Is there proof of evolution in the Judeo-Christian Bible?

So a question was posed to me by my evolution-denier cousin, about what I thought of Noah’s Ark. In the simplest of terms, I told him it was biblical proof of evolution. Yes, I said that. Biblical proof of evolution. But, but, how can this be? I mean, in Genesis, it speaks of God creating every living creature according to its kind, does it not?

Why yes, it does. When I speak of “evolution”, I am not speaking of monkeys magically turning into men. I am speaking merely of one species having a common ancestor with other species. This concept is really not difficult to figure out, if you use a bit of logic with it.

Yes, it involves random mutation, which is also not one of those “myths of liberal science”. Genetic mutation is caused by any number of environmental factors, even occurring from things as simple as sunlight. It is not necessary to be dropped into a puddle of radioactive ooze in order for a genetic mutation to occur.

It also involves adaptation of an organism to its environment. For the record, I am completely aware of the fact that adaptation and evolution are not the same thing. Adaptation is a mechanism of evolution.

Evolution occurs when the offspring of a particular species has changed to the point where it is no longer the same species of its ancestor, according to the determinant characteristics defining its ancestor. Obviously, this doesn’t happen overnight, it happens across several (perhaps even hundreds or thousands) of generations.

There are different species of dogs, cats, and even people. Yes, there are AT LEAST thirteen different species of "human", with five of them having been actually discovered in my lifetime.

The "theory of evolution" does not necessarily state that mankind evolved from primordial ooze, but merely that different species share common ancestors.

Now, moving on to the biblical aspects of this discussion, I know for a fact that things are "lost in translation". Ever seen the photos of the 40lb box of "RAPE"? Having taken several years of Latin instruction in high school, I've seen half a dozen people come up with different translations of the same text...and every one of them were "technically" correct. That's going across two languages. Context of the translated language, as well as knowledge of the original intent, are what makes a translation "truly" correct. In order to know the original intent of the originating language, you must be both fluent in it, as well as be able to have intimate knowledge of popular custom of the age it was written. Many languages have words that cannot even be properly translated at all, because the culture of the original language uses a particular idea that is simply non-existent in the culture of those who live where the translating language originated or is spoken fluently. The German word "schadenfreud" comes to mind here. Literally translated into English, it means "harm joy". Loosely translated into English, it expresses an idea of taking joy in the misfortune of another, but without truly ill intent. There is, however, no true and proper way to translate this simple word without an entire paragraph describing its cultural significance...and even then, you're lucky if you get close, as it is purely a German cultural idea. Keep in mind, this is not passing from an ancient language to a modern language, but between two modern languages existing simultaneously.

Modern biblical translations of Genesis have passed across the lines of AT LEAST three languages, with centuries and even a millennium or two in between. Ancient Hebrew culture did not exist at the time of the ancient Greek translation, nor did ancient Greek culture exist at the time of the modern English (or even the medieval Latin) translation.

Personally, I do believe that my Almighty God created this place called Earth, as well as all of the creatures on it. When the bible says that God created the animals, it does not specify HOW He did it. It merely says He did it. I consider it a gross violation of basic logic to even suggest that our One True God is capable of simply "poofing up" something as complex as an animal lifeform, but is too unintelligent to allow nature to run its course so all of those innumerable atoms He created to form the bonds necessary to create the complex strains of deoxy-ribonucleic acid that make up an animal. The bible DOES say that man was created by God, by basically scooping up some dirt and making a man. I'll get to that later.

Modern science has been able to isolate every single chemical in the human body. When you look at it from a biochemical point of view, the human body isn't really that complex. It's just a bunch of molecules. What makes mankind (or any living creature, for that matter) "special" is the fact that all of these molecules have combined to create a living organism that breathes, reproduces, and in many cases actually THINKS. That's "intelligent design", right there.

If God can create something like all of the chemical elements that make up our planet, does it not stand to reason that he is capable of designing them in a manner that they can be arranged to form a human being?

Now, the big problem most people have with this theory of creation is the timeline. Before, I mentioned that evolution occurs over multiple generations. I also mentioned the near impossibility of being able to translate accurately the ideas of one culture to that of another.

Here's something I haven't mentioned yet...the Old Testament story of creation was written more than a thousand years (at least) before Abraham first spoke to God. Remember about how the Old Testament was originally written in ancient Hebrew? Hebrew is the language of the Israelites, the descendants of Abraham.

