The Shotgun Blog
Thursday, February 26, 2009
A New Ban on "Assault Weapons"? Barack Obama (Political) Suicide Watch, Part 1
This could really harm Obama's chances in 2012, not to mention the chances of Democrats retaining control of Congress.
The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.
"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.
The 1994 ban on "assault weapons" -- AKA the ban on scary looking but not unusually dangerous guns -- has been widely cited as a major reason the Democrats lost control of Congress in the midterm elections that year. It's also been suggested Al Gore's support for gun control ensured his loss to George W. Bush.
To his credit, Bush let the ban expire in 2004.
Apparently, the promise to not only renew the ban, but make it permanent, is on Barack Obama's campaign website (and now whitehouse.org), so no one should be surprised, least of all gun-rights supporting Democrats -- and there are more than a few of those. In addition, Joe Biden, his vice president, was the "architect" of the original ban.
Check here for evidence that, for a time, Obama tried to hide his support for the ban when it was politically expedient to do so. Generally, support for gun control, especially when it took the form of the completely ineffective, irrational ban on assault weapons, has has been political suicide for Democrats. So it's understandable (albeit despicable) that Obama hid this part of his agenda.
Now it's out in the open. Holder's stated justification for a new ban is that he "thinks it would have a positive impact on Mexico, at a minimum." Infringing the Second Amendment to benefit a foreign nation isn't exactly the kind of thing most Americans are going to appreciate.
The additional problem is that, after D.C. v. Heller, it's no longer clear that a federal ban could survive a constitutional challenge. That makes Obama's support for a permanent ban on assault weapons even more politically contentious.
If Obama pushes this -- and if the Democrats in Congress don't wise up and resist him -- this could be a major error for the new president.
Posted by Terrence Watson on February 26, 2009 | Permalink
Assault weapons have a psychological effect on people. Their appearance might actually be a factor in some of the "postal" incidents we read about all too often.
If someone reaches the breaking point, and sees a hunting rifle in the corner, he might consider trying to deal with his problems peaceably. If he sees an AK47 standing there, he might actually visualize something he saw in a movie, and act out his fantasy.
I own quite a few guns, but would never buy an assault rifle. Self defense, to me, is about learning how to stay out of situations, not how to shoot your way out of them. When I worked in the bush, the last thing I wanted was an assault weapon. Every Ranger and Wildlife Officer would be on your case at all times. A pump 12 guage, or even a big revolver is a better survival weapon, and people don't treat you like a crazy when they see you.
Posted by: dp | 2009-02-26 12:33:57 PM
Well, of course, assault _rifles_ are already heavily restricted in the U.S.
You might be right that the scariness could contribute, in some small way, to postal incidents. The statistics don't exactly seem to bear it out, but the military-style aesthetic features could make it easier for someone to enact a revenge fantasy.
That's an argument I hadn't considered.. thanks!
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2009-02-26 1:01:57 PM
Terrance- It's probably a very small factor in the overall statistics, but you know how important appearances are to polititions.
Posted by: dp | 2009-02-26 1:23:27 PM
An assault weapons ban still polls well. However, the Heller decison and history should make congressional Democrats less likely to push it. In 2006 and 2008, the Democrats went out of their way to find candidates that were pro-gun(as well as often pro-life). These seats would be effectively lost by a major gun control effort. Heck, it even looks like Obama's only state of Illinois will finally pass a concealed carry law(NRA website- Illinois law would make Wisconsin only state where concealed carry is not allowed). Also, a gun control measure was just defeated in the New Jersey(2nd strongest gun control state) State Senate where the Democrats have a majority. It would be bad politics and horrible policy. The Democrats are already getting themselves in trouble. This would be the political equivalent of accidentally hanging yourself.
Posted by: David | 2009-02-26 2:04:11 PM
Well, dp... if Congress reinstated that silly
"assault weapon ban" and it stuck this time,
how long would it be until that "pump 12 guage"
or that "big revolver" got designated as
"assault weapons"? Or maybe that nice bolt-action
rifle was declared a "sniper rifle"? I suppose THEN you'd be pointing to that black-powder muzzle
loader that you were still allowed to own and
saying, "a real marksman doen't need more than ONE
shot" or some such drivel.
Wanna let the camel stick his nose under the tent?
