AP Sources: 1 rampage gun purchased legally

[RamboLiberal]

Source: Google/AP

WASHINGTON — Law enforcement officials say a 5.7-millimeter pistol used in the Fort Hood shooting rampage was purchased legally at a Texas gun store.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case.

Records indicate Hasan bought the FN 5.7 at store called "Guns Galore" in Killeen, Texas, well before the attack that left 13 people dead. The pistol has been dubbed a "cop killer" by those who have tried to stop its use.

The most powerful type of ammunition for the gun is available only to law enforcement and military personnel. Gun control advocates call it a "cop killer" weapon because that ammo can pierce bulletproof vests, and its use by Mexican drug cartels worries police.


Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iU2FSOlnxfzhAwbNibWTIhohwLVQD9BQ92TO0

---

FN Website: http://www.fnhusa.com/le/products/firearms/family.asp?fid=FNF003&gid=FNG001

Review from GunBlast.com which was posted on the FN Website.

FN’s 5.7x28mm cartridge has been around for over fifteen years now, and the cartridge has proven to have merit as to the task for which it was originally developed, that being a lightweight, low recoil projectile designed to penetrate soft and hard personal body armor. Made for up close and personal military applications from a compact fully-automatic weapon, the five-seven delivers. However, the cartridge is offered in a modern semi-automatic pistol also, and that is the subject of this piece. I reviewed the PS-90 carbine a few months ago, and Frank James also reviewed the carbine on Gunblast.com a couple of years back., but now we are looking at the 5.7 cartridge and the handgun which fires it; the Five-seveN USG pistol.

As a handgun cartridge, the 5.7 round is an interesting concept. I have often recommended the .22 Winchester Magnum handgun to folks who write to me asking advice on a defensive handgun, when there are physical problems which do not allow the user to handle a cartridge with even moderate recoil, such as a .38 Special revolver or a 9mm pistol. The .22 Magnum penetrates better than a .38 Special in flesh, and the light recoil makes hitting the target repeatedly a lot easier than with a heavier-recoiling cartridge, for people who have weak hands or crippling arthritis. Even for those of us with normal strength in our hands and wrists, the .22 Magnum cartridge, fired from a hand gun, is a pretty good choice for many applications. The 5.7x28mm cartridge is very similar to the .22 Magnum cartridge in application, but offers even better performance.

The Five-seveN is not a small handgun at all. It is a full-sized pistol, but could be concealed with a proper holster. Still, it is better suited to fit a duty holster, and is an ideal size for a house gun. The Five-seveN is not heavy, weighing in at 23.1 ounces with an empty magazine in place. Speaking of magazines, the Five-seveN comes with three of them. Thanks FN. Every new auto pistol should come with at least two, and supplying this pistol with three is a good practice. Carrying the Five-seveN fully loaded with the two spares gives the owner sixty-one cartridges at his disposal. Each magazine holds twenty cartridges. The weapon is easy to hold, the controls are easy to operate, and the recoil is relatively mild. The safety is in an unusual, but very handy, location on the frame just above the trigger, and it is ambidextrous for easy operation with either hand. The safety is easily reached by the trigger finger, or with the thumb of the support hand. In addition to this manual safety, there is also a magazine safety that renders the pistol inoperable with the magazine removed. The slide release is on the left side, and pushes downward to close the slide. The magazine release is large, easy to operate, and is reversible. There is a special tool provided with the pistol to reverse the mag release, if desired. The sights are easy to see, and drift adjustable on the test gun, but fully adjustable sights and also night sights are offered as well.

Shooting the Five-seveN was a pleasure, as recoil is pretty light. It is a loud pistol, but no more so than other centerfire defensive cartridges. I would like to see this pistol offered with a threaded barrel to easily attach a sound suppressor. That would greatly lower the sound signature of the weapon, and would be welcome when fired indoors. Still, the muzzle blast is no louder than most pistols, and again, the recoil is light. The trigger pull measured a very smooth four and one-quarter pounds on the test pistol, and hitting human silhouette targets in the kill zone in rapid fire at twenty-five yards was easy. The test gun proved to be very reliable. I encountered one failure-to-feed early on, but after that, the pistol performed flawlessly. I tried several different commercial loads from the Five-seveN from both FNH and Elite Ammunition. FNH currently offers only one load to the general public, but it is a good one, using a 40 grain polymer-tipped jacketed bullet. That load also proved to be the most accurate tested, grouping into one and five-eighths inches at twenty-five yards using a hand-held rested position. Elite offers a wide variety of loaded ammunition to fit various needs. Chronograph and accuracy testing was done at a temperature of around ninety degrees Fahrenheit and a relative humidity of eighty-five percent; typical muggy Tennessee Valley Summertime. Velocity readings were taken ten feet from the muzzle. Velocity readings are listed in feet-per-second (fps). Bullet weights are listed in grains. Accuracy is the average of five-shot groups at twenty-five yards, measured from center to center of the farthest two bullet holes in each group.

http://gunblast.com/FN-FiveseveN.htm

[villager]

1. But you might want to be crazy enough to use it for hunting!

Animals, I mean, not cops!

