Developing: Bridge Collapses Near Seattle…Unknown Injuries…See the Photos

Watch Today’s BlazeCast With Your Questions, Comments & Live Chat!

Sheriff Debunks AR-15 Fallacies in New ‘Weapons of War’ Video Fact-Check

Mar. 19, 2013 5:03pm Billy Hallowell

Earlier this month, TheBlaze brought you Sheriff Ken Campbell of Boone County, Ind., and his viral fact-check about gun safety and capping high-capacity magazine sizes. Following up on his 14-minute video, Campbell is back for a second installment. This time, he addresses claims that “weapons of war have no place on our streets” — a common claim coming from gun control proponents in favor of banning certain semi-automatic rifles like the popular AR-15.

The video opens with text explaining that this quote is faulty, mainly because it ignores the fact that all guns were initially designed for war. If true and applied across the board, it would render all firearms illegal.

After the clip addresses this issue, Campbell asks a question that’s been frequently posed since the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting: What is an assault rifle?

Sheriff Ken Campbell of Boone County, Indiana Takes Aim at AR 15 Fallacies, Debunks and Fact Checks Them

Photo Credit: YouTube

The sheriff then lists the similarities between Mini-14s and AR-15s, noting that the two really only differ in terms of their cosmetic differences. Yet legislation that’s been advanced and proposed has taken aim at the latter and not the former.

Once again, Campbell went on to test out different magazine sizes to show that there is a very minuscule impact on the number of seconds that it takes to simply reload smaller-sized magazines. His point? Cracking down on higher-capacity units will do little in terms of opening up larger windows of time between shots being fired.

Using volunteers named Jim and Christy, he showed viewers how these policies and restrictions would look in practical terms.

“Jim firing one thirty round magazine was 17.11 seconds, three 10 round magazines was 18.55 seconds,” Campbell said. “Christy’s time on the 30-round magazine was 17.25 seconds and with the three 10-round magazines was 25.31 seconds.”

Clearly, there were relatively short windows of time when these individuals changed magazines.

Watch this and plenty more in the clip, below:

In a previous interview with TheBlaze, Campbell made his views about capping high-capacity magazines known (i.e. he’s not a fan).

“By limiting the access to standard magazines…I think you are restricting a good American’s opportunity to protect himself and his family,” the sheriff said.

Read TheBlaze’s exclusive interview with Campbell here.

–

Other Must-Read Stories:

Benghazi, IRS, AP...What's next? Only TheBlaze TV offers the truth from Glenn Beck, Andrew Wilkow, and Real News from TheBlaze. Get instant access and a free trial here.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (149)

Texas Lady Juanita
Posted on March 19, 2013 at 7:52pm
All of these people arguing about “clips” or “magazine” . . . my husband 13 military years – including 2 Vietnam Tours ( MACV-SOG ) in the Army & switched to Marines for 9+ more years, and he calls them clips. So, whether you call them clips or magazines, does not designate one’s personal experience with arms – is irrelevant to any arms arguments. Almost every post regarding weapons seems to repeatedly disintegrate into comments back and forth about clips and magazines. It just strikes most of us as silly; and arguing about it decreases our reputations as serious debators.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- addie
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 8:11pm
  Your husband should view this video so he can learn something the military obviously didnt teach him. Yes, there is a difference! Clips are used to LOAD magazines. Clips DO NOT attach to a gun. Calling a magazine a clip is like calling a hub cap a tire. No, a hub cap is NOT a tire!
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoSNHe413rY
  
  Report this comment
- rangerskippy
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 8:23pm
  and none of this will mean a thing to Feinstein, Obama, Hillary, and crowd. They are not concerned with facts, or the ability to defend yourself against multiple attackers.
  
  When they break the economy, and the welfare heathen pour out of the projects to steal, murder, and rape, Obama wants to make sure that you are not able to defend yourself.
  
  When the economy breaks, Obama also wants to know that he can call in the UN troops, and not have to fear about John Q Citizen having the means to defend themselves.
  
  Last year in America, less than 4% of murders were done with a rifle. So why do you think Obama wants your rife so bad?
  
