Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Ah, those peaceniks.... | Main | Memorable words »

Second Presidential Debate

Posted by David Hardy · 17 October 2012 08:41 PM

The candidates muff it, but Prof. Winkler does not. Neither seemed to know the difference between full automatic and semi-automatic firearms, which would be no great knowledge gap ... unless the person in ignorance is proposing to outlaw something that they can't describe.

"Is it any wonder then that the candidates offered little in the way of effective solutions? Neither seems to know much about what they are—finally—talking about."

5 Comments | Leave a comment

one-eyed Jack | October 18, 2012 8:16 AM | Reply

Well, we have had since 1994 to explain the difference between "Rifles", "Assault Rifles" and "Assualt Weapons" to the pols and the general public. It's not working. Makes you wonder what else they don't understand. Jack.

Windy Wilson | October 18, 2012 3:57 PM | Reply

I'd hate for them to outlaw "the part that goes up". Might be painful for guys, and it would be open to a challenge on equal protection grounds.

chris | October 18, 2012 6:13 PM | Reply

They can't the difference between a hawk and a hand saw.

Rugrash | October 20, 2012 1:09 PM | Reply

It's incredible that the people that author and vote on the bills have such an incredible lack of understanding of the basic terms etc. Carolyn McCarthy (the thing that goes up) and the rest of them are completely in the dark, but when has that really ever stopped them. We all know that they're doing it for "the children"

Brad | October 20, 2012 3:29 PM | Reply

Well well well. It seems that Adam Winker has retreated from his previous support for a ban on +10 round capacity detachable magazines.

Leave a comment