Is the Judeo-Christian bible the true word of God, inspired by Him? In my personal belief, yes. In this bible, it also says that we (mankind) will never truly understand God. While I believe the bible is the "true" word of God, I do not personally believe that it is the "literal" word of God. Perhaps I am wrong about this, and it certainly wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong about something. This is just my personal opinion.

However, just imagine the possibility of the first human transcribers of the bible receiving a vision from God. It certainly wouldn't be the first time someone has received a vision from God. Thousands of years ago, mankind was still struggling with the invention of the wheel. Gravity wasn't even fully understood until Newton. Imagine the possibility of putting the awesomeness of creation into words, using the most appropriate language you knew to use. These people couldn't quite understand the concept of indoor plumbing, so it would be quite a stretch to say they would have been able to understand things such as molecular bonds and evolution of species.

The same science that tells us about the power of the atomic bomb and the mutation of the various strains of influenza virus also teach us about things like carbon dating and evolution. I don't know about you, but I firmly believe that both nuclear weapons and flu season really do exist. I don't think these things are "liberal pseudoscience", nor do I think this way about evolution or carbon dating.

To be of the impression that evolution is wrong, and that the earth is only six or seven thousand years old, requires something very simple...and very simple-minded, in my opinion. It requires a person to believe that your particular translation of the bible is an exact word-for-word transcription of the direct spoken word of God, that God would never use a metaphor in a description of His awesomeness, that God is unimaginative, and that God did not intend for mankind to think.

In my personal opinion, I feel that evolution is most definitely reconcilable with the notion of God creating mankind and every other creature on this planet...and I also feel that ancient man simply lacked the knowledge to appropriately describe exactly how awesome my God really is. If God had intended for every man in this world to have known exactly what was on HIS mind, he would probably just tell us Himself instead of going through a middleman. I think He's more than capable. Instead, I think he didn't want us to be lazy, either (an idea actually passed along by the bible!)...so He allowed us to get the basic gist of it, while being able to learn more through study, and in turn becoming closer to Him.

Now, back to actual proof of evolution from the bible...

¹ The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. ² Take with you seven ^a]">[a] of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, ³ and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. ⁴ Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."

Now, it's my understanding that the word "kind" is used to describe a class of animal, not a species. Regardless of how this played out, that boat was going to be full...but there are only a few different ways this could have gone.
A) The word "kind" referred to a particular type of animal, and not a species...which means that there were only a limited number of animals on that ark. Evolution would have occurred, due to the sheer number of different species that exist today.
B) The word "kind" referred to a particular species, and there just weren't that many different species of animals at the time. Evolution would have occurred, due to the sheer number of species that exist today.
C) The word "kind" referred to a particular species of animal, and the same number of animal species existed at that particular time also exist today...which means that, essentially, evolution does not exist and Noah had a boat the size of California.

Remember, if the word "kind" referred to a particular species, and each "kind" of "clean animal" was to have seven pairs of male and female with each "kind" of "unclean animal" having two pairs, he would have been loading up a massive amount of animals. Even if "kind" merely referred to a class of animal, as opposed to an individual species, that's still a lot of 'em. The boat would be at least bigger than a city block, unless you were greatly simplifying things in regard to the "kinds" of animals you're bringing along with you.

If you think you've got a better idea, I'd love to hear it. I like to think that my God wants me to think, so I try to understand things the best way I know...

Kiddie-fiddlin', a stolen grenade launcher, and a scumbag named Rhodes!

Okay, so seriously...what's the one thing that 99.44% of every American citizen detests, regardless of race, religion, political affiliations, et cetera? Yep, you guessed it...it's the sexual abuse of a child.

Maybe this is why the BATFE used the "child molester" excuse for annihilating the Branch Davidian property in Waco, TX. I was a youngster then, but I still remember it. It was a big played-up media circus about how Vernon Howell, AKA "David Koresh", was sexually abusing children. Of course, after the Branch Davidians were slaughtered, everything about "child abuse" was quickly forgotten about...unless someone made the point about how the BATFE violated so many federal statutes and murdered all of those people.