  Last year 50% of the nation’s murders were committed by African Americans, but not a peep from Obama and crew on lowering black on black murder rates. If we lower black murder rates to the same as white, we lower the national murder per capita rate by almost 40% and save a lot of black lives. I want to save black lives, do you think Obama does?
  Last year in our large cities like Chicago, up to 70% of all murders were gang related. Have you heard a peep from Obama or Feinstein on combating these armed domestic enemies of the American people? Not a word about MS13, Bloods, Cripps, Vice Lords…..
  
  Our murder rates and violent crime rates are intrinsically tied to our welfare population. So who do people on welfare vote for? Could that be the reason why democrats are not interested in actually going after criminals?
  
  Report this comment
- All Pro
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 8:35pm
  Maybe because originally we were issued M14s and they could be bottom loaded with magazines or top loaded with clips just like the WWII M1 Girand. That’s because the M14 was a hot rodded version of the M1 Girand. We had it pounded into us NOT to call the mags clips.
  “SIR YES SIR. This Marine understands SIR!”
  
  Report this comment
- LakeHartwellSailor
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 9:30pm
  Texas Lady –
  
  I can understand your frustration. I also thank your husband for his service. At the same token, your husband by virtue of using terms interchangeably is lowering his credibility. I don’t know much about Army types, but I suspect that they refer to weapon parts by their rightful nomenclature, and do not mix terms, it can create confusion. On the otherhand, I do know Marines, and they absolutely do not tolerate loose definitions of terms. Magazines are completely different from “clips”. Your husband may want to be a bit more precise, given his military history.
  
  Report this comment
- DadRocked
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 9:43pm
  We all know the difference… CUT Texas Lady some slack…
  My ol’ man (with respect) was retired USMC, me USAF ‘Nam vet…
  Dad knew the differece but still called the mag a clip from his Korean days…
  
  Just a generic term and those in the know… well we know the difference…
  The boneheads are where we should point the difference to…
  
  Report this comment
- chingachgook
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 10:32pm
  I wish you did not talk about the innocent looking mini14. Until they (the uneducated anti gun people) saw this they had no idea what the mini 14 was. It looks like a 22 so it is just nice and safe let them think that. They want to ban guns with horns and tails you know those devil guns. You know the kind of gun that jumps out of your hands and starts shooting at everyone around. Of course all this gun stuff has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with controlling the population.
  
  Report this comment
- Bill S.
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 10:07am
  Addie thank you for proving Texas Lady’s point with your mindless comment. It’s not about clips and magazines it’s about the governments attempt at violating our gun ownership rights.
  
  Report this comment
- bobfrommosinee
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 10:22am
  Addie, Yes, There is a difference between clips and magazines, But I also served and retired from the Army, and as often as not, We called them clips in normal day to day conversation, The only time we really got specific was during instructional classes. But it make no difference in what you call them, Mag bans, Clip bans, Because of size and capacity will not make any difference if some one decides to do the unthinkably insane and go out and murder innocent children, men, women, It is the Criminally Insane Person, ( And To Murder In Cold Blood Is Insane, But that insanity is no defense to the crime of murder hey commit) who make the difference, His will and intention, Not the instrument.
  
  Report this comment
- Supermartski
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 11:34am
  Thanks ADDIE. It’s really not that hard to understand.
  
  Report this comment
- Evileye
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 12:24pm
  The Speak Cops like The spelling Cops never Give up.
  Who care if some call them clips and others Magazines
  The point is an oppressive government want’s to do away with your God give rights
  To protect yourself with your semi automatic weapon
  By the way when I was in service they were weapons not guns .
  .
  
  Report this comment
- Richalu
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 12:39pm
  Mags … Clips … To quote a certain someone, “What difference, at this point, does it make.” It doesn’t. Whatever you want to call them, they’re going to be banned. Just as the left is going to continue to do it’s best to ban ALL firearms.
  
  What we should be paying attention to are the facts that were brought up by Rangerskippy. Thank you, Sir, for your thoughts.
  
  Report this comment
- a_grunt_of_civilwar II
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 2:05pm
  @ texas lady
  While yes during a personal debate the difference between is simply semantic. But it is not the case for a political debate like we are currently engaged in. By the letter of the law and definition of the word the simple changing of the word magazines to clips will have major unintended consequence (or intended). If in the actual wording of the bill bans clips and not magazines the that will drastically chnage what will be made illegal. So keep that in mind next you wish to make the point that it things are simply semantics when it comes to debating because I can guarantee you that the communist in or government will.
  