Don't put any limits on teh crazy!

[AtheistCrusader]

8. The FN 5.7 has excellent characteristics

for target practice, both casual training, and competitive shooting. It is useless for defeating armor in the hands of civilians, because as the article noted, the correct ammunition required for that purpose is available only to law enforcement and military customers.

This pistol is fine for hunting some small game, like gophers and rock chucks.

[villager]

11. "Excellent characteristics" for mass murder, too, evidently!

Glad to hear you support common sense restrictions on certain types of ammo, though...

[Pavulon]

15. Good thing he did not work in the armory...

I had access to HE, Det cord, caps and detonators of various make , fragmentation grenades, claymore mines, anti tank systems. Not to mention a vast array of small arms.

The man had intent and acted on it.

[AtheistCrusader]

17. Probably not.

We actually don't know that any of the dead were shot with this weapon. It's entirely possible that the wounded survivors were all the ones hit with this pistol. But we'll see. The 5.7mm round is not well suited to killing humans. Not compared to your standard, 'good ol' .45, .357, hell a 9mm is better suited.

The 5.7 works on a different principle. That poking a small hole with a higher velocity, fragmenting bullet of lower mass, is better than failing to cause an enormous hole with a lower velocity 9mm that expands, because the 9mm was stopped by armor. Take away armor, and the possible use of armor-defeating ammo in this pistol, and it is not well suited to killing ANY animal as large as a human.

The 5.7's round, in rifle form, is not legal for hunting deer in this state, because it will not humanely kill the deer. It may kill, but possible just a wound. Deer weigh in the 200-300lbs range, for the most part, comparing favorably to humans.

[villager]

25. "We actually don't know that any of the dead were shot with this weapon."

Yes -- always, always give the benefit of the doubt to the weapon...

[AtheistCrusader]

26. Not at all. There were supposedly two pistols carried by the bad guy.

I'm awaiting more facts before jumping to innuendo and fear mongering about the weapon, which, while somewhat exotic, didn't figure into the situation in any way beyond what any other pistol of large capacity would.


That is, in fact, the only apparent feature or characteristic of the FN 5.7 that has any bearing here. It holds 4 more rounds than most other full frame pistols, without reloading. Seems a fairly minor point to me, oh boy, four shots beyond 15+1, but it might become a topic of conversation, I don't know.

[boppers]

45. 61 shots with three magazines...

...and very low recoil, so rapid discharge wouldn't "hurt" (or reduce accuracy) like firing 61 .45 rounds would.

If you were looking for a weapon to wreak maximum havoc, maximum hits, but not maximum kills, in a minimum of time, this could be quite the candidate... any reports on how many shots he fired, yet?

[Pavulon]

47. A glock 17 mag can be extended

to 20 rounds. That is 60 rounds of 9mm ++p ammo. The pistol is not the problem.

[PavePusher]

49. 61 rounds of .45 "hurts" and reduces accuracy?

I don't think so.

I regularly shoot several hundred rounds of .45 in a session.

[boppers]

57. How many rounds per second?

I'm mentally referring to a 1911, it might be a lot easier on the hands with a more modern weapon, say a Glock 30... and the "session", in this case, is mere minutes...

...and/or you may have really strong hands. :)

[PavePusher]

58. 1911 here. Anything from one round every few minutes...

to suppresive fire speed drills, 4 8-round mags +1, as fast as I can, must hit a 2'x4' target at 25 yards.

1911's probably have some of the softest recoil in .45 that I know, as they are (usually) a heavy full steel gun. I find GLOCKs to be much sharper due to lighter weight. (And crap, for me, grips.) For the record, I've been in aviation MX for 19 years and done a fair amount of martial arts, weightlifting and wood splitting in my life... might have tougher than average hands.

[PavePusher]

72. Forgot to add...

Took my ex-girlfriend and her 11-year old daughter to the range last weekend. Went through about 350 rounds .22, then each did 75 rounds .45. I had initially expected the daughter to fire one or two rounds as an experiment, then wait for access to a 9mm, but she ate it up. No complaints, and I made sure she wasn't developing a flinch by loading a dummy round every mag or two (good clearing drill practice as well). No complaints later that week either.

