I must say, since I’ve discovered that Jepete is in fact Joan Peterson of the Brady Campaign (No-follow link to her profile page here) I gotta say, when I first found her blog I assumed she was just a small-time activist, with a deep-rooted honesty issue. Then it came out she’s a board member, and frankly everything she says now has a different light.
I have a problem with former military guns being used for hunting but I know people do use them. But an AK47, for example, for hunting? Yes, a “gun guy” told me he needed his AK47 to hunt. I don’t think so. These guns were originally designed to be used in the military and then gradually made their way into the market place for use by anyone. It’s a fact that the police feel “outgunned” on the streets because of more of this type of gun used by gangs, criminals and others. It seems to me that guns for self defense don’t need to be AK47s and AR 15s or even M1s. For hunting, maybe. I need to be convinced.
When I thought she was just a small time kool-aid drinker this just sounds like talking-points recitation, or just plain-Jane ignorance.
But let’s face it, White Tail deer in Maine (where I’m most familiar with them) are about 6′ long and weigh around 170lbs for a medium buck or a large doe. What else do you know that is about that size? Yeah, any gun that’s proven to effectively kill people is a gun effective on deer. For bigger critters like moose, you might need a larger round….say like the .30-06 Springfield which is proven to have taken every form of game animal in North America…the same round that the M1 fires.
This Cow Moose was taken with a .30-06 auto-loader (a Winchester of some sort), so blah blah blah.
That being said the 2nd Amendment is NOT about Ducks or Deer, nor were the founding fathers all that crazy about showing off their 200 yard 1MOA group on paper. I own a ton of guns, and carry one with me every day…its not because I’m worried that I’ll spot a deer, or an impromptu marksmanship contest. I carry for self defense, and no I don’t carry a gun because I’m concerned the other guy will have a gun, so I need a gun of my own…or that the other guy will have a 9mm, so I need my .45 to one-up him, or any of that incremental force bullshit. I carry a gun because I understand that the world is a dangerous place, and while the chances of me being accosted are small, my chances IF I am accosted of me going home if I do nothing but grovel and surrender my wallet are small. It doesn’t matter if its a gun, a knife, or bare hands, I don’t qualify death, stabbed, strangled, or shot are all dead to me and equally undesirable to me, dispite what people like Joan might say I carry a gun because I refuse to be a victim, and I want to go home at the end of a day, and I know that a personal firearm is the best tool for that desired end result. Also while I carry a .45, which is a really impressive handgun cartridge (Especially my +P defensive loads) handguns are only relevant because I can can carry a load of groceries and still carry my 1911, and carry it concealed, and pistols are pistols and rifles are rifles. So if things get bad enough that I know hell is currently breaking loose (Like say the LA Riots, or Hurricane Katrina, or the 9-11 Terrorist Attacks) If I’m reaching for a handgun, its for a handy backup gun, and my primary weapon will be a rifle or a shotgun.
But all of the above is written as if Joan is unaware of what an “Assault Weapons” as defined by her organization. Do you think that’s likely? Or do you think its more likely she’s feigning ignorance, because she values the seat she occupies on the Brady board MORE than coming off as an honest person.
Given that her position is likely unpaid, how sick is that?
Also I mentioned not wanting to be a victim. Now I’m sure you’ve read this post, but read it again and look at how often she references that I refereed to her as “Hon”.
Now my use of the pronoun “Hon” was certainly a diminutive use (and hasn’t her actions shown my judgment to be sound) but look at how she brandishes it. “Oh this nasty gun guy called me this HORRIBLE name! I shouldn’t have to speak to somebody so crude!!”
I carry a gun because I refuse to be a victim. Ms. Peterson appears to have a strong desire to be viewed as a victim…so hard she frankly comes off as an ass for one fairly benign term. And you wonder why this person thinks making us all disarmed as “Reasonable”.
Now here’s something that really turns my stomach. Ms. Peterson is VERY open that her sister was murdered by her husband. Feel free to Google “Barbara Lund” from Minnesota for more details, or read her comments.
I can understand how having somebody close to you murdered might taint your view of guns, or the second amendment, and I can’t even blame her for wearing it on her sleeve.