  Report this comment
- Airbornedevildog
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 2:59pm
  you can call a duck a cow it doesn’t make it a cow. A clip by definition is a device used to load a magazine. A magazine is a ammunition feeding device that feeds a firearm.
  
  Report this comment
- lobster
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 3:46pm
  Texas Lady, your hubby must be a young sprout back in the fifties they were called clips. As far as guns and weapons,”This is my rifle, this is my gun, this is for fighting this is for ….”
  
  Report this comment
- davidkachel
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 4:16pm
  Lots of people like your husband managed to spend years in the military without learning anything. Apparently your husband did not even learn the basics.
  
  Report this comment
- xjeeper
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 5:02pm
  ALL PRO, if you are so picky, spell GARAND right!, not Girand!
  
  Report this comment
- WarPig
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 7:15pm
  I agree. Where I was raised(Wisconsin) we called them clips. Now that I’m in the southwest everyone seems to call them magazines. In Wisconsin we had viaducts, out here we have overpasses. Yes technically there is a difference, but its not worth arguing over as a post. JMHO YMMV
  As long as you know what the writer meant get over it, just like the spelling/punctuation nazis, and you know who you are…lol
  
  Bubblers vs fountains
  soda vs pop
  rummage sale vs garage sale
  potatoe vs spud
  
  The list is endless lol
  
  Report this comment
- addie
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 1:59am
  Debate or conversation, a magazine is a magazine, it is not a clip! Whenever I hear someone call it a clip, I figure they probably call a semi-automatic rifle an “assault rifle” or “machine gun” too. If you wouldn’t call a BAR 30.06 hunting rifle an “assault rifle”, why on earth would you call a magazine a clip? Why not call it what it is?
  
  The problem is, how can you debate gun rights when you are not educated enough to argue the subject of firearms because you can’t even bother to use the basic terms correctly.
  
  Call them clips, stay ignorant! Join the low information voters in your bliss!
  
  Report this comment
- twomaro
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 6:39pm
  This video is rife with slanted conclusions. What person is going to have a 55 gallon drum to lay his clips on? And why did the man in the video fire faster when shooting the smaller clips? To distort the outcome?
  I’m actually a gun owner, but the truth is, there are going to be major changes to what private citizens can own. We might as well get used to that. By showing that the mini can fire as often as the AR-15 will only ensure that it too is banned. I can’t speak for everyone, but if I was confronted by someone shooting into a crowd, I would want the chance to disarm the lunatic while he was trying to reload.
  
  Report this comment
TRSFrancisco
Posted on March 19, 2013 at 7:29pm
I’m pretty sure that making it harder to defend yourself and your family IS the goal. If you screwed a country as long and as hard as the ruling class has in America, you wouldn’t want the citizenry being armed either, especially when you start selling the country off piecemeal to other countries in order to keep borrowing money from them. Not a single aspect of gun legislation is ACTUALLY geared towards public safety. In fact, the fewer guns in the hands of the public, the less safe they are…from both criminals AND criminal gov’t. http://www.therightsideblog.com I’m just saying. There are shortages now of ammo and mags, but the country has spent the last 4.5 years buying stuff and putting it away.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- 19RANDY59
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 7:36pm
  I hope u realize, all this talk doesn’t amount to anything. They r going to take your guns
  
  Report this comment
- JerryReno
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 11:07am
  @Randy
  
  Molon Labe
  
  Look it up.
  
  Report this comment
- revelation2012
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 4:16pm
  -
  
  U.S. Constitution – Amendment 2
  
  Right to Bear Arms
  
  A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
  
  the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
  
  Report this comment
DSTSS2010
Posted on March 19, 2013 at 7:20pm
I don’t disagree with the premise that a 30rd or 20rd magazine is not going to make a big difference over using separate 10rd mags. Once a shooter starts shooting, no one is going to be close enough to stop the shooter while they reload. If someone else had a gun, the shooter probably wouldn’t get off the first 10rds anyway. The sheriff is getting tricky with his demo. The demonstrating shooters are altering their rate of fire to favor the sheriffs premise. They are also being slick by not shooting all 10rds in the first magazine so that they don’t have to take the necessary step to release the bolt, which would lock back on an empty magazine. Also note that in aech case the shooter had to shoot 11rds from one magazine, good trick from a 10 rd mag. This is not totally honest. We can’t support our point with trickery. Lets have a valid demo next time!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Jarhead-88
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 7:52pm
  They both have 20 round magazines, I have no idea what you are talking about.
  