"When are we going shooting with Pave again, Mom?!?!?!"

I'm so proud of her....

[X_Digger]

56. Yah.. umm.. no.

I'll be hitting the range tomorrow, and I'll likely blow through at least 100 rounds of .45ACP and .40S&W each. The last mag is usually more accurate than the first, due to muscle memory. Unless you weigh less than ~150lbs, a 40 or 45 is a piece of cake.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSYCQC4D7KU

(might be light loads, but watch the brass, definitely .45)

*eta: I shoot a 1911 in 45, and a full size Springfield XD in 40.. subbies can be tough on the wrist.

[boppers]

64. I weigh about 120lbs... so, there's that.

Cute kid. :D

[X_Digger]

68. doh!

My wife shoots with me when we go out to a friend's land, she likes my 1911, and she's 5'5". I've seen her go through 5-6 mags in pretty short order without a bobble at the end. She despises my subcompact XD, though, says it's terrible on her wrists.

[boppers]

69. Over 100 rounds fired by the suspect (on CNN now)

That's at least 5 full clips.

[SteveM]

97. One T.V. commentator called the "other" weapon a .357 magnum...

as the animation showed the use of two semi-auto pistols. Virtually all .357 magnum guns are revolvers. May be some numerological conflation going on here -- rare for mainstream media. (Oooops, pardon me! It must have been something I ate.)

[RamboLiberal]

36. Posted further down in thread

Reported that 2nd gun likely wasn't fired.

[benEzra]

75. Squirrel and rabbit hunting, yes, it would be an appropriate caliber.

It is a .22, after all. Wouldn't be humane to hunt anything much larger than a rabbit, though.

[tridim]

2. Guns fucking Galore?

:eyes:

[alllyingwhores]

13. How is this relevant...don't we routinely issue soldiers automatic weapons and ammo?

[Pavulon]

18. Yeppers. The las guy who fragged

his fellow officers was motivated by his "faith". Lots of guys have weapons in Iraq and dont kill each other.

[tridim]

24. I'm referring to the stupid name of the gun shop.

Guns aren't fucking toys.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. Technically, it means 'lots of guns'. Probably appropriate.

[tridim]

28. "A shitload of guns and other killing tools" also means "lots of guns"

But it doesn't mean you should name your gun store that.

Think, gun store owners, you have a huge responsibility too.

[AtheistCrusader]

30. I imagine the owner might be regretting the selection of name right about now.

But how mild is 'ok'? The DC Sniper's weapon came from a local gun shop called Bull's Eye Shooter Supply. v:)v

[SteveM]

98. Someone in town had a gun shop called "Guns Are Us." (nt)

[Name removed]

3. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ShortnFiery]

4. Handguns are way too easily concealed. I understand that some people truly need

and should be authorized concealed weapons permits but DAMN those handguns. I hate them although I know that Law Enforcement and some others should be authorized to carry them ... they're so easily concealed ... I personally hate them.

I've only fired ONE handgun, my 45 caliber during Officer Weapons Qualification. Although I could fire consistently "Expert" with my M-16, I'd probably would have better hit my target at 25 meters with a 45 if I'd of thrown the damn thing instead of firing rounds. :(

[PavePusher]

50. Your lack of targeting skill...

should not determine what weapons I can own.

Hate whatever you want. I hate your car.... so you should be forced to get rid of it.

[benEzra]

80. My 5'1" wife can keep every shot in the black at that distance with a 1911 pattern .45

but you do have to work up to that level, just as you would with a rifle. Starting out with a 1911 as your first handgun experience would be challenging for most people, and she couldn't do that until she had been shooting handguns well for a few years. The fact that the military used to issue CRAPPY hearing protection (if it was issued at all) also made it more challenging, because so much of the recoil perception comes from the muzzle blast, not the recoil itself.

She really wants a Colt Gold Cup (or even a 1991A1), but it's not her highest financial priority right now.

[Hoopla Phil]

94. Hence the reason to get a CHL.

[spin]

99. Quite possible that your weapon was at fault...

military 45 caliber firearms used on ranges where noted as being worn out. The slights are on the slide and if the slide fits loosely on the frame you could have a perfect sight picture and trigger control with each shot and still hit a different spot on the target with each shot.

A civilian .45 should be far more accurate and a competition .45 auto with a tight slide to frame fit is a real tack driver.

[X_Digger]

105. Case in point..

.. went shooting today in prep for my CHL qualification next weekend.

