5 of 25
5
Gun control - again
Posted: 22 May 2013 08:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 61 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2740
Joined  2011-11-04
LogicMan - 22 May 2013 04:13 PM
TimB - 22 May 2013 03:37 PM

Holy Mary, Queen of the May, Batman! (er, I mean Cicero). If you are correct, then, this appears to me to mean that, gun manufacturers and marketeers are in charge of our gun legislations, rather than any supposed Constitutional (2nd Amendment) authority and rather than the “will of the people”. 

The wheels of Democracy grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly well… unless, of course, they are derailed by the well-greased wheels of industry.

“Will of the people” should be irrelevant when it comes to infringing on rights. By that argument, if the majority of people are for outlawing abortion and/or same-sex marriage, then they can be outlawed. We live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy, and in our system of republic, it is designed to protect the minority from the majority that occasionally seeks to infringe on said minority’s rights. As it is though, the will of the people to a good degree has been responsible for, at least at the national level, protecting gun rights thus far. The gun industry itself is too small to have any real influence.

Selling guns at gunshows without background checks is not a constitutionally protected right. 

As far as your assertion that the gun industry has no real influence, Cicero asserts that it does.  Perhaps one of you can back up your assertion.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2013 10:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 62 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17
TimB - 22 May 2013 08:00 PM

Selling guns at gunshows without background checks is not a constitutionally protected right.

One thing to point out on this is that the term “gun show loophole” is a misnomer, because it isn’t technically a loophole. Gun dealers are required by law to perform a background check wherever they sell guns, including at gun shows. Internet sales also require background checks, because in order to purchase the gun through the Internet, used or brand-new, it has to be shipped to a Federal Firearms Licensed gun dealer, who will then contact you and then when you go down to pickup the gun, you undergo a background check. What do not require a background check are private sales of guns.

What do not require background checks are private sales of guns, and the reason for this is that in order to enforce background checks for private sales, as far as anyone can tell, the federal government would need to establish a federal registry (that is also what the Justice Department claimed). If you read my prior posts, I explain why gun rights people are completely opposed to any such registry. Regarding claims that the creation of such a registry would be illegal, only due to existing laws in place right now that limit what the government can do with the information from background checks, but those laws could be repealed.

As far as your assertion that the gun industry has no real influence, Cicero asserts that it does.  Perhaps one of you can back up your assertion.

Here is a link on the gun industry’s size: http://www.ibisworld.com/industry/default.aspx?indid=662

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 May 2013 09:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 63 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  336
Joined  2008-09-10
TimB - 22 May 2013 03:37 PM

Holy Mary, Queen of the May, Batman! (er, I mean Cicero). If you are correct, then, this appears to me to mean that, gun manufacturers and marketeers are in charge of our gun legislations, rather than any supposed Constitutional (2nd Amendment) authority and rather than the “will of the people”. 

The wheels of Democracy grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly well… unless, of course, they are derailed by the well-greased wheels of industry.

It should not surprise anyone that industry, markeeters (of all kinds, not just those related to weapons) and their affiliated lobbyists control legislation.  Here in God’s favorite country it is money that matters, as Randy Newman sang.  This is especially the case in our politics, as our elective representatives’ primary concern is reelection, and being elected costs money, lots of money.  Consequently, our legislators’ primary concern is obtaining money. 

The NRA is of course involved in lobbying, either directly or indirectly with money obtained through its charitable foundation and other sources, and actively solicits corporate contributions to its various activites through its “Corporate Partners” program, which represents that those contributions will advance the contributors’ corporate interests.  USAToday (4/22/13)  has reported it spent $700,000 in lobbying efforts during the first three months of this year, directed no doubt against the gun legislation compromise.  Of course, when the response to assertions regarding the NRA is limited to the claim that “the media” conspires to blacken its name, no amount of citations to media sources will be convincing to some (this is an interesting and effective rhetorical device). 

Regardless, such publications as Forbes, Business Insider (mostly owned by Bloomberg, who is not a favorite of mine for reasons unrelated to guns), the Washington Post and others have noted weapon industry contributions to the NRA and its affiliates and the fact that those contributions exceed membership dues.  These claims appear to be based largely on a report by the Violence Policy Center with the incendiary title “Blood Money:  How the Gun Industry Bankrolls the NRA” available on the Internet.  It seems somewhat dated, though, as it was issued in 2011.

Do these organizations have an axe to grind?  They may.  I’m perfectly willing to admit the possibility the information given in these sources is incorrect, but I haven’t seen any of the numbers contested, surprisingly.