It's been almost 17 years since the last day of February in 1993. In those years, I've read up a lot of things about what happened to Waco. About two years ago, I saw the FLIR footage of the final massacre. I have also seen the close-up photos of the infamous metal doors, which showed no outgoing bullet holes...the same doors that mysteriously disappeared when the defense counsel of survivors being tried for murder (and were actually acquitted).

Much the same, you can look at my first ever blog posting and see how a particular county in Texas used the same old "child molestation" excuse to run through the Fundamentalist church of Latter-Day Saints, even going so far as to break out an armored personnel carrier affectionately known as "Bubba" supplied free of charge by the Pentagon's L.E.S.O. program. Apparently, the local Sheriff's Department was hoping for a Waco-style shoot-out with the FLDS, but couldn't quite pull it off because the people weren't looking for a fight.

Instead, the FLDS had over four hundred children KIDNAPPED by the Child Protective Services of Texas. Ironically, several of these "children" were actually past the age of legal majority and were, in fact, ADULTS.

This fiasco resulted in no new charges to the FLDS, cost the taxpayers of Texas several millions of dollars, and resulted in families being ripped apart solely for the sake of being able to say "your religious practices are weird!". Oh yeah, the entire thing originated from a BOGUS CLAIM OF "CHILD MOLESTATION" BY A WOMAN WHO WAS NOT A CHILD...AND WAS NOT EVEN IN TEXAS WHEN THE "ANONYMOUS TIP" WAS CALLED IN FROM COLORADO.

But I digress...

Let's talk about someone else now. His name is Charles Dyer. Charles Alan Dyer, a former sergeant in the United States Marine Corps, is better known by the rest of the world as "July4Patriot". You can see his youtube.com channel here. Be forewarned, his words just might be inspiring.

The story is, on the 18th of this month, county deputies went to his home to serve a search warrant for DNA after allegations were made that he repeatedly sodomized a seven year old girl. Sgt. Dyer was not home when deputies arrived, but a "roommate" supposedly granted permission to search the home. During the course of this search, authorities allegedly found an M203 40mm grenade launcher laying out openly in one room of the home. Deputies supposedly decided that this find warranted notification of the BATFE. According to official reports, the M203 grenade launcher is one of three that were reported stolen by the US Army.

Mr. Dyer is currently incarcerated on state charges of child molestation, as well as federal weapons-related charges due to the untaxed (notice I didn't say "unlawful", because you can own a grenade launcher if you pay the appropriate tax!) grenade launcher.

There are so many holes in this story that I don't even know where to begin...

First of all, there is the fact that the allegation of sodomizing a seven year old girl. From everything I've heard, this allegation originated with the out-of-state wife he has been separated from for quite some time. On top of that, there is the whole "child molestation" issue in general, which seems to be used by authorities when they are looking to crucify someone who cannot be touched by legal means.

Then, let's look at the search of Sgt. Dyer's home. According to police reports, Dyer's home was originally approached by deputies holding a warrant for a DNA sample. This, in and of itself, is ludicrous for the simple reason that A) since the Patriot Act, federal, state, and local authorities are not only authorized, but ENCOURAGED to collaborate in criminal investigations, and B) Sgt. Dyer is a fairly recent veteran of the USMC...which means Uncle Sam has his DNA on file. Regardless of these two facts, the warrant covered only the DNA of Mr. Charles Dyer...and DID NOT permit a search of his home, unless the authorities serving the warrant had probable cause to believe that Mr. Dyer was hiding from them in the house somewhere. Since there is absolutely NOTHING that would reasonably provide such probable cause, there was no valid cause to search the home...aside from his roommate supposedly "consenting" to a search of the home.

The immediate "RED FLAG" that instantly popped into my head, upon reading this, was the fact that Mr. Dyer was surrounded by "like-minded people"...and there's not a single one of these people who would have thought twice about telling a cop to go get f*cked if he came poking around. I don't buy, for a second, that Dyer would have been around anyone that would have told the cops "yeah, go ahead!".

And then, there was the notion that deputies just happened to have found an M203 grenade launcher laying around out openly. Seriously, what kind of stupidity are they trying to claim Mr. Dyer suffers from?

A) An M203 grenade launcher is COMPLETELY USELESS without 40mm grenades.
B) 40mm grenades are NOT available to anyone but military personnel, and such ordinance is highly regulated.
C) A man familiar with the M203 would also be undoubtedly aware of the criminal nature of the untaxed/unregistered M203, and would not leave such a thing lying around in his home unattended...especially not a person so concerned with the actions of the very same government that supposedly found said grenade launcher lying around in his home.