I'm no marksman, but not bad for an 8" target at 25'-

[spin]

106. Not bad at all. Congrats. (n/t)

[eqfan592]

107. That's some good shootin right there!

Congrats to you! I hope someday wisconsin will finally allow us to CCW. I fully plan on being first in line on that day.

[atreides1]

5. With this information

The authorities will be able to determine those that were killed and wounded by the suspect, and those who were the victims of "friendly" fire!

Legally it matters as far as his defense is concerned, in the long term he is still responsible for what happened to those 41 people!

[RamboLiberal]

6. I'm betting there were no victims of friendly fire

I don't think that General knew WTF he was talking about.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. Agreed.

Doesn't sound like there were any active shooters at the moment the bad guy went down, other than the officer and the bad guy exchanging fire. If no one else is shooting, no one else is missing.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. He used two pistols.

Did he have two FN 5.7's?

If so, agreed, simplifies the ballistics folks job of figuring out who shot whom.

[RamboLiberal]

32. That General who was doing the press conferences

seem to infer that one of the weapons was not a "semi-auto" making me wonder if the 2nd gun was a revolver.

He didn't seem real gun savvy. Then add the CNN twits including Anderson Cooper last night and it was the usual MSM knows squat about guns bit.

Added on edit:

The initial investigation shows that Hasan allegedly used only one gun during the attack — a 5.7-caliber semiautomatic pistol.
Army officials said Hasan also was carrying another handgun. But the law enforcement official said there’s nothing so far to indicate the second weapon was fired.

http://www.njherald.com/story/news/fort-hood2009-11-06T14-08-55

[AtheistCrusader]

35. I don't want to use the word in the wrong way, but I'm having trouble thinking of another

so I'll say it with the caveat of 'I don't mean this in anything beyond a clinical, scientific understanding the physics involved'.

That's an astounding death toll, for human bodies, for that type of round. Mind-bogglingly so.

I'm expecting it's going to turn out that he had another pistol of a more 'normal' type.



Perhaps another factor at work here? It's apochryphal, I think, but supposedly, part of the reason the warsaw ghetto uprising was so successful, has been attributed to the jewish resistors being doctors. People with an intimate understanding of anatomy, able to selectivly shoot for greatest effect, taking down not only the target, but two or more other soldiers required to haul away the wounded soldier. Maybe the shooter in this case, was somewhat more effective due to anatomical understanding of the human body.

[RamboLiberal]

37. He might have been a very good shot

And went for the head. Or put multiple rounds in to people. Probably a lot was at close range.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. A point was made in the other thread about the over-penetration of this type of round

with so many in the room, shoot one, and a person on the other side might be wounded as well.

Might partially explain the almost 3:1 wounded/killed ratio.

[TheWraith]

43. The penetration is actually very low using the commercially available ammo.

I'd put down the ratio more likely to A) he may not have been shooting that accurately, and B) the weakness of the cartridge.

[benEzra]

76. The fact that it is a .22 explains the almost 3:1 wounded/killed ratio.

It's a .22.

[RamboLiberal]

42. 2nd gun S&W 357 Revolver

A second gun found with him was a 357 Magnum Smith and Wesson revolver, but it is not yet clear if Hasan used the weapon during the shooting.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/fort-hood-shooter-maj-nidal-malik-hasan-calm/story?id=9012995

[Rebubula]

7. And Yesterday...

...MILLIONS of other people with legally obtained firearms woke up, kissed their spouses, went to work and then came home to tuck in their kids - - all without killing anyone.

[jgraz]

9. yet.

[ShortnFiery]

14. True. That's why I drive like a Franciscan Priest - forgiving of all.

My daughter is astounded, "Mom you're so tough but you let people cut in on you." I replied, "When you get in a car, realize that it can be a deadly weapon and you must treat it and other drivers with the utmost respect ... yes even if they don't respect you back ... besides, you don't know who's packing heat!"

In our D.C. area about a year back there was a road rage shooting where a person was killed. Of course it wasn't either drivers experiencing the angst, it was an innocent passenger. Isn't that the breaks? :(

[safeinOhio]

29. Good job Mom

That's how I drive too. In fact many people have pointed out to me that I am the number one safe driver, by holding up one finger for me to see. Life is too short to be bugged.

[Lagomorph]

40. I try to remember when I drive someplace

my goal is to get there and back safely.

I never leave the house with the goal of getting into a battle with someone on the road. I give people plenty of room and try to remember the times when I was lost and confused, myself.

If I drive somewhere and back without a fight, regardless of the provocation, I've accomplished my goal.

