olegvolk: Just a reminder

Oleg Volk (

olegvolk) wrote,
@ 2008-02-25 23:32:00

Just a reminder

Hi-res

(Post a new comment)

	madscience 2008-02-26 06:17 am UTC (link)
	I object to this public service announcement on the grounds that it dances around the fact that the Second Amendment is not about hunting. It's about killing cops and soldiers when the government goes bad. (Reply to this) (Thread)

tomcatshanger
2008-02-26 06:40 am UTC (link)

Except that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, as recognized in the Second Amendment, doesn't care what arm one bears.

Most hunting rifles would be at least some what suitable military arms 70 to 100 years ago. They are still much better then nothing, and almost every hunting long gun is better then a handgun when it comes to protecting our liberty out in the open.

I don't hunt, but I know a good number of folks that do. The more folks that figure out gun control isn't about guns, that it's actually about control, the better.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	myopicvisionary 2008-02-26 09:04 pm UTC (link)
	One word: Australia! (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	madscience 2008-02-28 02:27 am UTC (link)
	Didn't most Australians hand in their guns about ten years ago? Worthless cowards, those who didn't stand together in defiance with their fingers on their triggers... (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	myopicvisionary 2008-02-28 10:22 pm UTC (link)
	It happens incrementally. Start with the most evil and work your way down. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	nakedgunchick 2008-03-01 01:16 pm UTC (link)
	We've heard it before: You don't NEED that machinegun, or silencer, or AOW. You don't NEED that .50 caliber rifle. You don't NEED those 30rd magazines. You don't NEED that pistol grip, or that bayonet lug, or that flash suppressor. You don't NEED that semi-auto shotgun, etc, etc. INCREMENTALISM.... FEAR IT! (Reply to this) (Parent)

	great icon. lynxcat73 2008-03-09 03:21 pm UTC (link)
	i'm stealing that one. who should get credit? (Reply to this) (Parent)

	po6om 2008-02-26 07:18 am UTC (link)
	Олег, обрати внимание, пожалуйста: http://community.livejournal.com/ru_knife/1120047.html В Германии снов закручивают гайки... Европа гниёт. (Reply to this)

haat
2008-02-26 07:39 am UTC (link)

The AR-15 could potentially scare hunters who are now sitting on the fence. As utilitarian as the AR-15 is for hunting, a lot of hunters prefer something else for aesthetic reasons. The ones who hunt with a "black rifle" are most likely aware of the situation already, and don't need the "wake-up call".

I don't know exactly what the numbers look like in the US, but in Finland the vast majority of the total amount of firearms permit holders (660 000 or about 13% of the population) are hunters. If I were to tell any of the hunters that someone wants to ban semiautomatic rifles, they'd say: "So? We don't use them anyways."

I'm afraid anti-gun politicans can tell the difference between a hunter and a sniper, but will not recognize the difference when they try to ban the weapons. As long as even single shot weapons are left outside the ban, the majority of hunters will not oppose.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	And that's precisely why microbalrog 2008-02-26 11:08 am UTC (link)
	we need informatives like this. We need to make people more empathethic. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: And that's precisely why

haat
2008-02-26 05:52 pm UTC (link)

I'm not sure I understand which part you addressed, and are you in agreement or disagreement with my points. I do agree that we need to raise awareness among the people who are not used to the idea of their guns being banned, but coming on too hard can have the opposite effect.

Promoting the possibility of hunting with an AR-15, and the message that politicans will eventually try to ban even the traditional hunting weapons don't mix too well: You're trying to convince the hunter that his "politically correct" rifle will be on the list later on, yet the picture shows something quite different from his hunting rifle. It may be a too big bite for someone on the fence, although it's crystal clear to us.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: And that's precisely why neutrino_cannon 2008-02-26 11:29 pm UTC (link)
	Look at the Brady Campaign's latest invective against "intermediate sniper rifles". How many elk rifles would fall under their definition? I know a lot of politicians make lip-service to hunters, but that's all it is. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: And that's precisely why haat 2008-02-27 06:09 pm UTC (link)
	Exactly. So the poster could rather feature an "elk rifle", not something an uneducated hunter would call an assault rifle. You need the most traditional looking rifle you can get that still falls under the definition of this "ISR", and then go out and tell people: "This is what they want to ban. It looks like the one you're using." (Reply to this) (Parent)

Finland's very different from the US

lynxcat73
2008-02-26 12:50 pm UTC (link)

the most common estimate i've seen here in the states says only about 20% of gun owners are hunters. granted, this is partly because the majority of "people who own guns" in the USA have exactly one old shotgun sitting mostly forgotten in the corner of a closet, which they've never used and never will. but even so, the active target shooters probably outnumber the active hunters here now, or else they soon will.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Finland's very different from the US

haat
2008-02-26 06:00 pm UTC (link)

The numbers are different, but 20% of all gun owners in the US doesn't sound like a small group either. Surely worth having on your side if there's a question about any kind of restrictions on firearms.