But What I’ve learned from Joan herself is:
-Barbara and her Boyfriend were shot by Barbara’s estranged husband at his house while discussing divorce proceedings. (Joan also mentions that Hubby had a Girlfriend too, if you think that’s relevant)
-Husband had a clean criminal background.
-Husband had a restraining order against him.
-The gun was not acquired through back channels or gun shows et al.
All of this and Ms. Peterson seems to think this instance is relevant for:
-Banning Assault Weapons
-Banning Magazines
-Restricting Conceal Carry
-Banning Private Transactions
-Registering all Firearms
-Expanding the reasons for prohibiting a person from owning firearms, including the notoriously error-filled “Terrorist Watch List”
-Restricting adults from letting their children engage in the shooting sports.
I’m sure there are countless more things she’s proselytized about, but what do all these things have in common?
NONE OF THEM WOULD HAVE DONE ANYTHING FOR HER SISTER!!!
Look, I’m sorry your sister was killed, that’s horrible, and I wish it hadn’t happened, but when you constantly juxtapose unrelated issues like you do, it again sounds more like playing the victim card, than making a relevant argument. Worse yet, you’re using your own sister’s blood as currency to an only vaguely related issue.
How sick is that?
Lastly, she of course is fixated on Gun Death as a means to further her dishonest agenda, but as is standard with those who want to strip our rights, defensive gun use is an elephant in the room that cannot be discussed. And it never can be for these people.
And this is the face of the Brady Campaign and the Million Mom March (of which she’s a chapter President).
Gun Control is a disgusting and bigoted practice, and must be opposed and fought until it becomes a footnote in American history.
Screw this freedom hating bitch, most of my friends and I hunt with our .223/.308 AR’s here in ND. If she don’t like it she can move to a country that bans firearms, it’s our right to own AR’s/AK’s or any other gun here. I have absolutely zero fkn’ tolerance for these types of people anymore…Z-E-R-O.
Do you think she CARES about hunting? That’s just the current angle she’s trying to run. She’d ban Mossberg 500s, and Remington M700s and 1911s, and S&W Model 10s.
I’m with you, at this point I’m just republishing her comments, and pointing out her real name, and her position in the Brady Campaign. DRIVE THEM INTO THE SEA!!!
I have a problem with former military guns being used for hunting…
I know folks who rant about today’s “deadlier” weapons are either ignorant or lying right out the gate, given that small arms technology hasn’t advanced fundamentally in about a century, but this current gun-control talking point–trying to stir up hysteria about “military-style” weapons in civilian hands–is a towering pile of bullshit above and beyond their usual silliness.
Almost every traditional bolt-action deer rifle out there is closely based on a military rifle designed to kill soldiers on the battlefield. Almost every civilian gun in history has been based closely on military arms development, just as military arms have benefited from advances in the civilian market.
If anything, the “military style” civilian firearms of today are significantly _less_ related to their military cousins than at any time in American history, due to our current de-facto requirement that they only be semi automatic. This meme the Bradies and their boosters are trying to push is even stupider than usual for them. It’s no wonder they’re losing.
Again she’s dihonest and a coward, and frankly rather evil by rolling her sister’s dead body out as a way to attempt to justify her own lies. So is the way of the Brady Campaign, so is the way of Gun Control advocates.
And honestly I think The M16 platform is not particularly well suited for war. It IS a damn good hunting and target rifle, but the full-auto infantry arm seems to be a huge waste of ammo, and a heavy compromise in cartridge power for the sake of control-ability.
Ideally the M4 would be kept simply as an entry weapon for people working in vehicles, or sweeping houses in an urban environment. Otherwise the SCAR-17 (Semi-auto-only) seems like an ideal weapon for infantry. The average recruit might have difficulty controlling such a powerful and light weapon, as well as relying on precise aiming technique to better conserve ammo and make their shots count, but the gun will perform better both ballistically and terminally. And most recruits have trouble running the mile, or carrying the heavy equipment….you solve that by training.
Did you know that a buddy of mine FIRST fired his M4 full-auto at a private shooting range in Mosul Iraq?? Just THINK of how wrong that is!
My understanding–and this is from friends in the Marine Corps, which may not be the Army-proper perspective–is that full-auto is used exclusively for suppression fire; it keeps the enemy dug into their positions so that US troops will have a monopoly on mobility. Nobody’s actually expected to hit anything on FA, and from my friends’ experiences in training and the field, nobody ever does. It’s a huge part of the integrated strategy that mixes infantry, air support, artillery, and other tools, though, which is why the soldier needs to carry huge amounts of ammo, making a light cartridge mandatory. This is also why you see figures of 10,000 rounds fired for each enemy casualty: the overwhelming majority of shots fired aren’t _trying_ to hit enemies.
And you can train all you want; there’s still a limit to how much a human can carry and stay effective and healthy, and soldiers are already carrying a hell of a lot of weight before you start adding up ammo.
In a vacuum, I agree that .308 is probably better than .223. But I understand why the military uses the M16/M4: a soldier’s rifle, counterintuitively, has to do more than just kill enemies. I’d say more specifically that the M16 platform may not be particularly well suited for insurgency. It’s a weapon that shines in a modern, mobile, highly networked military force that can supply its soldiers with essentially infinite ammo. But for irregulars working from clandestine stockpiles and uncertain resupply? Not so much.
Ammo weight is irrelevant if its not used effectively. I would say that full-auto suppressive fire is best dished out with guns like the m249 SAW which are currently residing in every combat unit. Assault Rifles are simply not designed for sustained full-auto fire, and with the added weight of magazines, a soldier can burn through his supply very quickly, and less effectively if attempting to use suppressive fire.
Also a semi-auto can be fired quite rapidly which might be enough for said psychological effect, but in the end I just see it as using a framing hammer to swat a fly. Better to used aimed, accurate fire from a full-power cartridge, and save the suppressive fire for guns designed for it.
[shrug] Like I say, it’s just my understanding of current military practice. I assume the rationale is that it’s best to have the option of suppressive fire (in short bursts–overheating doesn’t seem to be that common in everyday practice) from every soldier and at every angle they can reach than to rely only n the squad’s lone SAW. At around 10,000 rounds per casualty, that’d be one busy SAW gunner.
I wouldn’t presume to say this is the only or best way to do it. It’s always hard to tell which tactics are the result of hard-won battlefield experience, and which ones are the result of military inertia.
Yeah, and not having a military background or spent any time in a war zone, I probably don’t know much better.
I will say if I have a rifle in one hand, and my life in the other it will most likely be a breakdown of law-and-order scenario because of natural or man-made disaster, or civil unrest (If I had to bet, the big dig collapsing because of a medium Earthquake, or a terrorist attack, leveling a huge portion of Boston would be the most likely scenario. Tho riots, or freak storms could also cause such a scenario)…and less likely a Red Dawn type scenario. In that case I won’t have a well trained squad on my wing, instead it’ll be me alone, or me and a few similarly trained riflemen. In those scenarios good defensive positions, and making very few shots, and having most of them count will be paramount.
Actually In riots, the chances of getting to the bottom of a 20-round magazine is pretty slim, as rioters tend to be on the lookout for grass-eaters to prey on.
Wrong on the use of full auto. There was an incident in Afghanistan in ’07, I think, that has been studied extensively. An FOB was attacked, with attackers through the wire. IIRC, most all the M-4’s failed due to overheating. Dead soldiers found with multiple non-functional weapons littering the area. Apparently, they just dumped mags on full auto until they melted the barrel. The study is on the web, I’ve lost the link.
Well if my understanding is correct no assault rifle is designed to handle sustained full-auto fire. If you have a good supply of magazines you can destroy your gun, especially the lighter M4.
I remember that story as well. Sounds like the soldiers were putting their M4s into a role better served by a SAW or an LMG.
With an Assault rifle you really should limet your fire to short, controlled bursts, or just a few mag dumps.
Again I’d prefer each shot be accompanied by a good sight picture, and preferably a heavy cartridge like 7.62x51mm.
Pingback: Quote of the Day: Joan Peterson | Weer'd World