Letting bad drivers control my emotions would leave me crazy.

[PavePusher]

51. Oh, that's right.

I'm going to snap any second now.... Maybe now..... Or now.....

BOOOGA-BOOGA-BOOGA-BOOGA-BOOOO!

There, I feel better.

Stop making accusations.

[SteveM]

100. Waiting with baited breath?

[depakid]

12. "all without killing anyone"

Not all....

Philly-area man killed wife, self
Thu, Nov. 5, 2009

LEVITTOWN, Pa. - Authorities in suburban Philadelphia say a man involved in a bitter divorce case shot and killed his wife and then himself.

Bucks County Coroner Joseph Campbell says 54-year-old Russell Vender shot his 52-year-old wife, Ethelyn, twice and then turned the gun on himself. Their bodies were found Tuesday in their Levittown home.

The two had been married for 35 years, but according to court records the woman had recently filed for divorce. Her attorney, however, had sought postponement of the case, saying the husband had recently injured his back and the couple wanted time to try to resolve their differences.

More: http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/state/pennsylvania/20091105_ap_coronerphillyareamankilledwifeself.html

[Pavulon]

10. Time 'till the ban is proposed...

"cop killer" is a sure sign something must be done. I will not name the other common cartridge that is available in handguns that will defeat most vests.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. .357 magnum?

Might get through IIa, but not III.

Or are you thinking of ANOTHER .22? .22LR?


Yeah, the whole thing is academic and pointless. Civilians don't have access to the armor penetrating ammo. This guy, if he wanted to, had access to things MUCH WORSE than a FN 5.7.

[safeinOhio]

31. For self defense, most use some type of hollow point type.

Thing is they sometimes won't even go thru winter cloths. They have also bounce off of heads and pit bulls jaws.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. Meh, I think those are under-charges or squib loads.

There's no way a 115 grain hollow point going 2k fps should bounce off the human skull.

[PavePusher]

52. Holy Batshit, Fatman!

What kind of handgun are you using!?

[AtheistCrusader]

59. Oops, that was a rifle velocity.

Ok, ok, 1,000fps

Sorry about that :nuke:

[PavePusher]

60. Damn, and I thought you were the manliest man to man about town... LOL!

[Pavulon]

46. No. This is around but not that common.

It is not an ap eound but its cal and velocity make it capable of defeating some vests. Point is it is never used and not involved in "cop killing" even though it is a highly effective pistol round.

[TheWraith]

44. If you call a .22 squirrel gun a "cop killer, does that make it so?

That's like calling abortion "legalized baby murder." It's a blatant falsification designed to invoke an emotional response in people. In fact, I'm not aware of ANY confirmed case in which a police officer has been killed with a 5.7mm pistol.

[Pavulon]

48. I agree. Sarcasm at the scary language.

I am sure the anti folks will latch on the the "cop killer" aspect.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

67. .400 Corbon?

Now that's a damn-hot round.
I'll bet a hot loaded .357sig fired from a fullsize pistol might do the trick too.
Throwing knives work too :)

[anonymous171]

16. I thought cops were pig headed fascists. Why does DU suddenly care for their wellbeing?

[ShortnFiery]

21. You're painting with one broad brush. Many of us here have either worked in Law Enforcement

or have loved ones and friends who do. :(

[AtheistCrusader]

23. And unfortunately, there are a lot of posters who use a MUCH LARGER brush

describing any cops.

The post you responded to was sarcastic.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[proteus_lives]

34. Typical comments on thread.

From the grabbers and anti-rights crowd. One people commits a criminal act with a gun therefore the rights of all citizens must be removed.

Cuz safety is more important then freedom dontcha' know. :puke:

[jgraz]

39. And typical black-and-white thinking from the gundamentalists.

Anyone who proposes any sensible gun policy is a "grabber".

Cuz your second amendment binky is more important than... well, anything. :puke:

[PavePusher]

54. What is your "sensible gun policy"? n/t

[jgraz]

62. Step one would be to have a good-faith conversation on the subject

It's impossible to even discuss policy ideas because the pro-gun crowd is too frightened to allow a debate on the subject.

[PavePusher]

73. No-one here is frightened to talk.

We merely insist you use correct, precise, accurate terminology instead of buzz-words and scare phrases, and cite to actual facts and peer-reviewed studies that haven't been thouroughly and publicly shredded. Also, don't invent "history" out of whole cloth, or use classist/racist based fear-mongering.

Let's start.

[SteveM]

101. Correction: most "pro-gun" folks (including myself) are not frightened...

You are using this conjured excuse to refuse engagement on specific policies; in fact, you use the excuse to refuse any debate at all by completely lumping the opposition. You're here. I'm here. We're all here.