Gun and ammo manufactures exist to sell their products, and those products are the NRA’s raison d’etre.  Their collaboration is to be expected.  That’s just the way things work.

Thanks for looking at my blog, by the way.

 Signature 

“Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain.” 
—F. Schiller

http://theblogofciceronianus.blogspot.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 May 2013 10:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 64 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17
ciceronianus - 23 May 2013 09:02 AM

The NRA is of course involved in lobbying, either directly or indirectly with money obtained through its charitable foundation and other sources, and actively solicits corporate contributions to its various activites through its “Corporate Partners” program, which represents that those contributions will advance the contributors’ corporate interests.  USAToday (4/22/13)  has reported it spent $700,000 in lobbying efforts during the first three months of this year, directed no doubt against the gun legislation compromise.  Of course, when the response to assertions regarding the NRA is limited to the claim that “the media” conspires to blacken its name, no amount of citations to media sources will be convincing to some (this is an interesting and effective rhetorical device). 

Regardless, such publications as Forbes, Business Insider (mostly owned by Bloomberg, who is not a favorite of mine for reasons unrelated to guns), the Washington Post and others have noted weapon industry contributions to the NRA and its affiliates and the fact that those contributions exceed membership dues.  These claims appear to be based largely on a report by the Violence Policy Center with the incendiary title “Blood Money:  How the Gun Industry Bankrolls the NRA” available on the Internet.  It seems somewhat dated, though, as it was issued in 2011.

Do these organizations have an axe to grind?  They may.  I’m perfectly willing to admit the possibility the information given in these sources is incorrect, but I haven’t seen any of the numbers contested, surprisingly.

Gun and ammo manufactures exist to sell their products, and those products are the NRA’s raison d’etre.  Their collaboration is to be expected.  That’s just the way things work.

Thanks for looking at my blog, by the way.

You haven’t seen the numbers contested? How does an industry as small as the gun and ammunition manufacturing industry finance what is the most powerful lobby in the country? And I would take any reports by organizations such as the Violence Policy Center with a huge grain of salt. They are vehemently anti-gun and one of the organizations that either through extreme ignorance or just ideology actively misleads the general public on the issue of guns (such as the term “assault weapons”).

I would not find it surprising at all if gun industry contributions to the NRA exceed membership dues. As I’ve pointed, Michael Bloomberg himself has outspent the NRA. The NRA has a sizeable budget, but that is not the source of its power. It’s power is the massive number of people who support its basic mission.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 May 2013 11:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 65 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  336
Joined  2008-09-10

http://www.vpc.org/studies/bloodmoney.pdf

Here’s the report, for those who may be interested.

 Signature 

“Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain.” 
—F. Schiller

http://theblogofciceronianus.blogspot.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 May 2013 12:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 66 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17
ciceronianus - 23 May 2013 11:22 AM

http://www.vpc.org/studies/bloodmoney.pdf

Here’s the report, for those who may be interested.

The report hurts its credibility within the first paragraph:

“Corporate contributors to the NRA come from every sector of the firearms industry, including: manufacturers of handguns, rifles, shotguns, assault weapons, and high-capacity ammunition magazines;”

Except that “assault weapons” and “high-capacity magazines” are defined however politicians wish them to be. Which means either the VPC is showing some extreme ignorance here or is actively misleading people.

These phrases are used again repeatedly throughout the report, without bothering to try to define them at all for people. Here is another quote:

“The mutually dependent nature of the National Rifle Association and the gun industry explains the NRA’s unwillingness to compromise on even the most limited controls over firearms or related products (such as restrictions on high-capacity ammunition magazines) and its support of legislation that clearly favors gun makers over gun owners (such as legislation limiting the legal rights of gun owners killed or injured by defective firearms).”

That is an extraordinarily misleading statement. Then they end up using the term “silencer” (there is no such thing—-the appropriate term is suppressor and its a safety device so you don’t damage your hearing, not something that silences the gun like in the movies) and wrongly using the term “assault rifle” to refer to what are semiautomatic rifles.

[ Edited: 23 May 2013 12:56 PM by LogicMan ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 May 2013 01:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 67 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2740
Joined  2011-11-04
LogicMan - 22 May 2013 10:11 PM
TimB - 22 May 2013 08:00 PM

Selling guns at gunshows without background checks is not a constitutionally protected right.