Then don't be surprised to see the rest of the
camel, and soon at that. (Too bad people like ME
will also get thrown out of the tent along with
the likes of you. Thanks for nothing...)
Posted by: BJG | 2009-02-26 2:05:49 PM
why is (political) in parenthesis?
are you advocating assassination? it appears that you clearly are. I'm notifying my local officials about this.
Posted by: Mike D | 2009-02-26 2:08:07 PM
Mike, hope you're kidding. Besides, a suicide watch is a positive thing, right? I really hope Obama doesn't reinstate the ban.. But it would be bad for him if he did, politically speaking.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2009-02-26 2:39:03 PM
Why doesn't Obama issue a petition to PM Harper to take action? That always works! :)
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-02-26 2:53:37 PM
We are awaiting your call.
Your charges will start at Mischief(filing a false report) and end at Stupid in a No Stupid Zone
Pulling your balls out of your uterus might halp your reading comprehension skills too.
Posted by: Johnny Law | 2009-02-26 3:14:25 PM
Your knowledge about self-defense is amusing.
Take a course. You'll see it's not all about guns.
Next time you go in the bush? Take a blackpowder. While Gentle Ben is gnawing your head off, try and reload.
If you were a knowledgeable firearms owner? You would know better.
BTW. Your bolt-action LeeEnfield .303 that you use for hunting can be labelled an "assault rifle". Don't believe me? Go check out some WW1 and WW2 pics of British and Canadian troops.
Your lever-action? Oops. The Mounties were once issued those.
Pull your head out of your rectum.
Posted by: Johnny Law | 2009-02-26 3:24:18 PM
..how long would it be until that "pump 12 guage"
or that "big revolver" got designated as
Posted by: BJG | 2009-02-26 2:05:49 PM
Unless your shotgun has a pistol grip, detachable magazine, folding stock and flash suppressor it can't be classified as an "assault" weapon
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-02-26 3:49:17 PM
Those of us that pointed out Obama becoming America's Tudeaupian moment while he was marketing snake oil along the campaign trail have been vindicated. Every leftist and green cause celeb will be enacted under the Great Half-white Hope. The NRA has been wise to him for a long time.
A tyrant, even a tyranny of incompetence, must always disarms their citizens. It just won't be as easy a job as is was in Canada. Yes, I know, it's not quite 100% complete in Canada, yet.
Posted by: John Chittick | 2009-02-26 3:59:40 PM
I have a sure-fire solution. Take all the guns out of Vancouver and give them to Toronto. If that were done, the Ontarians could kill each other off and do the whole world a favor, while sparing Vancouverites. Sound good?
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-02-26 4:04:41 PM
geez zus talk about a paranoid scared to death bunch of hicks,
The boogeyman is hiding under your bed.
Take it easy Cletus its gonna be OK, you can still wear your hand gun to the tractor pull.
Posted by: solarcane | 2009-02-26 4:04:59 PM
I think that depends. You're right if Obama simply restores the 1994 ban.
He could push for something more like Carolyn McCarthy's 2007 bill. That one would have restored the 1994 ban and drastically expanded it.
Her bill would have banned
Any firearm that, based on the design is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes determined by the Attorney General. In making said determination, there will be a presumption that any firearm procured by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes.
If the AG gets to determine what counts as an "assault weapon", expect a lot more guns to be banned.
Not saying Obama would support McCarthy's bill wholesale, but I also don't know why we should assume he'd be content to stick with the definition of "assault weapon" set out in the 1994 legislation, either.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2009-02-26 4:05:52 PM
awww Johnny your racist azz is showing bubba, pull that David Allen Coe wife beater down over it... thanks
Posted by: solarcane | 2009-02-26 4:09:42 PM
I don't see the paranoia of which you speak. Paranoia usually refers to an irrational fear. For those who have been paying attention, Obama's intention to restore or expand the AWB has been pretty clear all along.
We wish he wouldn't do it. There are Democrats hoping he wouldn't do it! Check out the Democratic Underground thread I linked to above. Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi, arch-liberal, just stated in no uncertain terms that her party isn't going to bring back the AWB.
Who would have thought Nancy frickin' Pelosi would be on the side of reason with regard to this issue? Or any issue?
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2009-02-26 4:10:09 PM
The Second Ammendment is NOT about hunting.