Now that I think of it, the number of Finnish hunters is simply the number of people who got a permit for a shotgun or rifle for hunting use. The number of active hunters is just a fraction of this.

Target shooters are another group, who might falsely think that their firearms would be excempt because they are so "sporty-looking".

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	weerdbeard 2008-02-26 01:55 pm UTC (link)
	+1 its a fantastic PSA and the hunting camo really ups the "Scary factor" If you could put a black synthetic or realtree bolt gun with a large scope in, it might have more gravity for the above reason. Just as "scary" but with a gun that looks more like "Bubba's Gun" (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2008-02-26 09:06 pm UTC (link)

Yup. Any rifle is a "sniper rifle". Flintlock muzzle loaders were used to good effect as sniper rifles during the American Revolution, and would fill the role well today if not for the smoke signature and the slow reload time.

The famous Hathcock used a standard, commercial hunting rifle and scope for much of his sniping during the Vietnam war.

One of my employees has a "sniper rifle" captured by his grandfather from a German sniper late in W.W. II. Mr. Sniper was harassing an American communications post, and they decided to hunt him down and put him out of business. It's a commercial Walther .22 rimfire single-shot. It was used for sniping and is therefore a "sniper rifle".

The tactic of the antis is of course to divide and conquer. To some degree it has been successful, as there are a few hunters who look with disapproval upon the black rifle enthusiasts.

The same tactic worked successfully in the run-up to Prohibition. The beer and wine producers were willing to let the spirit distillers take the fall, thinking that would be that (a perfect alegory to black semi-auto rifles vs. wood-stocked shotguns). "That" is never that. The taking of freedom is a process wherein the details are the diversion of the moment. Some gun owners are easily diverted by the details. It is the process that must be fought.

The antis should be spending all their time scrambling, responding to us, trying to keep up while getting accustomed to failure. Not the other way around.

Now, who has the ball? -- Lyle

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	hisamishness 2008-02-26 10:34 pm UTC (link)
	I have a stainless/synthetic Ruger 77mkII that might be a good substitute. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	cian333 2008-02-26 02:37 pm UTC (link)
	"It's about killing cops and soldiers" Please keep in mind that many of us occupying the thin blue line will be on your side should something like this ever take place. Same for the military. (Reply to this) (Thread)

maineshark
2008-02-26 03:29 pm UTC (link)

If you are "on our side," then I would suggest that you are a peace officer, not a cop...

Peace officers work for the public, and try to maintain the peace. They deal with violent bad guys who are a threat to us all, and won't let a shared uniform stop them from bringing a bad guy to justice. Many peace officers don't wear any uniform at all, being "only" civilians who don't think that they should plug their ears when they hear a scream of "help!"

Cops work for the State, and try to enforce control of the population. They deal with "victimless crime," issue fines to generate revenue for their masters, turn a blind eye to gross violations of our rights by their "brothers in blue," and generally oppress the people.

You get to choose - each day - which you will be.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	ilcylic 2008-02-26 04:14 pm UTC (link)
	This is one of the best worded responses of its type I have ever seen. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	(Anonymous) 2008-02-26 09:15 pm UTC (link)
	Awesome. It reminds me of the "Open letter to Law Enforcement" at the end of Richard Mack's book: http://www.amazon.com/My-Cold-Dead-Fingers-America/dp/0964193515/ref=sr_1_23?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204060216&sr=1-23 If you recall, he's the Mack in U.S. vs. Mack. He was a county Sheriff from Utah IIRC, at the time I met him in Spokane, Washington years ago. -- Lyle (Reply to this) (Parent)

	heypete 2008-02-27 07:03 am UTC (link)
	I was somewhat troubled when I read in a newspaper a description of police officers as "law enforcers" (as in "the suspect was detained by law enforcers"). It may just be a few words, but the implication troubles me. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	mfree 2008-02-28 09:41 pm UTC (link)
	The guns, they're for dispatching thugs... the street variety during times of peace, and the jack-booted variety during times of war. (Reply to this) (Parent)

cian333
2008-02-27 12:06 am UTC (link)