What's your proposal?

[jgraz]

104. The evidence is against you

Your own behavior on this thread proves my point. The standard response from the gunnies is to deflect, nitpick, insult, defy all bounds of reason and then declare victory when a poster gives up and goes back to the adults' table. That's not debate, that's a tantrum.

[PavePusher]

109. Your tapdancing and avoidance might do you well in other forums...

but they are not going to work here.

Direct question: Do you have a gun control proposal that will stop criminals and not infringe on citizens? If so, state it.

[spin]

55. The second amendment is an extremely progressive idea...

along with the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Most liberals fail to recognize these facts.

You can give up these three amendments and you can give up your freedom.

The rich and powerful controlling elite would love to see you do this.

[jgraz]

63. Written primarily to guarantee the means to control enslaved Africans.

Yeah, that's real progressive. :eyes:

http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/Vol31/Issue2/DavisVol31No2_Bogus.pdf

[AtheistCrusader]

65. Wow I made it a whole page before I spotted the first factual error.

"Consequently the United States is far and away the leader in criminal homicide in the industrial world"


hahaha HONK

Try Russia. Using numbers from 2000 (one year after this report, I don't have 1999 specifically handy) Russia had a homicide rate of 28 per 100,000. The United States? 5.6 per 100,000. How about Poland? 5.61 per 100,000. Argentina, 7.17. Brazil 26.1, etc.

Unless you want to pretend a handful of western european nations consist of the entire industrial world, this is a heap of shit I can spot with the naked eye from orbit.

Feel free to cite a different smoking load of horse dung.

[jgraz]

70. Do you understand how footnotes work?

Those little numbers at the end of the sentence? They usually reference extra information that serves to illustrate the methods that the researchers use. In this case, the footnote indicates that they are comparing the United States to other G7 nations. Last I checked, Russia was not part of the G7 at the time that the quoted statistic was obtained.

And, btw, that quote you cite is on the third page of the text, not the second as your post implies (the fifth if you count the table of contents). By your own stated criteria, this factual error now renders any subsequent point by you a "smoking load of horse dung". Please don't bother to post any more, you've clearly been proven wrong in anything you could ever possibly say.

[AtheistCrusader]

88. Then it's a stinking pile of hyperbole.

If it takes less characters to say G7 Nations, than it does Industrialized Nations, you use the word industrialized to impart spin. To pretend Russia or Poland weren't industrialized nations in 1999, is pure bigotry.

Say what you mean, mean what you say.

And that was the second page I saw in reading pane view when I opened it. I am extremely literal.

Edit: Apparently my spelling sucks when I'm mad.

[AtheistCrusader]

66. Whoever wrote that is a moron. More errors, and not just minor quibbles.

Page 364

"Only four of the thriteen state constitutions - Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Vermont - contained a right to bear arms provision."

OH REALLY..

Connecticut:
"SEC. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."
Delaware:
Right to keep and bear arms.
Section 20. A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.
Georgia:
Paragraph VIII. Arms, right to keep and bear. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.
New Hamshire:
2-a. All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

You know what, I'm not even going to bother with the rest. Off the top of my head, the only states that ever failed to explicity protect this are, California, New York, and Maryland.

[jgraz]

71. Do you understand how past tense works?

That "ed" tacked on to the end of "contain" means that the authors are referring to the constitutions in the past. Context would indicate that they are talking about state constitutions contemporaneous with the writing of the federal Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Do you know for a fact that more than four states had these rights in their original constitutions?

And, again, you spelled "New Hampshire" as "New Hamshire", further invalidating any factual statement you will ever make in your entire life.


Now how about you address the actual substance of the paper instead of playing Church Lady with each individual sentence?

[AtheistCrusader]

74. I misspell new hamshire on purpose.

Because I hate it. I kept Connecticut spelled correctly for the PG-13 crowd, only.

Georgia's constitution did indeed have that added somewhat later, but more than just those four states had 'arms' or 'militia' protecting language in their constitutions within 5 years or so on either side of the ratification. I'd say a span of 10 years is 'contemporary'.


In any case, I could easily make the same counter argument that Gun Control was brought about to keep free blacks from owning firearms. Which is, like the subject of this paper, somewhat RELATED, but still a gross misrepresentation.

[PavePusher]

77. Hey! What's wrong with NH?! n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

87. I don't like the east coast for the most part.

Ya'll roll up the sidewalks at 6pm. It's crazy. Last time I was in town to work on a customer issue, I had to scour around on a map to find a university so I could find a pizza place that was still open.