Then, I remembered a particular person I met a few weeks ago at the local gun range. Myself and my cousin were on the range, firing our evil "assault" rifles. I was firing my AR15, and he had his AK47. Both are lawfully-owned SEMI-AUTOMATIC rifles.

While on the range, a very peculiar young man approached us. Myself and my cousin both thought he was a bit odd, as we overheard him talking about how he was going to load his Taurus Judge with BIRDSHOT for the purposes of "home defense". Cousin and myself enjoyed a slight chuckle about it, and went on about our shooting.

He asked me about my rifle, and I told him it was an AR15. Was nothing unusual at that point, as I get those kind of questions all the time when I'm on the range. The average layman can instantly pick an M16 out of a line-up due to movies and militaria, and the standard AR15 looks no different. My particular AR15 happens to be a bit different, as it has been outfitted with a larger barrel, bipod, abnormally large scope, and has had the front end wrapped in camo burlap for deer season...so I get a few questions when I bring it out.

Things got a bit weird when this man started talking about random issues with the AR15 (did I mention that both myself and my cousin are "gun nuts", and have forgotten more about them than we should probably know?) to other people, while me and cuz just looked at each other in the standard "huh?" formation. He proceeded to approach both of us at our bench, and start talking about the various ways we could modify our rifles to make them full-auto.

Naturally, I trust people I don't know about as far as I can throw 'em, and this guy was quite a bit bigger than me. Things got really weird when he handed me a business card from the Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command (A.K.A. "MARSOC"), telling me about how they "lose things all the time", and if I was ever looking to modify my rifle to full auto, to give him a call.

At this point, I'm thinking, "Seriously, what the fuck just happened?". Seriously. He is supposedly a US Marine, and approached a complete stranger at a shooting range with a proposition to supply contraband machine gun parts. Red flags went up right, left, and center.

I am not a US Marine (see you later, SSgt. Jackson!), but I've seen enough R. Lee Ermy movies to know that a US Marine knows his rifle inside and out...as well as knowing what it is used for. While my setup was capable of accepting 100rd drum magazines and could easily facilitate "rapid fire", anyone who knows anything about rifles PERIOD knows that it was set up to facilitate single-shot accuracy. Making a heavy-barreled rifle sitting on a bipod and equipped with a 24x scope into a full-auto rifle is greatly defeating its purpose. Even I got that much out of my Knowledge...

Furthermore, you would think a Marine working for MARSOC would know a decent bit about the masterpiece of Eugene Stoner...enough to know how easy it is for a garage hobbyist to make his rifle full-auto using a hacksaw blade, if he were inclined to do so...and anyone that has spent the amount of time and money as I have apparently spent on mine would probably know these things. Then again, if you had any f*cking clue what you were talking about, you would have recognized my rifle from the get-go as an AR15. Good to go?

So no, I don't buy the charges at all. "Child molestation" accusations have been a long-time favorite of our government, as a way to undermine the real issues at hand. It happened in Waco, it happened at the FLDS ranch, and it's happening everywhere Big Brother wants to turn a person's supporters against him...because our government knows that, deep down, every single one of us would castrate anyone that has been found to have hurt one of our children.

The "stolen grenade launcher" story? Again, not buying it. Even if (and this is a VERY BIG "IF") he actually had possession of a grenade launcher that could not be used for lack of ammunition, someone in Mr. Dyer's situation doesn't seem like the type to leave a ten-year sentence sitting around in his living room. Fer f*ck's sake, I'm not even breaking any laws and I'm more paranoid than that! On top of that, I seriously doubt he would be living amongst people who would willingly allow the police to "take a look around". Again, I'm not even a law-breaker...and I am hesitant to let them look in my car when they pull me over!

So the charges are, at least as they appear to me, completely bunk...which leads us to the next topic. The "Oath Keepers". An organization founded by a Mr. Stewart Rhodes (I pray to God that I am not related to this scumbag!), widely considered to be a front-runner in the emerging "patriot movement". Oath Keepers is an organization of Law Enforcement and Military personnel who are dedicated to keeping the original oath they swore, which is to uphold the constitution of the United States of America.