It is NOT there to protect an individuals right to own a HUNTING gun.
Its purpose it to ensure that every lawful person has the RIGHT to own what is now called an ASSAULT RIFLE..
Not a hunting gun at all.
Posted by: Storm | 2009-02-26 4:34:49 PM
Absolutely hilarious - Dumbama thinks he is invincible.
He will soon find out he is not. His arrogance and self convinced attitude will be quickly eroded away when the American people decide it is time for a revolution.
I wager he doesn't have the time to take away the guns, and will wind up being President of nothing at all, as state after state secedes from the Union.
On that day I will laugh like a jackal.
Posted by: George Taylor | 2009-02-26 5:21:49 PM
Hey guys, I didn't say I support the ban.
Johny Law- I can't make any sense of your comment. I can't tell if you're for or against. Have you ever had to defend yourself? I seriously doubt it. Well, I have. My situation was not the same as everyone's. If I was in a situation where an assault weapon was needed, say a herd of tiny bears, that's what I'd carry.
The right to own an assault weapon comes at a cost. I understand that, and I believe it's worth the risk of a few incidents to keep that right intact. I just don't plan on joining any of you crazies right now.
BTW, I'm probably one of the few left who can strip an FN. That was an assault weapon. 30 rounds of 7.62 full metal jacket.
Now pardon me while I struggle with this bushing wrench. Match barrels are a bitch sometimes.
Posted by: dp | 2009-02-26 5:46:03 PM
All the ban means is that people will have to get creative on how to take out the bad guys when the revolution comes...if it comes. Of course sitting in front of your PC getting fat is way better than actually taking control of government.
Posted by: Buddha Chan | 2009-02-26 7:17:17 PM
I see some have already fallen into the trap by not seeing the danger due to the play on words. A ban on "assault weapons" sounds reasonable, just like a HR Act and HRCs, and Trudeau's charter of rights and freedoms. However once enacted the definition becomes open to interpretation of the moment.
Freedom loving Americans face a most serious fight with Obama as president. I wish them the best of luck.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-02-26 7:17:47 PM
A gun is a gun is a gun....
Criminal assault is still a "behaviour" not a device. And in the face of that kind of behaviour I reserve the right to self defense, with whatever I have on hand.
And beware the Mike D's of the world...they can't wait to serve Big Brother.
Posted by: JC | 2009-02-26 8:25:46 PM
Actually, dp, the FNC1 was a twenty-round weapon in battle-rifle configuration. The FNC2, a light automatic rifle configuration, had a thirty-round magazine, but also a folding bipod and a much heavier barrel. There's no mistaking one for the other.
I can also field-strip an FN, and in fact I preferred them to the M-16-derived C7 rifles now in service. The FNs were built much more robustly than the C7, with stouter parts that were tougher to lose, and a real-wood buttstock with a metal buttplate well suited for bashing someone's head in. I wouldn't want to try butt-stroking someone with the synthetic stock of a C7. Oh, and the C7s rust more easily, too.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-26 10:33:34 PM
Early indications are that Obama is a realist, in spite of his evangelical speechmaking. The political climate surrounding gun control is drastically different than it was in the Clinton years. Obama has nothing to gain, and much to lose, by making this move. He'd be smarter quietly dropping the matter.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-26 10:35:46 PM
Hah! Carolyn McCarthy's bill could potentially be used to outlaw the single-shot, blackpowder Springfield Trapdoor rifle (it was once the service rifle of the U.S. Army). Also, the 1871 Colt Single Action Army (the classic western sixgun) could also face expulsion, whereas Dirty Harry's Smith & Wesson Model 29 .44, never having been used by any federal agency, would remain legal.
Getting women to be rational about guns is like getting them to be rational about abortion.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-26 10:42:23 PM
Shane- Man, that takes me back a few years. I actually forgot the C1 had a 20 round clip. I never could figure out why they switched to the C7/m16. I suppose the price was right.
Those FNs were amazingly accurate. I could punch a 4" pattern at 100 meters, with ring sights. Now I can't even see the sights without glasses.