I haven't been to New York, but New Jersey and Connecticut were the same way. Won't go back unless I have to. I'm a night owl.

[PavePusher]

110. Well, if you're not in a city, you may well be right.

Us rural folk go to bed early. Those cows don't milk themselves, yaknow.

[jgraz]

78. If you want to address the subject of the paper, I'd be happy to hear your views on it

But the nitpicking is getting annoying. Even if all your quibbles are correct, it doesn't take away from the central premise of the paper.

[AtheistCrusader]

89. The premise is ridiculous.

Tell me, when the Washington State joined the union, do you honestly think they went out of their way to add this in case SLAVES needed to be suppressed?

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

Maybe they added it just be one of the cool kids in the club.

[X_Digger]

79. Ohio 1802, Indiana 1816, Alabama, 1819

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State;" (OH)

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State.." (IN)

"that every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.." (AL)

[jgraz]

82. United States, 1787

Really, we know you have all sorts of random pro-gun trivia at your fingertips -- or that you can sometimes google quickly. The question is, can you actually use these facts in context? (Hint: your last post? FAIL)

[X_Digger]

83. Second Amendment- 1792

1792 - 1802 not 'contemporary' enough for ya?

I'd say when most of the guys who wrote the second amendment were still alive and kicking, that's pretty darned 'contemporaneous'.

[jgraz]

84. Now let's see... is 1792 before or after 1802? Hmmm....

Congratulations, you've moved up to EPIC FAIL.

[X_Digger]

91. Keep backpedaling..

Your original statement-

That "ed" tacked on to the end of "contain" means that the authors are referring to the constitutions in the past. Context would indicate that they are talking about state constitutions contemporaneous with the writing of the federal Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Do you know for a fact that more than four states had these rights in their original constitutions?

I'd say 1802 is close enough to 1792 to be considered of a similar time period. My wife, the history PhD, tells me that that era was demarcated more by the war of 1812 than anything else. So IN, AL wouldn't be considered of that time period, but 1802 would.

*snort* I re-read the sentence below that, and it made me giggle.. "The Massachusetts and North Carolina declarations of rights guaranteed a collective right only.."

Umm.. Commonwealth v. Blanding, 3 Pick. 304 Mass. 1825 (right to keep arms is an individual right) -- was reinterpreted to the 'collective right' position in... 1976.

"The liberty of the press was to be unrestrained, but he who used it was to be responsible in case of its abuse; like the right to keep fire arms, which does not protect him who uses them for annoyance or destruction."

[jgraz]

95. .

[beevul]

81. No sir. Written primarily to control the government itself.

But hey, don't take my word for it, it says so right here in the bill of rights itself - read it for yourself (and weep):



The First 10 Amendments to the Constitution as Ratified by the StatesDecember 15, 1791

Preamble


Congress OF THE United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added : And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution


http://www.billofrights.org/


Any um...comments?

[jgraz]

85. Reading the paper was a bit too much to ask, huh?

That's ok... we'll wait.

[beevul]

86. Uh...ok?

Is that paper going to refute whats written in plain english in the preamble of the bill of rights?


Didn't think so.


Its ok though, most people on your side of the issue wont touch it iether.

Hard to explain away those words and thier meaning.


Thanks for...well, not playing.

[jgraz]

90. Yeah, we wouldn't want you to actually join the conversation or anything

Just read one post, write something random and off you go. Nice system you've got there.

[beevul]

92. I think I see your problem...(beyond reliance on discredited and/or biased researchers and info)

You think the preamble to the bill of rights is em..."random". I shouldn't be surprised.



I actually DID read your "paper" if you can call it that.




Carl T bogus? You're kidding right?



Michael Bellesiles? ROFL.


"The Second Amendment in Law and History: Historians and Constitutional Scholars on the Right to Bear Arms by Carl T. Bogus and Michael A. Bellesiles (2001)"


Yep, two peas in a pod, those two.