Oath Keepers had invited Dyer to be a guest speaker at some of their events, and had allegedly even considered Charles Dyer to be their liaison to the US Marine Corps...and with good reason. Judging by his words, Dyer had what it took. Judging by those who knew him, he stood by those words.

However, the moment news broke about Dyer being arrested on the charges of molestation and a stolen grenade launcher, Stewart Rhodes disavowed Dyer in an instant. Mr. Rhodes went so far as to claim Dyer was never an "official" member of their organization, and did everything he could to distance himself and the Oath Keepers from Dyer.

This story couldn't be more of a "made for TV movie" if it had an actual screenplay written by someone on the payroll of the Lifetime channel, but Dyer's supporters are split down the middle over the incident. Half of them are afraid to support the man who inspired them so much, while the other half are willing to support him to their dying breath. Those who believe in the republican system of law and "innocent until proven guilty" proudly show themselves for who they are, and are waiting to see the evidence.

The question remains, "but did he actually do it?". That's something I can't answer, as I don't know all the facts yet. However, judging based solely upon what I've seen so far, I'm inclined to say "I'll believe it when you can prove it!"...mainly, because I've seen what actions our government has taken in the past, and it's readily apparent that lying and destroying a person's life are not things they have a problem with doing.

Just my two cents, you can take it however you want...

Ahhh, the wonder world of gun control!

This morning, I was doing two of the things I really enjoy doing in my spare time. I was putting together a new rifle, while reading LewRockwell.com. Ironically, there was an article on that website about how our new president is considered by most to be "gun salesman of the decade".

It would seem that our beloved president is heavily supported by The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which in and of itself was more than enough reason for me to have not voted for him...as if I actually needed another reason. You see, I am a firearm owner, and I actually detest the idea of violence. With this in mind, know that I do own several firearms that were designed with no purpose whatsoever than to kill another human being.

Contradictory statements? Hardly. Firearms were originally designed with the express and primary purpose of taking a human life. Why would a non-violent person ever want to own such a thing? Well, aside from the "sporting purposes" they have since been adapted to, they are also for the purposes of armed defense of ones' life, liberty, and property. Remember this, boys and girls: When seconds count, the police are just minutes away!

Seeing as how the rifle I am in the process of putting together at the moment happens to be one of those evil "semi-automatic military-style assault weapons", I thought I would go over some of the so-called facts on the Brady Campaign's page dealing with this exact situation. And, of course, correct these myths with, well, you know...actual facts. Please keep in mind, I have placed words such as "military-style" and "assault weapon" in quotations, as these are terms utilized by the Brady Campaign and have absolutely no bearing in reality.

1) A large-capacity ammunition magazine which enables the shooter to continuously fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Many assault weapons come equipped with large ammunition magazines allowing more than 50 bullets to be fired without reloading. Standard hunting rifles are usually equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines;
It takes less than a second or two for a practiced individual to drop an empty magazine from your typical rifle, have another in its place, and have the bolt released to load a new round. High-capacity magazines do not increase the number of rounds fired, they merely reduce the number of magazines a person needs.

The claim that "many assault weapons come equipped with 50 round magazines" is, of course, nothing more than a blatant lie. I am considered, even amongst my redneck friends, to be somewhat of a "gun nut". I own two of these "military-type" rifles, and am in the process of building a third. I have NEVER seen a new-in-box rifle sold with a magazine capable of carrying more than 30 rounds. Most ACTUAL military rifles (you know, the ones actually used in combat) don't even come equipped with magazines larger than that.

2) A folding stock which facilitates maximum concealability and mobility in close combat (which comes at the expense of the accuracy desired in a hunting weapon);
A folding stock does absolutely NOTHING to diminish the accuracy of a rifle. I know this must really warp the minds of those at the Brady Campaign, but here's how it works...you UNFOLD it before you shoot it.

3) A pistol grip which facilitates spray-fire from the hip without losing control. A pistol grip also facilitates one-handed shooting;
What is "spray-fire"? Seems like yet another made-up word, like "assault pistol". The purpose of a pistol grip on a rifle has absolutely nothing to do with being able to control a weapon, and everything to do with the design of the rifle itself. The ergonomic characteristics of a "traditional"-style (read: NOT pistol grip) stock actually provide for better control when firing from the hip, due simply to the angle of the wrist...but we wouldn't want human biology to get in the way of those lobbying dollars, now would we?