Posted by: dp | 2009-02-26 10:55:56 PM
The "assault weapons" ban didn't prevent one person from purchasing a semi- automatic magazine fed military style rifle along with as many 30 round magazines as he wanted. Prices went up and imports of some foriegn models stopped to be replaced with US made versions of the same rifles. It created a market for "pre-ban" guns that looked more like the military originals and allowed a number of dealers to make a buck based on fear. The entire thing, like all gun control, was political theatre and a waste of time and effort.
Posted by: F.T. Ward | 2009-02-27 1:48:17 AM
To be picky,the clip for a FN CI was 5 rounds. The magazine was 20. It had rear aperature sights and rifles fire groups, shotguns fire patterns.
Posted by: F.T. Ward | 2009-02-27 1:52:19 AM
F.T., by "clip" we mean "magazine," not "stripper clip." The two terms are considered interchangeable. The C7 doesn't even accept stripper clips, making the distinction moot. As for the rear sight, it was a multi-aperture disc sight calibrated out to 600 metres. The C7 uses a two-position ghost ring sight.
Some troops today are finding that with a C7 or any other 5.56 mm rifle, you actually have to shoot a three-round group/pattern in your opponent if you want him to stay down. They're essentially armed with a centrefire .22 that isn't even legal for anything bigger than a ground squirrel in most areas.
Personally, I don't see the advantage in being able to carry 50 percent more ammo of a new type of ammo, if you need 300 percent more to do the same job. So much for your think-tank, college-man approach to weapons procurement, MacNamara. Bring back the 7.62.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-27 6:25:39 AM
I heard that many soldiers have complained about the .223's killing power. Apparently, based on extensive combat experience I'm sure, it takes more than one such bullet to take down an insurgent. The 7.62mms on the other hand are better. The .50s, well, they do a fine job turning terrorists into chunks and red mist. Anyone see the end of last year's Rambo movie?
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-02-27 7:05:14 AM
F.T.- Like I said, it's been a few years. I got used to hearing people calling pistol magazines "clips". I was going to say "peep sights", but wasn't sure if that was just local slang.
Shane- I know the M16 is a Colt design, but who builds the Canadian version?
Posted by: dp | 2009-02-27 7:34:50 AM
I know the M16 is a Colt design, but who builds the Canadian version?
Posted by: dp | 2009-02-27 7:34:50 AM
Diemaco before it was bought by Colt. Now know as Colt Canada.
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-02-27 7:46:31 AM
Zeb, you want to see what a 50 cal can do?
Youtube "Canadian Sniper Record"
Posted by: JC | 2009-02-27 7:51:02 AM
John Moses Browning was a genius. The secret to the .50 BMG cartridge's incredible utility and longevity is the fact that, despite its incredible power, it is not insanely overbore like the Weatherbys, the Lapuas, or God forbid, the Lazzeronis. It was simply designed right the first time.
It is a simple bottlenecked case of elegantly proportional dimensions, greatly resembling an enlarged .30-06, and heaves its 700-800-grain payload at a moderate 2700-2900 fps. (That's right, the .50 BMG's muzzle velocity is slower than the 5.56-mm NATO.)
Of course, its projectile is more than twice as thick and weighs fifteen times as much. It can punch right through light armour and even automobile engine blocks. It has the power to lay elephants low at 1700 metres, or nearly fifty times the range at which those animals are usually taken. And we use this thing on humans.
It has always struck me as rather a curiosity that under the Hague Accords (which, incidentally, the U.S. never signed), it would be illegal to use a hollow-point 5.56-mm round on an enemy soldier. But it's perfectly acceptable to blast him into putty with a .50 BMG FMJ, a 30-mm HEDP, a 155-mm HE, or a 2,000-lb. glide bomb. A reason for that, ye lawyers!
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-27 10:00:30 AM
geez zus talk about a paranoid scared to death bunch of hicks,
Posted by: solarcane | 2009-02-26 4:04:59 PM
Now there's someone who doesn't know history at all. 56 million people who couldn't defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated in the 20th century, by their own governments.
And government today isn't interested in any one's safety, but their own.
So, solarcane, while you might be a willing sheep...I am not.
Posted by: JC | 2009-02-28 5:33:03 AM
Shane: agreed, Browning was an authentic genius. His 30 caliber machine gun still endures nearly a century after it first came out. At the first test for the US Army, he fired 45,000 rounds without a misfire. Needless to say it was accepted.
