search
top

Defining Guns Down

Bob Owens noticed that Shannon Watts, the head of Moms Demand Action, put out a new definition for the guns the group wants to ban: “An assault weapon enables humans to shoot 10 rounds in one minute.”

Bob goes through and provides video examples of all types of guns that can shoot 10 rounds in one minute or less.

That means guns that Moms Demand Action want to see banned include lever actions, bolt actions, and even single-shot shotguns. He provides plenty of evidence that shows all can load and fire 10 rounds or more in less than a minute.

57 Responses to “Defining Guns Down”

  1. Matt R. says:

    What!?!?!? They want to ban ALL metallic cartridge arms? I have been practicing my “Surprised” face in the mirror for just these kind of occasions….

    For example: here is a video of Miculek popping of 12 rounds in a couple of seconds…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSFPw

    –Matt R.

  2. mike says:

    More on Shannon Watts:
    http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/showthread.php?t=255044

    They’re not trying to reduce violence, save lives, or any of that. They’re just interested in banning guns.

  3. Erin Palette says:

    So really, they want to ban everything except muzzle loaders.

    • The Jack says:

      And even black powder revolvers would be dicey.

      But yeah, this is my shocked face!

      • Weer'd Beard says:

        Yep a LeMat has a 9 round cylinder plus the shotgun barrel. If you (unsafely) stoke that gun up all the way and don’t have a misfire you can fire 10 shots in probably about 30 seconds or less without being a single-action guy.

        I’m sure there’s a video of a cowboy action shooter emptying that gun almost as fast and just as accurately as I could unload an M&P45

  4. David says:

    So much for not coming after our hunting guns. My Marlin .30-30 holds one in the chamber and 6 in the tube. I can easily fire seven shots and load three more in a minute (probably less).

  5. Thomas F says:

    A Marlin® .22 LR Lever-Action Rimfire Rifle, is an assault weapon….

  6. Matt says:

    We all knew this was coming. Now the media is calling the Ruger mini-14 used at the LAX an “assault weapon.” Time to ban them, too!

    • Arizona Rifleman says:

      Was it a Mini-14? It looked like an AR in the photos, and a few news websites reported (a day after it happened, so the errors that arise in a developing situations should have been ironed out) that it was an AR.

      Either way, ARs and Mini-14s with collapsible stocks (which, based on the photo I saw, it appeared to have) are considered to be “assault weapons” in California, so it’s not the most egregious error I’ve seen the media make.

      • Brad says:

        Due to residency I am sadly familiar with California gun laws. And it is even worse than you stated, since even a pistol grip stock converts a plain-jane Mini-14 into a California defined illegal “assault weapon”. Any centerfire semi-automatic rifle which uses a detachable magazine and has a single feature from the naughty list, such as a pistol grip or a flash suppressor, is defined as an “assault weapon”. That is the kind of law which the anti-gunners want to see imposed upon the entire nation, as with the most recent attempt by U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein in 2013.

        Regarding the LAX shooter, if it turns out he did have a illegal weapon that just demonstrates the total futility of the California AW ban which has been in place since January 1st, 1990 (and a magazine ban since 2000). It’s amazing to watch all the anti-gunners crawl out of the woodwork howling for a ban, which has already been the law here for a quarter of a century.

        • Sigivald says:

          On the other hand, a “collapsible-look” stock that’s pinned in one place ISN’T a CA-Assault-Weapon.

          Nor is an AR with a bullet-button mag release.

          They’re saying he bought that thing in LA from a dealer, legally, so I bet it’s perfectly CA-legal.

      • Will Cushman says:

        A Ruger Mini 14 is not, under current California law, considered an assault weapon unless it has a pistol grip or a vertical fore grip. Magazine capacity is limited to 10 rounds.

  7. Zermoid says:

    I can fire 10 rounds out of single barrel shotgun in under a minute!

    • Brad says:

      I was impressed by this video.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D08sUXRBUHs

      I had heard that during WWII, some soldiers with shotguns would carry ammunition in the gas-mask bag (since gas masks were commonly discarded). Any kind of similar haversack carry of shotshells would probably be superior to the sling carry shown in the video.