Your definitions of cops & peace officers are not ones that I have heard before. It is my understanding that the word "cop" comes from "copper" which came from an old reference to the copper buttons on the british bobby uniforms. By your definitions, I am a peace officer. Most of the older "cops" are peace officers. The younger "cops" and soldiers, the ones who have not lived long enough to think for themselves, those are the ones I am concerned about. It is us older "cops" who try to teach them the meaning of the oath they took. One day I was talking to a young man who was in the national guard. I asked him if he received orders to conficate weapons from the public, what would he do. Without missing a beat, he responded that orders are orders & he would do it. I then asked him if he took an oath to defend the constitution and country against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. He stated yes. I then asked him what would he do if he received an order contrary to that oath. Man, you could see his brain lock up. These are the ones I am concerned about. It is up to all of us to educate them, but, mostly, they will listen to those in their own ranks more so that those without.

We all get to choose each day what we will be.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	(Anonymous) 2008-02-27 01:50 am UTC (link)
	I had heard that the term "cop" was originally an acronym from England; Constable On Patrol. Then again, I've heard at least three very plausable, and completely different, explanations of the source of "The Real McCoy" too. -- Lyle (Reply to this) (Parent)

heypete
2008-02-27 07:08 am UTC (link)

Your understanding about the word "cop" is incorrect, but it's quite common. See Snopes' take on the word.

Police and soldiers who cannot think and analyze the situations they're placed in are quite troubling. Yes, there are situations where it's not possible to analyze orders ("Soldier, take that enemy position!" or even simply "Duck!"), but there are many situations ("Soldier, seize the arms belonging to those private citizens!") where some thought is appropriate.

Sadly, too many people these days seem to prefer the comfort and safety of the "don't think" position.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

cian333
2008-02-27 06:34 pm UTC (link)

A lot of the groundpounders are fresh out of high school. The hardest decision that they have had to make to date is how to sneak their girlfriend into the house at night. What we would ask of them is far beyond most 18 yr olds. It will be up to their older, wiser superiors. Disobeying an order in the military during time of war has stiffer penalities that if a citizen refuses to disobey a company order to submit form XYZ with each order. They must be willing to risk much more.

I must admit I had more faith in this happening until Katrian. I would NEVER disarm a citizen without just cause who would depend on their weapons for their own personal safety. It may be them who saves my butt in a bad situation. I would NEVER force someone to leave theit pets behind. We live with (you never own ) three cats - they are family. You NEVER leave family behind. I would hate to get into an armed confrontation with the authorities over leaving our cats behind, I just hope that it would not be worth their while.

Apologies, I have strayed far from the topic.....

(Reply to this)

	(Anonymous) 2008-02-27 08:20 pm UTC (link)
	Hunters ARE snipers. One difference being the species of their targets. The skill sets overlap to a large extent. Therin lies the problem-- politicians know this, or, being ignorant, they sense it. -- Lyle (Reply to this)

	missbabyblue 2008-02-28 03:23 am UTC (link)
	Oleg, I just got wind of Cav Arms being raided. Do you have any word on what is going on? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	olegvolk 2008-02-28 03:28 am UTC (link)
	They have no idea. No one got arrested, so ATF can't have anything substantial on them. I asked people who watch friends of the people to investigate. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	missbabyblue 2008-02-28 03:29 am UTC (link)
	Keep us posted if you hear anything repeatable. Oh, how the thugs love to steal our stuff. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	The BATFE raided Cavarms today kbarrett 2008-02-28 06:10 am UTC (link)
	http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2008/02/cavarms-raided.html Asholes .... (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: The BATFE raided Cavarms today haat 2008-02-29 03:11 am UTC (link)
	Hmm, the filter at my work denied access to that site, because of "hate-speech". (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: The BATFE raided Cavarms today kbarrett 2008-02-29 05:52 pm UTC (link)
	Chris put a Koran Shoot on his blog after 9-11. People who cannot bear criticism of their religion by others were offended at the notion of shooting a privately owned book, and flagged the snot out of his blog. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	(Anonymous) 2008-02-29 03:35 am UTC (link)
	Excellent. I'm going to post a copy on my range bulletin board and encourage you to do likewise. (Reply to this)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs