A bunch of people have been talking about Paul Helmke’s latest screed. I just wanted to take my spin on this dorky quote:
Yes, Virginia, if you believe in Santa Claus then you’ll believe there is a significant difference worth debating between the killing efficiency of a fully automatic assault weapon and a semi-automatic assault weapon. But understand, the finger-twitch variation is not enough to reduce the bloody heaps of bodies that keep piling up in communities across our fruited plains. The National Rogue Association knows that. And so, thankfully, does Andrew Traver.
Wow the old “Finger-twitch” talking point. Wasn’t true back in 1994 when you lobbied for the “Assault Weapon Ban”, wasn’t true in 2004 when you attempted to keep it from being shitcanned, and oddly enough it still isn’t true today. Is anybody buying this crap? Also look at the PDF he links when he says “bloody heaps of bodies that keep piling up” its an internal “Study” (of course) that talks about “Assault weapons violence” where the majority of the post don’t actually contain anybody getting hurt. Also given that like their VPC brothers don’t actually link news stories you can’t tell the validity of the story. I mean how many times have you read “AK-47” in a news report only to have it turn out to be an SKS, or some other rifle? And of course the WASR-10 had a welded muzzle-cap and the bayonet lug ground off, and mothballed 1980s magazines, so the “Assault Weapons Ban” didn’t exactly apply to it. Same with the FAL I bought which has a crowned muzzle and a thumbhole stock, and surplus magazines.
These guys really sound like the people who call the late-night supernatural Radio shows who tell the host without a hint of Irony that they have ESP, or have been abducted by Aliens, or routinly see Skunkape while camping. The host of course knows this brand of 40-cats-crazy is good radio, but the rest of us can only roll our eyes or laugh till out side split.
They funny thing is that round for round, semi-autos are far more “efficient” than machine guns.
Helmke’s got it completely backwards as usual.
It’s funny, but the anti-gun folks would be a lot better off if they’d actually bother to learn something about guns.
But then they wouldn’t be anti-gun any more.
Yep back in the not-too-distant past (ie the 1980s) there were a number of nations who’s main battle rifle was a semi-auto. The Brits stormed the Falkland Islands with Semi-auto FALs, and a number of African nations had Semi-auto H&K G3 rifles as their main armament. Hard-hitting 7.62x51mm nato, plus training for well-aimed shots made for armies that got the job done on the cheap by not expending huge stores of ammo with full-auto assault-weapon fire.
I dunno about the dorky BATFE calcification of those arms receivers, but any free-state American can by a rifle in the exact configuration of those armies infantry rifle. And dorks like me can get damn close by simply deleting a few more-or-less cosmetic features.
Alan is correct, and beat me to it… Firing full auto ‘most’ people cannot control the weapon long enough to get more than one or two rounds on target.
I’m personally not a fan of full-auto, I see it as a huge waste of ammo, and to maintain a portable infantry gun that is still controllable by most people, you need to step down on the power level of the round used. I’m just as happy with a full-power rifle in semi-auto only.
So, would he ever complain if I ever got my Gardner Gun? it’s a machine gun with 2 barrels that shoots 45-70 (now I need a smoke). Mind you, concealing the caisson it’s mounted on would be tricky.
But I’d try, dammit!
😀
Hand-crank = “Finger Twitch”