  8. I load a 8 round magazine with one in the chamber in my 1911. Given that a magazine change takes at worst 5 seconds, I think I could easily fire 20 rounds in one minute.

    Since my Kimber Custom II is black, am I going to have to register my “black pistol” in CA?

  9. TS says:

    These people have a misplaced obsession with speed of shots fired. Frankly if someone is shooting at me, I’d rather them be shooting as fast as they can.

    On top of that, they apply no standards to what is a lot if shots fired in a given time. They use the same OMG! language with Newtown as they did with Tucson, even though Newtown was more like: BANG- one one thousand, two one thousand, three one thousand, BANG.

  10. Brad says:

    Shannon Watts has let the cat out of the bag, now hasn’t she? I believe she mistakenly let into public the private goals of anti-gun groups when it comes to desired legislation banning “assault weapons” and “removable feeding devices”. I bet that 10 rounds per minute definition comes directly from some memo produced from MAIG or LCAV.

    But to be fair it is also possible she intended to write 100 rounds per minute, based off of some talking points script provided to her from MAIG.

  11. bear226 says:

    Maybe she should talk to the woman who was protecting herself and 2 young children who emptied a pistol and still didn’t stop the offender.

    • tkdkerry says:

      We can be sure that if she does, she’ll berate the woman for endangering her children by having a gun.

      • Archer says:

        Or shooting the upstanding member of society who was just turning his life around.

  12. Mick says:

    It’s not about assault weapons, it’s not about magazine capacity, it’s not about rate of fire, it’s not about scary guns. It’s about control, period.

  13. Chas says:

    Moms Demand Action can go fuck THEMSELVES! Ugly cunts!

    • Bitter says:

      Tell me what about your message did you think was reasonable for saying “out loud,” as it were? Just how do you think that the kind of nasty personal insult is going to fly on a thread started by a woman? Why are you trying to lower the debate to such a nasty and personal level when the initial commentary was addressing their specific policy overreaches?

      These are things to think about. You just illustrated the point of why the middle-of-the-roaders who Moms Demand Action are trying to pull into their group will succeed. No woman, even a pro-gun woman, will want to associate with you when that is your first attempt at “intelligent” response. Hell, I’m disgusted by the fact that you even visited this blog because of your choice of insults.

      You illustrate the worst stereotypes they try to portray of gun owners which makes those of us who are serious about this issue have to work that much harder.

    • Dannytheman says:

      Chas,

      I waited over night to see if you were going to be man enough to own up to your mistake and apologize for the disparaging comment. Looks like you haven’t and I now call you out as a nasty hearted bastard. I just want you to know that I have a mother and 2 older sisters. That is a word that is never used in the States. I am hoping you can explain your thought process for bringing that word into the blog?

      Bitter doesn’t need me, or any man, to defend her honor, she is more than capable of chopping your ass up and spitting out the small pieces. But a man is one who can admit his mistake and apologize for his misdeeds. Forgiveness is not mine to give, but you should be asking for it.

    • Anyone want to lay odds on “Chas” being an anti-gun sock puppet?

  14. Maurice says:

    With a little practice, can’t you squeeze 10 shots out in a minute with a musket?

      • That just means that two people assembled together with black powder muzzle loaders should also be banned. After all, two really expert crack shots could maybe get off 10 rounds per minute between the two of them, right?

        IIRC, in the era of the Rev War and Napeleonic Wars, drills like “Fire By Rank” and “Fire by Platoon (down the line)” were invented to allow bodies of soldiers to keep up a continuous, rolling fire.

      • Bill Twist says:

        I think it’s wrong. That’s going “through the motions” by the book. I can load and fire my flintlock *RIFLE* roughly that fast, if I don’t take too much time to aim. If I were using a musket I could shave that down a few seconds because there would be fewer motions. I’m guessing someone interested in speed-loading a musket (ie., a smoothbore) could do it in less than 10 seconds, easy.

        If you want an eye-opener about how fast you can load a traditional muzzleloader, attend one of the “primitive biathlons” in the northeast this coming winter. It’s a timed event, so loading fast is critical to your final score. A difference of just 6 seconds extra per shot could add a whole minute to your final score.

  15. Gus Philpott says:

    What if 4,000,000 NRA members joined Moms Demand Action this year and then voted in a new President?

    • Thirdpower says:

      I highly doubt there would be any ‘voting’ involved nor any real ‘membership’. The Illinois Chapters claimed 3,000 ‘members’. They based it off the number of ‘likes’ they have on FB. Watts is in charge because she started it and will likely remain so until the group collapses.

    • Bitter says:

      As Thirdpower notes, there is no membership structure you can use to vote someone out. They have self-appointed leaders, and the “members” have zero say at all. This is the standard for gun control groups. Even the Brady Campaign, the most “traditional” of the groups has a board-selected board with staff then hired by the board who vote for themselves. There are no members who actually vote on anything.

  16. Matt says:

    Fine. Let them push for this. I want them to push for this. I want them to go after every metallic cartridge firearm with a magazine built since 1880. Let every person such as hunters who don’t believe gun control affect them see their Remington 700 become an “assault weapon”.

    I have an Enfield and building an F-Class R700 that are both easily capable of 30+ rounds a minute. Both are 10 round, detachable magazine-fed bolt-action, high powered “weapons of war”. I consider my black rifles canaries. Let them get banned and supposedly confiscated first. Once they play their hand, then these rifles take center stage and I think if we got to that point (and I pray we never do), these Moms will have learned first-hand what carnage they have spawned.

    I’m actually grateful. I prefer this clueless yet refreshing honesty over their dodging and deception.

    • Bitter says:

      Just make sure that you’re doing enough to help spread the word to all of those lower-information gun voters before getting too comfortable with this extremism. :)

      • Matt says:

        Thanks for recognizing the sarcasm of my acceptance at such extremism being the “new normal”.

        Absolutely I let my hunting friend know that we are all in this together and their “sniper rifles” are simply the next target in an expanding circle of gun control truth. I’m sure the banners will come up with a list of banned features that “serve no purpose but to kill” such as free floated barrels, expanding ammunition that kills more quickly, high powered scopes that make aiming and shooting easier from the eye and, of source, bipods for support that improve concealment and first-round hit.

        The sooner the banners move on those rifles, the sooner we can send them into the dustbin of irrelevance for a generation, if not forever. Never interrupt an enemy when they are making a mistake. As patent trolls are about to learn, once you start hammering mainstream America, you doom yourselves.

        I have yet to meet an anti-gun group that has the staying power of average, engage individuals absent big money foundations and Bloomberg behind the scenes. I often wonder what drives Bloomberg into this authoritarian streak of control. Big business attitudes, micromanager run amok, control freak? At least Larry Ellison’s and Bill Gate’s megalomania manifest in relatively benign ways of sailboats and charitable foundations.

  17. Spade says:

    The mad minute record in the British army is 38 shots with a lee enfield no1 mk3 scoring hits on a 12″ target at 300 yards.

  18. William Earl Dungey says:

    The whole anti-gun side is based on false information, and supported by those wishing no power to the people. If you made them fear vampires properly, Media Mogols, they would be banning neck biting and bats in general.

  19. Law2001 says:

    1. Such a gun ban would only affect the law abiding.
    2. It is unlikely such a ban would equally applied to all, including those in government law enforcement. This would be another unequally applied law. God forbid such laws!
    3. Prohibition did not stop people from making alcohol or drinking.
    4. Laws against certain drugs today do not stop people from growing, making, or consuming them.
    5. God forbid there were terrible bans which prevented lawful manufacture, importation, and ownership by civilians of common firearms of today, the law breakers would have no problem making and possessing guns. In addition, the US borders are wide open to allow law breakers to bring in their guns. Under this Obama administration such criminals get a short arrest and release.
    6. I ask you to uphold the right to keep and bear arms and the right to defense of your life, the lives of those you are responsible for, others lives, and property.

    • Bitter says:

      6. I ask you to uphold the right to keep and bear arms and the right to defense of your life, the lives of those you are responsible for, others lives, and property.

      This makes no sense to me. What are you asking us, the blog authors, to do? What are we not doing enough of in your mind to try and uphold the right? I would turn that around on you and say that it is your responsibility to uphold the right. If you think others aren’t doing enough, then you need to come prepared with tangible, specific ideas instead of just some vague comment.