4) A barrel shroud which enables the shooter to shoot many rounds because it cools the barrel, preventing overheating. It also allows the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon, without incurring serious burns, during rapid fire;
Have these people ever actually seen even a hunting rifle? You need a "barrel shroud" for neither stabilization, burn prevention, nor to prevent overheating. The standard fore-end of a wooden stock on your average ordinary bolt-action rifle will handle the first two, which is why they were designed with them in the first place. A "barrel shroud" actually acts contradictory to the third reason, as it provides more of a barrier to open air, thus preventing the rifle from cooling as rapidly as possible...but we wouldn't science to get in the way of those lobbying dollars, now would we?

5) A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor which allows the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night, an advantage in combat but unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes. In addition, the flash suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid fire;
Wow. Did these people get a list of facts, and then intentionally write the exact opposite of the truth? First off, the flash suppressor (or "flash hider", as it is more commonly called), is not used to "increase concealment" for night shooting. It simply won't do this. It is nothing more than a vented extension to the barrel, which redirects muzzle flash in specific concentrated directions, as opposed to throwing a ball of fire directly out the end of the barrel. The purpose of the flash hider is not concealment, but rather, to prevent flash blindness of the shooter by dispersing muzzle flash.

The "sporting purposes" of this are quite clear. The two most commonly-hunted game animals in Texas are whitetail deer and wild hog. Both are commonly hunted in low-light conditions. Hogs frequently roam at night, whereas deer commonly feed at dawn and dusk. If you are blinded by muzzle flash, are you not less likely to make a follow-up shot if you miss your first shot?

Now, moving right along...the idea of "stability during rapid fire" being a byproduct of a flash hider. Again, blatantly false outright lie. A flash hider is NOT the same as a "recoil compensator" (or "muzzle brake", as they are commonly known). While they are similar, and many compensators also perform the task of working as a flash hider, the purpose of a recoil compensator is to direct muzzle blast outward instead of forward. Unlike a traditional flash hider, a muzzle brake typically has a smaller outlet on the front end, usually only slightly larger than the barrel bore. This forcefully directs muzzle blast outward, after expansion inside the compensator causes the blast to push forward on the "cap" of the brake.

Ironically, during the years of 1994-2004 under the "Assault Weapons Ban", muzzle brakes were allowed by law, whereas flash hiders were not. BATFE approval was necessary, to ensure that it acted primarily as a brake instead of a compensator, and it was also necessary to either blind-pin or weld the brake on to prevent swapping it out for a flash hider. Again, the "sporting purposes" of the muzzle brake should be obvious. If you can prevent your barrel from kicking upward after firing, it is easier to take a follow-up shot. This, of course, is why the manufacturers of hunting rifles (yes, even bolt-action rifles) put muzzle brakes on their weapons.

6) A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer which allows an assassin to shoot without making noise;
Pardon me, but when did the Bloods and the Crips start taking lessons from James Bond? They don't sell silencers at Wal-Mart. They aren't exactly common on the black market, either. Seriously...when was the last time you saw someone being prosecuted for a firearm-related violent crime involving the use of a sound suppressor? Oh, you haven't ever heard of such a thing? Yeah, me either.

That's probably because it requires a special license to make one, and you also have to fill out extensive paperwork and pay hundreds of dollars in special taxes and filing fees to buy one. Each one is registered by the government. It is literally just as easy to purchase a full-auto machine gun in a lawful manner, as it is to purchase a sound suppressor...in other words, it's a certifiable pain in the butt to get one, which is why gangbangers don't ever use them.

7) A barrel mount designed to accommodate a bayonet which allows someone to stab a person at close quarters in battle.
Again, when was the last time you heard of someone actually bayoneting someone to death in America? To the best of my knowledge, this hasn't happened since the 1800s...in that thing we like to call "The War of Northern Aggression". Okay, so it's properly called "The American Civil War" in our textbooks, but I think you get the idea. Essentially, it just doesn't happen.