  Report this comment
- Letthebulletsfly
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 8:02pm
  Totally agree. Even someone unfamiliar with firearms can’t help but notice the difference in rate of fire if nothing else. This video needs to be yanked and destroyed. Our argument is correct, being dishonest only makes us appear we think we’re not.
  
  Report this comment
- Texas Lady Juanita
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 8:03pm
  I noticed the manipulations myself, and I am relatively unseasoned. Trickery has always rubbed me the wrong way, and this video is one I would not pass on.
  
  Report this comment
- addie
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 8:22pm
  I agree with the trickery but it also begs the question….would someone capable of doing this shoot faster too knowing they had to reload? Ever notice that when cops unload on a suspect, they are quicker with the trigger pull? Just sayin….
  
  Report this comment
- JH0861
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 8:29pm
  The guy is obviously a fairly well trained shooter. You can see how well he transitions to his sidearm after the thirty round mag. That is something that takes practice.The woman on the other hand is probably the better example. She fumbles the mags when she reloads.
  
  But realistically someone who has done a lot of close quarters shooting probably wouldn’t fire one round per target and then transition to the next target. They would probably fire a hammered pair or do a failure/Mozambique drill. Also you have to take into account that you would be jacked up on adrenaline in a real life encounter.
  
  Report this comment
- rangerskippy
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 8:34pm
  I think these folks made an honest attempt to show that there is not much difference.
  
  If we took some folks who had taken Research Methods in college, I am sure they could come up with a little more legit test. You could have shooters in a double blind competition, who are competing for a prize.
  
  Either way, it only takes a trained shooter a second to do a mag change. As much as Feinstein and crew want the rifles, most of us shooters are quicker with our pistol mag changes, than with rifle.
  
  Jump on youtube, and pull up some of the Army Marksmanship Vidoes on shooting, and see just how fast mag changes can happen.
  
  These folks were not trying to use trickery, they did this with very low budget, and I think we can take what they did, and improve on it.
  
  Report this comment
- LakeHartwellSailor
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 9:34pm
  Uh, of COURSE you are not going to fire all the rounds in a magazine, be it 30, 20, or 10 round magazines. In a defense posture, or even in an offense posture, you are better off leaving one round in the chamber when you switch out magazines. That way, you don’t have to recharge the bolt as well!
  
  Nothing is “fair” in a gun battle. I just don’t get some of these comments…
  
  Report this comment
- galaxie_man
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 9:38pm
  This shooting technique comes from the gaming world. The gamers lose points for running out of ammo, which is technically what happens if you empty a magazine, and insert a fresh one having to cycle the bolt. A news story the other night in CT reported some preliminary findings about the Sandy Hook shooter. He was planning this attack for YEARS! He had explicit notes about entry, movement, targets, and firing evolutions. He was obviously using his shooter games to rehearse the assault, the games didn’t drive him to do it.
  
  All my personal training was to fire until empty, dropthe mag, insert a fresh one, and rack the slide/bolt. But then, I’m not a gamer. Nor am I gonna count shots in a firefight.
  
  Report this comment
- chingachgook
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 10:44pm
  The point here is. It take less than 2 seconds even for an amateur to reload another magazine. This is just enough time to shoot whom ever is closing on the shooter. With out a weapon you are at a great disadvantage facing a shooter with multiple guns or magazines. If one of these nut cases decides to kill some people he is going to succeed. Remember many of these guys expect to be killed in the process. This make the subject very difficult to deal with.
  They pick a gun free zone and have just about total control over the situation. Really the less publicity we give these nuts the better off all of us are.
  
  Report this comment
- Kiba
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 11:26pm
  I don’t know why we need any demo’s to begin with, how about I don’t like going shooting and having to re-load magazines the entire time Im out there. And you know EXACTLY HOW THEY ARE if you are regulated to just ten rd. mags. then ppl will have to have 30 of them so they can shoot instead of loading magazines all day and then all we will hear is “why on earth does anyone need that many magazines, how many people do they want to kill?” Just a big set-up from the gun-grabbing left wusses who poop their pants when they hear a loud bang.
  