One thing to point out on this is that the term “gun show loophole” is a misnomer, because it isn’t technically a loophole. Gun dealers are required by law to perform a background check wherever they sell guns, including at gun shows. Internet sales also require background checks, because in order to purchase the gun through the Internet, used or brand-new, it has to be shipped to a Federal Firearms Licensed gun dealer, who will then contact you and then when you go down to pickup the gun, you undergo a background check. What do not require a background check are private sales of guns.

What do not require background checks are private sales of guns, and the reason for this is that in order to enforce background checks for private sales, as far as anyone can tell, the federal government would need to establish a federal registry (that is also what the Justice Department claimed). If you read my prior posts, I explain why gun rights people are completely opposed to any such registry. Regarding claims that the creation of such a registry would be illegal, only due to existing laws in place right now that limit what the government can do with the information from background checks, but those laws could be repealed.

 

I call BS on this response. Though it has been awhile, the last time that I went to a gun show, I walked in, looked around, bought a semi-automatic Chinese made assault rifle, and walked out.  Also see this link for more up to date info:  http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/gun-show-loophole

Furthermore, the recent failed gun bill specifically proscribed the establishment of a gun registry.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 May 2013 01:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 68 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  336
Joined  2008-09-10
LogicMan - 23 May 2013 12:43 PM
ciceronianus - 23 May 2013 11:22 AM

http://www.vpc.org/studies/bloodmoney.pdf

Here’s the report, for those who may be interested.

The report hurts its credibility within the first paragraph:

“Corporate contributors to the NRA come from every sector of the firearms industry, including: manufacturers of handguns, rifles, shotguns, assault weapons, and high-capacity ammunition magazines;”

Except that “assault weapons” and “high-capacity magazines” are defined however politicians wish them to be. Which means either the VPC is showing some extreme ignorance here or is actively misleading people.

These phrases are used again repeatedly throughout the report, without bothering to try to define them at all for people. Here is another quote:

“The mutually dependent nature of the National Rifle Association and the gun industry explains the NRA’s unwillingness to compromise on even the most limited controls over firearms or related products (such as restrictions on high-capacity ammunition magazines) and its support of legislation that clearly favors gun makers over gun owners (such as legislation limiting the legal rights of gun owners killed or injured by defective firearms).”


That is an extraordinarily misleading statement. Then they end up using the term “silencer” (there is no such thing—-the appropriate term is suppressor and its a safety device so you don’t damage your hearing, not something that silences the gun like in the movies) and wrongly using the term “assault rifle” to refer to what are semiautomatic rifles.

Most instructive.  But I’m more interested in those claims made in the report which don’t involve the use of the words “assault weapons” “high-capacity magazines” or “silencer.”  In assessing a report which claims that the weapons industry is “bankrolling” the NRA, it would seem to me more important to focus on the veracity of its statements on the amounts being funded and those who did the funding.  Follow the money, as they say.

 Signature 

“Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain.” 
—F. Schiller

http://theblogofciceronianus.blogspot.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 May 2013 01:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 69 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2740
Joined  2011-11-04
LogicMan - 22 May 2013 10:11 PM

As far as your assertion that the gun industry has no real influence, Cicero asserts that it does.  Perhaps one of you can back up your assertion.

Here is a link on the gun industry’s size: http://www.ibisworld.com/industry/default.aspx?indid=662

This link indicates market revenue of $12 billion.  It doesn’t state profits.  With the gun-nut hysteria that “Obama is going to take your guns away”, I wouldn’t be surprised if profits are quite large indeed.  Citing this link does little to convince me that Marketeers and the industry are not controlling congressional legislation through lobbying and public effforts to mislead the public as to what is actually in the bills.

OTOH, Cicero’s well thought out response is much more convincing.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 May 2013 04:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 70 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17
TimB - 23 May 2013 01:13 PM

I call BS on this response. Though it has been awhile, the last time that I went to a gun show, I walked in, looked around, bought a semi-automatic Chinese made assault rifle, and walked out.  Also see this link for more up to date info:  http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/gun-show-loophole

It’s not BS. No gun dealer can legally sell a firearm anywhere without conducting a background check. Private gun sales are not subject to background checks, which can be anywhere from a gun show to just you going down to your neighbor’s home. And there is no such thing as a “semiautomatic Chinese-made assault rifle.” If it is a semiautomatic, then it is not an assault rifle.

Furthermore, the recent failed gun bill specifically proscribed the establishment of a gun registry.

That bill had other problems with it though.

TimB - 23 May 2013 01:26 PM

This link indicates market revenue of $12 billion.  It doesn’t state profits.  With the gun-nut hysteria that “Obama is going to take your guns away”, I wouldn’t be surprised if profits are quite large indeed.  Citing this link does little to convince me that Marketeers and the industry are not controlling congressional legislation through lobbying and public effforts to mislead the public as to what is actually in the bills.

