrel, is over three feet long and weighs around 11 pounds with scope. Not exactly something that is easily concealed.
This rifle is designed for competition, pure and simple. When people talk about "assault weapons", this is one of the guns they are talking about. It fires the same catridge as the military M16A3 or M4 but that is where the similarity ends. This rifle will outshoot any standard military assault rifle. That's right, folks, this civilian sorta-look-alike is more accurate than a military rifle. It was designed to be that way. The purposes are different.
For you gun geeks out there, this rifle does shoot 1/8" MOA at 100 yards with commercial ammo. Any deficiencies in accuracy are the fault of the shooter, not the gun. The irony of that is the fact I bought this to be my premier target rifle and it is the second-most accurate gun I own. The most accurate rifle I own cost 1/5th of this one. We'll feature that gem in a future post.
Do you find this rifle threatening, Mr. Helmke? I bought it to start competitive shooting. It is not a military weapon and never has been. It is an expensive, heavy, specialized civilian target rifle.
What about those evil features, Mr. Helmke? Does it make the rifle easy to spray from the hip? Pistol grip, check. Barrel shroud, check. High capacity magazine, check (note the 20 round magazine in the well and the 10 and 30 round magazines next to it). And for a bonus, those scary CADPAT military scope and muzzle covers for that sniper who is trying (and failing) to conceal a snow-white rifle in a North American forest.
What about you, private citizen? Does the fact I own this evil, scary white rifle make you fearful? It fires one round per pull of the trigger like any other hunting rifle and the bullet is so small that you can't legally use it to hunt anything larger than a coyote in most states. The only thing it is designed to put holes in is paper.
Folks like Paul Helmke like to confuse with perception. So, here you go, my attempt to cloud his perception. How do you explain this rifle away, Mr. Helmke? It isn't some deadly killing machine. It isn't used in crime. It isn't black! How do you classify it?
How about you stop lying and tell the truth. This is an example of the most popular sporting gun in the USA. Plain and simple.
Now off to find some seals...
Another reason it has been awhile is the Virginia Tech shooting. I just didn't feel it appropriate to post a little gun porn until things had settled down a bit. But that is also the reason I'm doing it now. In the wake of the shooting, as any gun rights follower can tell you, there is the inevitable calls for banning, restricting and regulating the weapons used by the madman who killed 32 innocent people. With guns, blame the tool not the user, is the game of the day.
The cries from the gun controllers in the wake of Virginia Tech aren't original. The are the same cries you hear after each and every single shooting. As a result of VT, the calls are for restrictions on those deadly semi-automatic "assault weapons" and restrictions on magazine capacities that made this massacre possible.
If you don't know anything about guns, what do you think when you hear the term "assault weapon"? Most likely, you picture some nasty looking fellow holding an AK-47, right? The AK-47, after all, is the most recognized assault rifle in the world. Or you might picture US soldiers with M-16 assault rifles slung across their chests on a patrol somewhere in Iraq or Afghanistan. This is what I would expect of any reasoning person who watches the news at least once a week.
So tell me, when did a 9mm Glock 17 handgun suddenly become an "assault weapon"?
I'm sorry, Paul, most people can differentiate between a military looking rifle and a common handgun. Especially a Glock since they are ubiquitous among police officers and television. Folks may not the difference between various models and calibers but they can identify a Glock on sight due to its black color and blocky shape. And they know that a Glock handgun and a rifle that looks like an M16 are not the same thing. The only things they share in common are the facts they are both semi-automatic firearms and both are black.
As a gun rights advocate, I take a perverse pleasure in watching Helmke and his ilk expand the definition of "assault weapon", itself a made-up term, to essentially encompass any semi-automatic firearm. But only those semi-automatics that look evil or have been used in mayhem, killing and destruction. They're not after your traditional looking hunting semi-automatics (yet).
I take pleasure in this because the more they do it, the more they look like fools because over time enough people are going to learn the difference, get pissed off at being lied to and marginalize Helmke and people like him into utter insignificance. This process is already starting to occur in that great bastion of liberal spew, the New York Times.
This is a game about perception. If I place a military-only M16A3 and a civilian AR-15 with the same upper configuration side-by-side with the right-side facing you, not even an experienced firearms enthusiast will be able to figure out which is which from a few feet away. That is how Helmke and the Brady Campaign can get away with beating this drum because the reality is about function, not form. Only by either flipping over the guns to see the fire selector switches (and the manufacturer markings) or by breaking the guns open can you differentiate the two. Once you do, the differences are glaringly obvious (for this example, the bolt carrier and internal firing mechanisms are totally different).
But they aren't interested in facts like this. It is all about confusion, ignorance and misinformation. Most people, once shown the reality of these types of guns and realize the only differences are in appearance and the choice to have a detachable magazine, begin to back off the call for bans on "assault weapons".
But some people aren't like this. For them, like a lot of our world, perception is reality. Thus, they equate the scary looking gun with horrific deeds and automatically assume anyone who possesses such a weapon is automatically suspect and will commit such deeds. Most are ok with firearms ownership since "they don't care about hunting or target guns, just the bad ones". They've been boxed in by their perceptions. They want to see comfortable, traditional, proper looking guns in the hands of civilians and black, powerful, deadly guns in the hands of the police and military. I don't agree with this idea but I can understand it. I was not unlike them in my younger, stupider years. Times change.
So, to shatter your perceptions, I at long last present you with this entry in the Bite Me, Brady series...
This strange rifle is an AR-15 "assault weapon". It is made by DPMS as a match grade target rifle. It is called the Arctic Panther for reasons that should be obvious. This was the first demonized rifle I ever purchased and I bought it because it was white. Not many people own white rifles. Plus, it fits right in with that "Armed Canadian" image. You could easily picture some Canadian hunter or soldier patrolling the Arctic with one of these.
"But!", you stammer, "This isn't an M16!". For those you you unfamiliar with guns, believe it or not, this is almost the same thing as the M16. With a couple of special tools, or a new upper section and some spray paint, this rifle could look like a military rifle in under an hour.
But it doesn't and for a good reason. When people talk about the AR-15 being the most popular target rifle in America, this is one of the forms it commonly takes. This configuration is known as a "race gun". It is designed as a competitive target rifle. The fact it is white just makes it stand out on the line.
Notice the heavy fluted barrel. This is one of the features that mark it as target rifle. This barrel is much thicker than a military grade heavy barrel. In the gun community, this is called a "bull barrel". It is nearly an inch at the muzzle and even thicker under the handguard.
Which is the other feature. That white tube covering the barrel isn't a handguard. It is a free float tube rigidly attached to the receiver. The barrel has no contact with the tube. By doing this, when the rifle is held or rested, the pressure on the tube isn't transferred to the barrel which would otherwise cause it to flex. The bending of the barrel is very minute but after a few dozen rounds with a hot barrel at ranges out to 300-400 yards, that minute pressure can bend the barrel upwards and cause rounds to move off target. In a game where tenths of a inch matter, that can be the difference between a trophy and going home empty handed.
People like Carolyn McCarthy want to ban features like this because the only purpose they serve is to hold the barrel while killing people. As she so eloquently responded to a question of what a "barrel shroud" was, it is that "shoulder thing that goes up". I should send her a free copy of the NRA Rifle Basic course. It has pictures in the book and might help her.
Under HR.1022, my rifle would be banned for having that tube that improves accuracy. Oh, you thought that bill was about crime?!? Nope. It cut off the supplies of rifles such as this.
Another feature of a rifle such as this is cost. This is a specialized rifle. It has no iron sights and no provision to fit them. This rifle is intended to be scoped. With two 10 round magazines, this rifle retails at little over $1000 (not including the scope and mount which adds several hundred dollars more). Not exactly something a criminal is going to try to obtain in a straw purchase. Not to mention the fact it has a 20 inch barrel, is over three feet long and weighs around 11 pounds with scope. Not exactly something that is easily concealed.
This rifle is designed for competition, pure and simple. When people talk about "assault weapons", this is one of the guns they are talking about. It fires the same catridge as the military M16A3 or M4 but that is where the similarity ends. This rifle will outshoot any standard military assault rifle. That's right, folks, this civilian sorta-look-alike is more accurate than a military rifle. It was designed to be that way. The purposes are different.
For you gun geeks out there, this rifle does shoot 1/8" MOA at 100 yards with commercial ammo. Any deficiencies in accuracy are the fault of the shooter, not the gun. The irony of that is the fact I bought this to be my premier target rifle and it is the second-most accurate gun I own. The most accurate rifle I own cost 1/5th of this one. We'll feature that gem in a future post.
Do you find this rifle threatening, Mr. Helmke? I bought it to start competitive shooting. It is not a military weapon and never has been. It is an expensive, heavy, specialized civilian target rifle.
What about those evil features, Mr. Helmke? Does it make the rifle easy to spray from the hip? Pistol grip, check. Barrel shroud, check. High capacity magazine, check (note the 20 round magazine in the well and the 10 and 30 round magazines next to it). And for a bonus, those scary CADPAT military scope and muzzle covers for that sniper who is trying (and failing) to conceal a snow-white rifle in a North American forest.
What about you, private citizen? Does the fact I own this evil, scary white rifle make you fearful? It fires one round per pull of the trigger like any other hunting rifle and the bullet is so small that you can't legally use it to hunt anything larger than a coyote in most states. The only thing it is designed to put holes in is paper.
Folks like Paul Helmke like to confuse with perception. So, here you go, my attempt to cloud his perception. How do you explain this rifle away, Mr. Helmke? It isn't some deadly killing machine. It isn't used in crime. It isn't black! How do you classify it?
How about you stop lying and tell the truth. This is an example of the most popular sporting gun in the USA. Plain and simple.
Now off to find some seals...
2 comments:
Corey from Rhode Island:
Very well written! You said it best in the last line of your text, "How about you stop lying and tell the truth. Plain and simple."
I cannot wait to read the rest of the Bite me Brady series.
I like the white stock, and I'm gradually tending for a fondness in stainless or a satin hard chrome finish. I want to see burlwood on the hand-grip panels too. :-)
Post a Comment