Of the .45 pistol, the 9mm pistol, and BAR and the .50 caliber, only the BAR doesn't continue in military service.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-02-28 6:21:03 AM
Yes, the BAR was one of his less enduring efforts. It did not have a quick-change barrel, and it accepted only thirty-round magazines, not not belts or drums.
To be fair, there are limits to what can be expected of a full-bore light automatic rifle (as opposed to a true machine gun), and the FNC2 had the same shortcomings and may be considered a direct descendant (FN acquired the European manufacturing rights to the BAR in 1920), so perhaps the BAR merely suffered from "feature creep."
Also, it was designed in an era when soldiers were thriftier with ammunition.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-28 9:26:15 AM
Of all Browning's designs, the 1911 pistol is the most enduring. When the US switched to Beretta, the civilian sales of the 1911 began a huge resurgence. I've owned 4 of them, and once you've used one, you have a hard time handling anything else.
Since you can only have a 10 shot capacity in Canada, Glocks, Berettas, etc. have no real advantage over the 1911. My Glock holds 2 extra shells, but takes up way more space than my Colt. Glocks are uglier than a stump fence, and have no safety. A Calgary cop misplaced a loaded Glock a couple of years ago, and everyone immediately assumed there would be an accidental discharge as soon as someone picked it up.
Browning installed 3 safeties on his 1911 design. The rifle designs have very positive safeties, also. When I look at a hunting rifle, I check out the safety right away. I've passed over some otherwise nice designs, because the safety might cause confusion at the wrong time.
Posted by: dp | 2009-02-28 10:03:28 AM
Anyone see the movie "Collateral" - Tom Cruise had some awesome moves with that HK USP.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-02-28 10:50:35 AM
Actually, dp, the Glock has no fewer than three safeties, including a trigger safety (which is what gives the Glock trigger its split appearance). All safeties are automatic, which makes the Glock both fast to get into action and perhaps the safest pistol you can carry (after a revolver of course). They have no manual safeties and no decocking levers to complicate things, no futurantic squeeze cockers, and they also lack the initial long, hard trigger pull of most other double-action pistols. They also don't rust, which is a plus for holster carry.
That said, from what I've heard (I haven't shot one myself) their accuracy is kind of eeccchh (Bugs Bunny version). I have a Smith & Wesson Model 27 that will put six shots of .357 Magnum into one ragged hole at 15 metres. I've watched Glock shooters at the same range struggle to hit paper. As you may have guessed, I'm a wheelgun man, but if I did procure an auto pistol it would most definitely be a 1911 (or a Hi-Power, also by Browning). No way would I buy a Beretta; I'm one of the old school, who believes the the proper place for the slide is on the gun, not in my forehead.
The 1911's exposed hammer gives you instant and positive feedback as to whether the gun is ready to fire or not. That's one of the reasons I bought a BLR (the other being that I like lever actions). However, I do not believe in carrying a 1911 "cocked and locked" with the safety on. The best safety is your brain. It doesn't take any longer to cock it than it does to thumb the safety off. Easier on the springs, too.
P.S. NO Glock will go off upon being picked up (or even dropped) unless the picker-upper does something phenomenally stupid, like put his finger on the trigger, for instance. In which case I hope the happy asshole shoots out his car battery. We won't even talk about Hollywood-style side-shooting with the ejector port up, which is a real good way to put hot brass down your shirt.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-28 11:12:36 AM
Shane- The gangster stance, with the gun turned sideways, was originally done by Jack Warden in the 70's. It sort of ignores that gravity, parallax thing.
Glocks can be as accurate as any other semi-auto, but the trigger is a definite hindrance. I can't get my head around the safety being in the trigger. At least a revolver has a 12 lb. pull, so you have to be real serious about firing. In my opinion, Glocks should be used by professionals only. I'm looking to trade mine for a revolver.
Once you get used to a 1911, the safest way to carry them, with a loaded chamber, is cocked and locked. Your thumb becomes accustomed to pressing the safety as you aim, and flipping it up as you lower it. Thumbing the skeletonized hammer on many of the newer models is a bit awkward.
The safest design ever was the HK P7. You had to squeeze the grip(about 13 lbs.), and hold it, to fired the weapon. As soon as you released the grip, it couldn't be fired. It had several other features that made it the most easily operated pistol, ever. The price killed the model, but there's getting to be a big demand for used models. If they'd continued developing that, and built a 45 caliber, it would be a huge success in today's market.