Lets have a look:


Although Bellesiles's book was initially praised for its innovative use of probate records and was awarded the prestigious Bancroft Prize of Columbia University, much of Bellesiles' research was later demonstrated to be inaccurate or even fraudulent, and the award was rescinded.<6>

Shortly after the publication of Arming America, several researchers, including independent scholar Clayton Cramer and law professor James Lindgren of Northwestern University, charged that the work included serious errors. In two scholarly articles, Lindgren reported<7><8> that Bellesiles had

purported to count guns in about a hundred wills from 17th- and 18th-century Providence, R.I. that had never existed because the decedents died intestate (i.e., without wills),
purported to count nineteenth century San Francisco County probate inventories that had been destroyed in the 1906 earthquake and fire,
reported a national mean for gun ownership in 18th-century probate inventories that was mathematically impossible,
misreported the condition of guns described in probate records in a way that accommodated his thesis,
mis-cited the counts of guns in nineteenth-century Massachusetts censuses and militia reports,
had more than a 60% error rate in finding guns in Vermont estates, and
had a 100% error rate in the cited gun-related homicide cases of seventeenth-century Plymouth.
Bellesiles misquoted sources or took quotes significantly out of context to support his theses. In one case, he quoted George Washington on the quality of the militias and misrepresented a Washington comment about three poorly prepared militia units as if it applied to the militia in general, even though Washington had noted that the three units were exceptions to the rule.<9> Bellesiles also modified texts of early gun laws to change their meanings. <10>

Emory investigation and Bellesiles resignation
Questions of scholarly misconduct eventually became so clamorous that Emory University both conducted an internal inquiry and appointed an Investigative Committee of outside scholars. Both committees found serious flaws in Bellesiles's work, with the external committee questioning both its quality and veracity. During the investigation, Bellesiles refused to turn over his notes to investigators and claimed that they had been destroyed in a flood.<11> Bellesiles publicly disputed the Committee's findings, claiming he had followed all pertinent scholarly guidelines and corrected all errors of fact known to him. He said, "I have never fabricated evidence of any kind nor knowingly evaded my responsibilities as a scholar." On the day that the report was released, Bellesiles resigned from Emory.<12>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A._Bellesiles

Oh, and lets not forget this:

Gun violence: Funds research and advocacy to reduce gun ownership, deaths and injuries. This includes support of anti-gun groups<1>.

Gun violence prevention and gun control

Since 2003, the Joyce Foundation has paid grants totaling over $12 million to gun control organizations<10><1>. The largest single grantee has been the Violence Policy Center, which received $4,154,970<10> between 1996 and 2006, and calls for an outright ban on handguns, semi-automatic and other firearms, and substantial restrictions on gun owners.<13>


Sponsored work
The Joyce Foundation has underwritten research into gun violence prevention since 1993.<10> The Foundation provided a $400,000 grant to The Ohio State University's John Glenn Institute for Public Service and Public Policy to establish a Second Amendment Research Center, directed by OSU Associate Professor of History Saul Cornell.<16>

The Joyce Foundation has sponsored symposium issues of some law reviews, which are funded by the Foundation. In some cases the law reviews were compiled and edited by an independent external editor and in other cases student law review editors solicited papers for publication from papers presented at a conference funded with Joyce money. Examples of such symposium issues include:

Chicago-Kent Law Review (Vol. 76 No. 1, 2000, edited by Carl T. Bogus)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Foundation#Sponsored_work


You really thought nobody would notice didn't you...

[X_Digger]

93. Busssssssted. n/t

[jgraz]

96. Aaaand the intellectual cratering of the discussion is complete

Thank you, Gun Group, for never, ever disappointing.

[SteveM]

103. Lost again, buddy? We know (nt)

[PavePusher]

111. Care to address the facts?

Or are you going to "declare victory when a poster gives up and goes back to the adults' table."

Gosh, I thought it would be at least a day or two before I could use that quote. 4 1/2 hours. Huh.

[SteveM]

102. Ah, history on its head again...

Gun control laws had their origin in the South; colonial times, post-Revolutionary & antebellum, Jim Crow, modern era. These GUN-CONTROL LAWS were designed to keep guns out of the hands of blacks.

You fail to see the irony that modern gun control laws are founded upon the racist gun-control laws of the South. It's as if so-called "liberals" have picked up the gun-control banner and ran North, failing to note that the other side of the flag has stars & bars on it.

SEE: www.georgiacarry.org and search locally for the Heller brief, a fine summation of the racism of gun-control laws and a good edumacation for you.

[RamboLiberal]

41. 2nd gun S&W 357 Revolver

A second gun found with him was a 357 Magnum Smith and Wesson revolver, but it is not yet clear if Hasan used the weapon during the shooting.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/fort-hood-shooter-maj-nidal-malik-hasan-calm/story?id=9012995

[jeepnstein]

61. The guy was Major...

in the U.S. Army. That usually indicates a certain amount of vetting and stability. Nobody would have raised an eyebrow at a guy like that buying a pistol.

[spin]

108. It's still early but

it looks like the Major was throwing up a lot of red flags.

I'm surprised that if these stories are based on fact that the military culture he was part of didn't take notice.

I feel we will learn a lot more in the future.