  Report this comment
- DSTSS2010
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 11:56pm
  JARHEAD-88….
  The comment I made about 11rds from a 10rd magazine, was a brain fart, or a senior moment, er.. I can’t remember which.
  In the real world, a shooter would empty the first 10rd magazine so he would have to drop the bolt to chamber the first round of the second magazine. The same applies to the third magazine. That would make the time longer, Also, most of these shooters are young and untrained, they would waste even more time squeezing the trigger on an empty chamber, before they realized they needed to replace the magazine.
  
  Report this comment
- tlhonmey
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 1:36pm
  Counting your rounds and reloading before firing the last one is a superior method. Anyone serious about defending themselves should practice until it becomes second nature. Why? When looking down the sights of a gun, you can’t see whether the bolt has locked open or not. Which means you don’t know that it’s empty until you pull the trigger and nothing happens. Which means you automatically miss a shot, and then have to reload before you can try again, giving the other guy a much larger opening.
  
  If you count your rounds, however, then you know you need to reload before your weapon fails to fire. If you reload when there’s one left, then you still have a round in the weapon and can fire upon anyone who perceives your reload as an opportunity to attack. And, if you miscount, then the bolt locks open and you’re no worse off than you were just emptying the thing.
  
  Basically, larger magazines give an advantage to people who don’t have enough time to practice reloading drills. Psychopaths and criminals have plenty of incentive to practice. Average citizens with real jobs do not. Limiting magazine sizes gives the advantage to criminals even before you consider that criminals will have no qualms about violating the law and bringing a bigger magazine.
  
  Yes, the military teaches to empty the magazine. Their tactics are squad-based and rely on having buddies to cover you while you reload. Civilians don’t have that luxury. Using military tactics solo is a good way to get ki
  
  Report this comment
- Jarhead-88
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 3:35pm
  It’s called a combat reload, nothing new. So many people, even conservatives, don’t really know much about weapons and it’s sad.
  
  Report this comment
Al J Zira
Posted on March 19, 2013 at 6:57pm
This sheriff’s presentation make absolute sense and totally cripple the left’s argument. i agree with about 99% of the arguments on this site regarding gun control and the fact that it’s no more than a gun grab that will have little or no impact on deaths by guns. If anyone has read anything I’ve posted regarding this ruse you’ll know my stance is that deaths by means of a gun ( there’s no such thing as gun violence) in this country come at the hands of drug dealers and street gangs. But the politicians nor the police mention that little gem.

Having said all of that, it won’t make a bit of difference. Feinstein, Obama and pals are going to pass gun legislation that will limit our GOD given rights. They could care less about facts, figures or your argument or will. All that matters is their will and it won’t stop there, believe me. The republicans have no balls to fight any thing this president does either out of fear or complicity. Our rights don’t mean a hill of beans to the backstabbers in Washington.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- jcldwl
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 7:12pm
  I couldn’t agree more. They are not going to let a 100 year plan fail just because we don’t want them to take our guns. They have already armed and armored their army they will use to come after us. They will make it happen even if it takes another false flag of major proportions so they can institute martial law. People who think otherwise have not studied history and are ignoring the fact that to these people the ends justifies the means and history shows they cannot move forward without disarming us.
  
  Report this comment
rqfreedom
Posted on March 19, 2013 at 6:52pm
“I think you are restricting Americans’ opportunity to protect themselves and their families.” What he fails to get is that their answer to that statement is, “EXACTLY.” That’s the plan.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- kenboo1
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 7:01pm
  We need senators that can read and understand the Constitution. What part of, “The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” does Senator Feinstein not understand??? We need Senators that are not motivated by personal philosophy put that follow their states direction. http://www.repeal17.net discusses the need to repeal the 17th Amendment to the Constitution. There is a link to history and an explanation of why the 17th Amendment was ratified…
  
  Report this comment
- jcldwl
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 7:22pm
  @ken
  If you are still on the we need this and we need that kick then you are way behind. They are coming for us and there ain’t no stopping them. I am tired of hearing we need this we need that…do you think this last election was legitimate? Too many people lost that should have by all numbers won and they didn’t. They are on their steamroller and they are not turning back. They have destroyed the masts of the U.S.S. Constitution and she is foundering. One more broadside and it is over and they are lining up the cannons as we type. The only thing we need is to be on God’s side because these people are true followers of Satan. No one in DC is going to save us from this. No man is going to save us from this. Though one will come along and make the world think he is going to save them and I have no doubt he is out there waiting to reveal himself soon. Time is short. Seek Jesus and pray for he is your only salvation. John 3:16
  