The most accurate (production)pistol will always be the N frame revolver, firing single action.
Posted by: dp | 2009-02-28 12:03:09 PM
Zeb- Ever wonder how film directors choose the weapons they use in their films? Do you suppose they have manufacturers bidding for product placement?
I watched a UFC event on Spike last year, broadcast from a US military base. They did a celebrity shot of R. Lee Ermey, wearing a Glock hat. That 10 second shot probably sold 1000 pistols.
Tommy Lee Jones had a great line in "US Marshalls". "Get a Glock". Millions of people watch their favourite TV cops pointing Glocks at scumbags, with their fingers inside the trigger guard.
I did an experiment with a Glock once. I twirled it, like Roy Rogers used to do before he holstered his Peacemaker. About once out of three tries, the "hammer" would drop. Certainly not a weapon for an inexperienced shooter. Scary, considering 75% of all cops fit into that category.
Posted by: dp | 2009-02-28 1:23:28 PM
dp: I doubt that gun manufacturers do product placements in movies. They get enough bad news as it is; moreover it would not go down well in liberal Hollywood.
About the only filmmaker I know of who would be extremely carefully pick the weapons in his film would be John Milius (Wind and the Lion, Red Dawn, Rough Riders, writer of "Apocalypse Now") Others would just let their production designers and prop masters get them.
Michael Mann put both himself and his actors in "Heat" and "Collateral" through weapons training so that they could perform their roles credibly.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-02-28 2:10:39 PM
dp, IMHO the safest production pistol is the single-action revolver with a transfer-bar automatic safety. It is safe to carry with all six chambers loaded, and cannot be forced to discharge by any means without first manually bringing the hammer to full cock. One day I may get a Ruger Bisley and slap in the power-custom hammer/trigger assembly to add the half-cock. In the Bisley's strong frame, you can load up the .45 Colt to beat the .44 magnum. Or you can load it with soft-shooting cowboy loads. Revolvers can do it all.
If money is no limit, Freedom Arms SA revolvers are beautiful examples of the pistolsmith's craft. They have such tight tolerances that they put N frames to shame for accuracy, and have so much more soul. They are perhaps the most ergonomic handgun ever developed. Only five shots and slow to reload, but hey, if you're a serious pistolero, you make your first shot count. (You also know that the fastest reload is another gun!)
Oh, and SA revolvers are safe for "twirling," too! :-)
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-28 2:20:06 PM
Shane- My brother has a SA Ruger. They're very rugged. They need to be twirled once in awhile.
Zeb- Speaking of Michael Mann, "Miami Vice" introduced the 10mm auto to TV viewers. The star carried a "Bren 10", which ended up fading into obscurity immediately. That pistol wasn't even in production yet, when that show debuted, so there must have been an inside track there somewhere.
Posted by: dp | 2009-02-28 4:31:05 PM
Ever notice in some movies that the bad guys hold their submachine guns at their hips and spray bullets until the magazine empties?
And then the good guy points his gun blindly around a wall or behind some furniture, yet hits 4 out of 5 times?
I guess the hero has allies in the director and screenwriter.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-02-28 5:12:48 PM
Guys, I've really enjoyed all the informative comments on this thread.
Have you noticed that, in response to this discussion, the Google ads on the left are now advertising ceramic armor and gun sales? Heh.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2009-02-28 7:44:59 PM
Shooting from the hip allows you to see the expression on the shooter's face, important for conveying drama, and you can also see a whole line of them side by side, spraying lead. If they had the telescoping buttstock extended and their eye to the sight, you wouldn't see anything from in front. And if you showed the face from the side in the proper position of aim, you could show only one shooter at a time.
SMGs are inaccurate enough when fired from the shoulder in the proper stance. Firing from the hip you'd miss an elephant at five yards.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-28 8:33:32 PM
Isn't it illegal to wear body armour in Canada? Calgary cops charge known gang members, when they can't stick them with any other charges. Doesn't seem fair, does it?
That's a good catch, Shane. Sort of like boxers getting their pictures taken, with their hands down low.
Posted by: dp | 2009-02-28 8:48:05 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.