  20. Orlando says:

    I guess they forgot what happened in Nazi occupied Germany when Hitler disarmed the entire population. In the UK the people are wishing they had their guns now because criminals are breaking into houses at random and people are not able to defend them self.

  21. damdoc says:

    I thought Obama said if i liked my AR15, I could keep it!

  22. Medic760 says:

    I guess the Lee Enfield is out too?

  23. Not a Fan of Guns says:

    The basis of this post is entirely fabricated. First of all, it is not possible for Moms Demand Action to “redefine” what constitutes an assault weapon. Second, Shannon Watts’ comments are posted here out of context to spin your own messaging. And finally, I wonder where in the constitution individuals are granted the unrestricted right to own a particular type of gun.

    Genuinely asking why a person might feel compelled to posses and carry a rapid-fire automatic weapon. Because he has been a victim of a gun-related crime? Because he fears for his safety in public? Safety from what? Gun fire?

    • Joe Huffman says:

      Neither the constitution nor the Bill of Rights grants any rights to guns. It guarantees the preexisting right shall not be infringed. See U.S. v Cruikshank. For this, and other reasons, it is not necessary for the anyone to justify their need or “feel compelled” to possess any firearm.

      It is required of the government to demonstrate there is not only a compelling reason to restrict that right but that it will accomplish the intended goal. No such justification has been done. And it is likely that it will never be done because the facts don’t support the hypothesis that gun bans make people safer.

    • Matt says:

      I’d wager highly you never plan to respond here again but in case you do…

      You’ve just done what you accuse us of doing: spin. The whole “rapid fire automatic weapon” spiel. What is the definition you are looking for?

      I find it interesting that as soon as you think you’ve got a foothold on one term “assault weapon”, for example, you are suddenly redefining it. We’ve been at least honest in using the term “assault weapon” as the defunct 1994-2004 “ban” defined it as: a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain cosmetic features.

      Your side has gone and are actively working under the cover of “assault weapon” to make it mean any firearm capable of semi-automatic fire! And then someone lie and say it is an “rapid fire automatic”. “Rapid fire”, by the way, is fear mongering redundancy since “automatic” also covers the concept. But “automatic” in firearms has a very different meaning.

      Amazing how you always focus on emotion. On how it makes you “feel”. Of the feelings this topic evokes. Grief and hate can only sustain you so long. The mere passage of time tempers it and turns it to other things. It has to have a constructive purpose.

      You’d be amazed how much you could learn if you simply read or picked up a book on basic firearm technology. At least then we’d be on the same playing field. I’m actually grateful you and your ilk don’t. It’s easy to know why: you’d be far less effective once the light of truth is shone on what you believe. Since emotion carries the message, belief is all you have.

      Unfortunately for you, that may let you win the odd battle here and there but long term, truth eventually wins out.

    • Why do you need to use a high capacity data storage device over a high-capacity broadband connection to engage in political dialogue?

      After all, pedophiles use hard drives and the internet to share kiddy porn. Using Moms Demanding Action’s logic, we should ban any combination of communications components which could be used to transmit kiddy porn, First Amendment be damned.

      We have a bill of rights which recognizes pre-existing natural rights. It isn’t a bill of needs.

  24. GMC70 says:

    “Genuinely asking why a person might feel compelled to posses and carry a rapid-fire automatic weapon.”

    Because I enjoy shooting it. Because it pisses off petty tyrants who claim to preserve for themselves the right to determine what I may or may not own when there is no social cost, and potentially a great deal of personal and social benefit, to my possession of same.

    Because I can.

    Bottom line – I don’t need to justify it to a solitary soul.
    Thankfully, my rights are not dependent on what someone else determines I “need.” That applies to you too, of course, but I suspect you’re too shortsighted to see that.

  25. Kirk Parker says:

    Genuinely asking why a person might feel compelled to posses and carry a rapid-fire automatic weapon.”

    I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt on the “genuinely asking” part, but not one iota on the “feel compelled” part. Really, just listen to yourself.

    “Why do you feel compelled to go to the library or bookstore?”

    “Why do you feel compelled to watch the TV shows or listen to the music you do?”

    “Why do you feel compelled to buy bread instead of tortillas (or the other way around)?”

    Seriously now, can’t you hear the illegitimate aspect of asking the question that way?

top