  Report this comment
The Giver
Posted on March 19, 2013 at 6:52pm
Where there’s a will, there is a way. You can compensate for a smaller magazine by shooting faster as he did in the video. But if a sick individual wants to hurt someone, he is not going to check to make sure his magazine conforms to any new legislation. Only law abiding people will do that.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
SoCtNights
Posted on March 19, 2013 at 6:45pm
Why do Politicians and Elite (P&E) of the world fear law-abiding citizens with firearms? Does the P&E have an agreement with criminals of the world? Do as you will with the law-abiding citizens, just leave us alone. Are P&Es and criminals genetically related? Hmmmmm?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
All Pro
Posted on March 19, 2013 at 6:43pm
Let’s see, 2 rounds per second (if I want to hit my target) + reaching into the mag pouch on my pistol belt to grab the next mag, about 32-35 seconds. Oh and I was able to do that in the jungle while under fire in the early ’70s. Nobody wants to hear any of this. This isn’t about public safety, it’s about what’s going to happen here this summer. I own 3 ARs, a Bushmaster AR15 carbine, an Armalite AR10 carbine and a DPMS AR10 SASS (semi automatic sniper system), several scopes and a night scope. I live in New York. I’m not registering them and I’m not giving them up and that includes my 30 round mags and 20 round mags.. If they want them I’ll be glad to give them a demonstration of what their tax dollars trained me to do and what trying to stay alive for five years in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos taught me to do. The SCOTUS ruled in the Heller case that the second amendment enshrines our right to own military firearms. The anti gunners know this. Let them come to my house if they want mine!
Semper-Fi beeches!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Al J Zira
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 6:49pm
  I love this guy!
  
  Report this comment
- LakeHartwellSailor
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 7:00pm
  Rock on!
  
  Report this comment
- STREBOR
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 7:20pm
  Rock on AllPro
  
  Report this comment
- Jarhead-88
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 7:55pm
  I’m with you brother. Registration has always resulted in confiscation somewhere down the line. I’m done taking any crap from any freedom and liberty hater and their are numerous in our government.
  
  Report this comment
- Spitfire68
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 6:25am
  Excellent!!
  
  Report this comment
Chuck T
Posted on March 19, 2013 at 6:37pm
“The Sheriff’s back in town…” and he’s bringing along another lesson in firearms for the utterly clueless, when it comes to the typical Leftist anti-gun arguments. Naturally, such knowledge runs down the back of the Leftist like water off a duck, because, well, you can lead a mind to knowledge, but you can’t make it think.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
BeardedDog
Posted on March 19, 2013 at 6:20pm
The AR-15 has been available to the public since the 1960′s. I purchased mine in 1979 along with the magazines. So why after about 50 years have they suddenly become “dangerous”? Just something to ponder. Hint….the problem is not with the gun itself (or the magazines).

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- LakeHartwellSailor
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 6:27pm
  Correct me if I may be wrong, but isn’t any firearm suppose to be dangerous? The only firearms that I have seen lately that are not dangerous have been my friends .308 deer rifle, and a revolver. Both fell victom to a house fire, and they are DEFINATELY not dangerous any more….except maybe if you cut yourself on the remains because now they are just pieces of rusty junk….I guess tetenus is still a danger.
  
  Report this comment
- Jarhead-88
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 7:58pm
  Guns are inanimate objects, none are dangerous. The danger comes from the person wielding it.
  
  Report this comment
- addie
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 8:32pm
  A car is far more deadlier than any firearm and 16 year olds are allowed to drive them alone, while texting.
  
  Report this comment
- BeardedDog
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 9:27pm
  Very good Jarhead! The human element is the danger. To solve the problems by blaming guns is moronic…..but popular.
  
  Report this comment
- THX-1138
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 9:17am
  “So why after about 50 years have they suddenly become “dangerous”? ”
  
  Because it’s never been about the guns; it’s been about the people. This is not 1979. Our society has degenerated to the point of Clockwork Orange absurdity. Which, of course, was the plan since the 1930′s at least. Which explains the Government takeover of the School System.
  
  The real problem is Technology; it’s finally getting to the point that they can be Everywhere, All The Time and do Anything. Omnipotent, Omnipresent and, for the most part, bullet proof. We had better hope and pray that we can bring this thing to a close while our Soldiers and Police are Human Beings. Once Robots are practical, It’s Game Over.
  