So what did banning a bayonet lug mount do to the "assault rifle" industry? Not much, except cause them to retool for recasting of front sight bases for AR15 rifles. You see, the Colt AR15 rifle and its clones were adapted from a military rifle (designated as the M16 by the US military). No, the "AR" is not an abbreviation for "assault rifle", nor is the "15" anything having to do with "military-lite"...it was a design by Eugene Stoner, employed by the Armalite ("AR" being "Armalite Rifle"), and the "15" was merely a model number preceded by the AR7 (.22LR) and the AR10 (.308). Anyhow, the combination front sight and gas block had an integral bayonet lug cast into it, as it always had for the decades predating the assault weapons ban. When bayonet lugs were outlawed by the AWB, it caused A) excess inventory of such-equipped front sight bases to be rendered useless without modification, except as replacement parts for "pre-ban" rifles, and B) increase in costs associated with the manufacture of of new front sight bases. It did absolutely nothing to lower the virtually non-existent "bayonet homicide" rate in America.

8) Semi-automatic "military-style" rifles have no purpose as "sporting weapons".
Actually, this is taken from a quote from Jim Zumbo of Outdoor Life Magazine, it was merely posted on the Brady Campaign website to somehow "prove" that the modern rifle is useless for hunting.

In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. In actual fact, EVERY firearm currently used for hunting today was either ACTUALLY used as a military weapon, or based on a design of a military weapon used at some point. This tradition dates back all the way to the bow and arrow.

I have killed only one deer in my entire life, and it was done with a semi-automatic civilian version of the M16 rifle currently in use by the United States military. The animal was killed efficiently and ethically, with only one round having been fired that day from my rifle.

9) The assault weapons ban expired in September 2004 when Congress and President George W. Bush took no action to save it. That means that AK47s and other semi-automatic assault weapons are once again flooding our streets, as the weapons of choice of gang members, drug dealers and other dangerous criminals.
Interesting. They are the "weapons of choice" for the criminals who aren't allowed to own firearms to begin with? Hmmm...something just doesn't seem right about this. Oh, I know what doesn't seem right about that statement. It's contradictory to REALITY.

The Brady Campaign likes to point out that the number of "assault weapons" traced to gun crimes dropped by 66% during the AWB. Interestingly enough, even during the year they used as the "high number" when the AWB was not in effect, "assault weapons" accounted for LESS THAN FIVE PERCENT of all "gun crimes".

While the above statistic is true, and also included in the "assault weapons" page on the Brady Campaign website, there are a few other facts they left out. Aside from the fact that these "assault weapons" consisted of less than five percent of "gun crimes", there is A) many of these "assault weapons" were actually nothing more than semi-auto pistols that held more than ten rounds, and B) "gun crimes" consisted not only of crimes of violence involving firearms but also thefts of firearms from law-abiding citizens.

10) Law enforcement officers are at particular risk from these weapons because of their high firepower and ability to penetrate body armor.
"Assault weapons" are, in reality, no different than any other firearm in terms of being able to penetrate body armor.

Body armor is rated by the National Institute of Justice. Most policemen wear a Level IIIA vest, which is rated only to stop HANDGUN rounds. Handguns included in the AWB are NOT able to penetrate this armor, as their only characteristics putting them on the list are semi-automatic firing and a standard (read: higher than ten rounds) magazine capacity.

Just about every rifle larger than a .22LR rimfire rifle (which is the smallest commonly-available round on the commercial market) will penetrate a Level IIIA vest, because these vests are not designed to stop a rifle round...which means that an "assault rifle" will penetrate it. So will your grandpa's old bolt-action hunting rifle.

A LevelIII vest, which is designed to stop rifle fire, WILL stop rounds from an "assault rifle"...but won't stop many of the heavier hunting rifle rounds available on the commercial market. In reality, "assault" cosmetics (bayonet lugs, collapsible stocks, et cetera) make a rifle no more or less dangerous than any ordinary bolt-action rifle, especially when it comes to penetrating body armor.

*********************************

So, what have we learned here today? The Brady Campaign is so full of that their eyes are turning brown. I really enjoy my "assault weapons". "Assault weapons" are not used extensively by gangbangers. An AR15 can both kill a deer AND accept a 100rd drum magazine...and it will still fire only one round every time you squeeze the trigger, unless you break the law or pay the tax necessary to have it do otherwise. We don't have a problem with "drive-by bayoneting" in this country, or anywhere else in the world. President Obama hates guns. Did I leave anything out?