OTOH, Cicero’s well thought out response is much more convincing.

The market is far too small for the industry to be able to control Congressional legislation through lobbying efforts. And gun rights groups are not misleading the public regarding the bill.

[ Edited: 23 May 2013 04:46 PM by LogicMan ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 May 2013 04:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 71 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17
ciceronianus - 23 May 2013 01:25 PM

Most instructive.  But I’m more interested in those claims made in the report which don’t involve the use of the words “assault weapons” “high-capacity magazines” or “silencer.”  In assessing a report which claims that the weapons industry is “bankrolling” the NRA, it would seem to me more important to focus on the veracity of its statements on the amounts being funded and those who did the funding.  Follow the money, as they say.

But again, how does such a small industry bankroll such a powerful lobby? Look at the sizes of the really powerful lobbies such as the defense lobby, oil industry lobby, financial and banking lobby, Wal-Mart, etc…where individual companies have revenues in the hundreds of billions of dollars. The defense lobby in particular is slick, as they not only lobby heavily through spending money, but they also spread out strategically the locations of defense-related manufacturing, so that whenever votes come up on whether or not to cut defense spending, a lot of congressmen and senators would end up taking the blame for loss of jobs in their district or state.

Gun manufacturing though is an industry in which the whole industry is a fraction of the individual companies of these other industries. So what gives it its influence? My argument is that what gives the NRA its influence is not the gun industry so much as the membership and also just the large number of American people who support the NRA’s mission.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 May 2013 06:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 72 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2233
Joined  2012-10-27

The message I typed didn’t go through.  I will have to decide if I want to go to the pains of typing it all over again. 

Infuriating!

Lois

[ Edited: 23 May 2013 06:08 PM by Lois ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 May 2013 12:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 73 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2740
Joined  2011-11-04
LogicMan - 23 May 2013 04:43 PM
TimB - 23 May 2013 01:13 PM

I call BS on this response. Though it has been awhile, the last time that I went to a gun show, I walked in, looked around, bought a semi-automatic Chinese made assault rifle, and walked out.  Also see this link for more up to date info:  http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/gun-show-loophole

It’s not BS. No gun dealer can legally sell a firearm anywhere without conducting a background check. Private gun sales are not subject to background checks, which can be anywhere from a gun show to just you going down to your neighbor’s home. And there is no such thing as a “semiautomatic Chinese-made assault rifle.” If it is a semiautomatic, then it is not an assault rifle.

 

“...only six states (CA, CO, IL, NY, OR, RI) require universal background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows. Three more states (CT, MD, PA) require background checks on all handgun sales made at gun shows. Seven other states (HI, IA, MA, MI, NJ, NC, NE) require purchasers to obtain a permit and undergo a background check before buying a handgun. Florida allows its counties to regulate gun shows by requiring background checks on all firearms purchases at these events. 33 states have taken no action whatsoever to close the Gun Show Loophole.”

As far as gun-advocate Newspeak, in not referring to any semi-automatic weapon as an assault weapon, my Chinese made rifle is clearly more capable of assaulting a human target at a distance and through certain barriers than is my 9mm handgun.  It is not the best rifle for hunting.  It is not the best weapon for close quarter home protection or self defense.  It is a weapon suited for combat, and essentially is a poor-man’s AK-47. And I think that I could find a gun show this weekend, here in Texas, and purchase one, and/or an AK-47, and take them home immediately.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 May 2013 12:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 74 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2740
Joined  2011-11-04
LogicMan - 23 May 2013 04:43 PM

The market is far too small for the industry to be able to control Congressional legislation through lobbying efforts. And gun rights groups are not misleading the public regarding the bill.

Short answer: I don’t believe these assertions.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 May 2013 02:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 75 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17
TimB - 24 May 2013 12:03 AM

“...only six states (CA, CO, IL, NY, OR, RI) require universal background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows. Three more states (CT, MD, PA) require background checks on all handgun sales made at gun shows. Seven other states (HI, IA, MA, MI, NJ, NC, NE) require purchasers to obtain a permit and undergo a background check before buying a handgun. Florida allows its counties to regulate gun shows by requiring background checks on all firearms purchases at these events. 33 states have taken no action whatsoever to close the Gun Show Loophole.”

