The personal thoughts and comments of Gene, "The Aggie."

Use any information found here at your own risk. I am not responsible for the consequences of your use, misuse or abuse, of this information. I do not advocate or condone violence except for lawful protection of life, liberty and, in very limited cases, property. Nothing included in this site is to be taken as legal advice.


NOTE:
"The Aggie" neither controls or
endorses the sites that Google displays in this ad bar.

'Gun-Free Zones' are only gun-free, until somebody brings a gun. - Unknown

Saturday, May 10, 2008

D.C. Officers to Get Rifles by Summer

Verrry Interesting!

Today's version of Officer.com has an article concerning Washington D.C. police acquiring "assault rifles" by summer.

"Metropolitan Police Department officials said yesterday patrol officers will be issued assault rifles by the summer, . . . "

"The Washington Times reported Wednesday that the department is arming the officers with the rifles as part of a national trend to protect them from criminals with increasingly powerful weapons. "

Claiming they are facing increased firepower from criminal elements (and I suspect they really are), the police want to increase their own firepower. Not a bad idea. I kinda like that. However, there appear to be technical as well as logical errors in the article, if not in their stated reasoning.

TECHNICAL ERRORS?

"Chief Joshua Ederheimer said the department has spent the past year converting 500 AR-15 rifles from fully-automatic to semi-automatic and . . . " (Emphasis added - Gene)
Now I always thought the fully-automatic, military/police, version was the Colt M-16 (note the words "burst" and "Full-Auto" in the specifications) and the "civilian" semi-automatic was the Colt AR-15. I can understand the Washington Times reporter being too ignorant to bother checking his/her facts. On the other hand, perhaps Officer.com didn't bother either. Or - I could be wrong! But, I don't think so! :>)

Why would they convert full-auto, or burst, weapons to semi-auto? That does not make sense. Just these nit-pickin' details makes the article, if not the situation itself, "smell."

LOGICAL ERRORS?

Washington DC is currently being sued for their overly-strict gun control laws that prohibit its citizens from possessing handguns and prohibiting defensive firearms in residences since about 1976. Their crime rate has climbed ever since. The suit is before the Supreme Court right now.

The lawful citizens are disarmed in the face of overwhelming criminal behavior. The police claim their outgunned by criminals with "increasingly powerful weapons." According to DC, and others, it's "easy" for the criminals to obtain any weapons they want while the law-abiding citizens are prohibited from lawful commerce with intent to protect themselves.

What is wrong with this picture?

God Bless Ya'll !

No comments:

Popular Posts