Again though, there is no such thing as the “Gun Show Loophole.” People can’t just call something a “loophole” that hasn’t been covered by the law in the first place. That is a political trick politicians use. You want to legislate more, so you just claim you’re “closing a loophole.” For it to truly be a loophole would mean that a licensed gun dealer could get around having to give someone a background check by selling at a gun show, which they can’t do. It is private sales of guns between regular individuals that do not require the background check. 

As far as gun-advocate Newspeak, in not referring to any semi-automatic weapon as an assault weapon, my Chinese made rifle is clearly more capable of assaulting a human target at a distance and through certain barriers than is my 9mm handgun.  It is not the best rifle for hunting.  It is not the best weapon for close quarter home protection or self defense.  It is a weapon suited for combat, and essentially is a poor-man’s AK-47. And I think that I could find a gun show this weekend, here in Texas, and purchase one, and/or an AK-47, and take them home immediately.

A few things here:

1) Right to keep and bear arms isn’t about hunting. It is about your right to possess the basic tools of war in the event that other individuals seek to make war on you. “Self-defense” and “war” are two different variants of the same thing. If you are talking about assaulting people as in killing them as a murderer, any gun can be considered an “assault weapon” or in the case of a rifle, an “assault rifle.”

2) Kalashnikov rifles (what get termed the “AK-47” as true AK-47s are rare and have automatic fire capability) make excellent hunting rifles for smaller and medium-sized game. There is no reason at all that one cannot hunt with them. Remember, there is no such thing as a gun designed to kill “animals” versus a gun designed to kill “humans.” Unless you believe in creationism as opposed to evolution, then technically, Humans are animals. We’re a high-functioning animal, but an animal nonetheless. When you use a gun to shoot other humans, such as in war, you’re using it to shoot what are animals. So there is no reason why you can’t then take that same weapon and use it to shoot non-human animals as well. 

3) Such weapons are fine for close-quarter home protection and self defense. There is nothing special about a weapon “designed for combat.” A gun is a gun. Combat can be on a battlefield or from your home if the person is shooting at you. That is why military, law enforcement, and civilians all use the same guns. In the case of Kalashnikovs, they are rifles, meaning they are more accurate than handguns (which are more easy to miss with) and also have better stopping power, which is important if you are dealing with someone high on drugs or what-have-you. You only use a handgun if you need to easily conceal the weapon or do not have access to a rifle.

4) Whether a handgun or a rifle has more ability to penetrate a barrier depends. The 9mm handgun, for example, actually has more ability to penetrate the walls of a home than the AR-15 rifle. This is because the AR-15 fires a very small projectile, the .223, which fragments on impact due to its design and velocity. 9mm handgun bullets are larger, heavier, and slower-moving than the .223. Your average home has two layers of wall board for each wall, with things like plumbing, electrical wiring, ventilation, insulation, etc…in-between. For a projectile to fragment, it generally needs to be going at least 2,000 ft/s. AR-15s usually have a muzzle velocity higher than this, so the .223s are able to fragment. The fragmentation is what gives them their stopping power, as they are otherwise generally too small to do much damage to a person, at least to stop the person immediately. But the fragmentation also means that once they pass through the initial layer of wall board, they expend all of their energy, fragment, and then are unable to penetrate the second layer, or if so, with a lot less ability. Handgun projectiles, travel far slower than 2,000 ft/s and thus cannot fragment. And being larger and heavier than .223s, will punch right through both layers of wall board. BTW, any decent hunting rifle is significantly more powerful than any AR-15 or Kalashnikov rifle.

5) All of the most commonly available firearms to civilians are weapons used by the military:

Remington 700: Most popular hunting rifle in the world. Also one of the most popular sniper rifles used by the military and law enforcement.

12 Gauge Pump-Action Shotgun: Invented in 1898. Used in WWI by the U.S. military and came to be known as “trench brooms.” So hated were shotguns by the Germans that they threatened to try captured U.S. soldiers who had used them with war crimes.

Semi-automatic rifles with detachable box magazines: First ones came out in the first decade of the 20th century. They were originally used by civilians before the military picked them up.

Handguns: 9mm and .45 caliber, two of the most common handguns used by civilians, have been used by the military since they were invented as well.

TimB - 24 May 2013 12:10 AM

Short answer: I don’t believe these assertions.

I forget where I read it, but I remember reading that after going after the tobacco industry, the same lawyers then decided to go after the firearms industry, but then backed off when they realized that there wasn’t much money at all to be made with the firearms companies.

[ Edited: 24 May 2013 02:45 AM by LogicMan ]
Profile
 
 
   
5 of 25
5
 
‹‹ Korea      Rand Paul at Howard U. ››