  Report this comment
Mapache
Posted on March 19, 2013 at 6:10pm
My definition of an assault rifle: Any rifle being fired in my direction or at those I care about.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RIDEMODELS
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 6:20pm
  A-men….
  
  Its the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Needs…..get it right MSLSD…!!
  
  Report this comment
- banjarmon
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 6:30pm
  Including knives, scissors, Ice picks, BB gun, paintball gun Bow and arrow cannon are all assault weapons if pointed any my family!
  
  Report this comment
- cliffattheblaze
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 2:13am
  I guess you think that’s pretty clever, but the actual definition of an assault rifle is a fully automatic, magazine fed rifle used to “assault” a position, hence the name. The early ones were developed in WWII and the most prolific one on the planet is the Russian AK-47. We use the M-16 and M-4. Again they are FULLY automatic, which to the less clever, means hold the trigger down and it fires until you run out of bullets.
  
  Your clever answers are just confusing the whole debate.
  
  Report this comment
guz75
Posted on March 19, 2013 at 6:06pm
What an absolutely ridiculous video. Of course the times between a single magazine and multiple magazines are going to be similar, if you shoot with twice the firing rate when shooting with the smaller capacity magazines. The fact that the guy was able to fire 20 rounds from 2 magazines quicker than with a single magazine only serves to prove the manipulation.

Also, 2 people who have practiced switching magazines with them laid out in front of them doesn’t make much sense, they should have at least had to pull them from a jacket pocket. Levels of accuracy are also unclear, which seems like fairly relevant information. Although it did give me a good laugh, if nothing else!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Maji
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 6:09pm
  Call your senator tell him “to vote against” the UN resolution against the 2nd
  Amendment!
  Tell him/her that you expect them to introduce an “article of impeachment”
  if the president does!!
  HCON23 & SCON7
  
  Report this comment
- Redlander
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 6:31pm
  You need to get out to a range someday and just listen. Both shooters in the video were firing at a controlled rate. Acquiring the target and then firing. If I just want to beat a clock I can probably half their times. That tactic is called “spray and pray”
  
  Report this comment
Comeandtakeit
Posted on March 19, 2013 at 6:01pm
How does Christy shoot with **** in her face? I think this is a very effective example of how these laws to “protect” us from ourselves are ridiculous, but I would have like to see if there were any accuracy differences in using a single 30 round vs 3 10 round magazines. I bet the 30 round magazine was more accurate… which is a good thing. What do you think?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RIDEMODELS
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 6:18pm
  If I am at the range then yes I can use the 30 and not have to replace the weapon at 200yrds for better accuracy….But I would not use the AR for home defense because I love my moss 500 and with the new black-hawk stock I just got, the recoil is not so bad with slugs that I have to use in an indoor range…..To outlaw an AR is to say that you know your society is crap and that your stock market is FAKE, you know what you have done and you do not want the blood shed of what may very well happen…..If you are worried about gun violence then you could look statically about the last ten or so years and see that video games played a large part in making people crazy about guns and school house shootings…….I worked in a nightclub type setting and my job was to protect the girls(girls bring in men and money), I watched how crazy society can get and I watched as the police could not control it some nights(nothing good ever happens after midnight)….It takes a person many hours at the range to hone their holster to target accuracy…..nothing against the bad guys but I just like everyone I know, like to have the upper hand when it comes to battle.
  
  Fire your Dimocrat, Hire a Conservative…….or leave the Bill of Rights on your way out of the country.
  
  Report this comment
Raider1
Posted on March 19, 2013 at 5:58pm
Actually the Ar10 and the Ar15 were designed for military contracts. Ar10 was too late- M14 wins. Ar 15 developed off the Ar10 for the 5.56 round to compete for another military contract. I do agree that a fast mag change will render hi cap bans useless, but c’mon. There is an obvious difference in the speed that they were firing. Faster shooting by reloading? REALLY? We have to be honest or it will end up biting us in the arse….and of course to not compromise our integrity.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RJJinGadsden
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 6:14pm
  The M14 had the advantage of resulting from a long line of existing experimental changes to the M1 Garand. Oddly, the M1 originally was to be built to accept the BAR box magazine, or a different removable mag yet to be designed. While that design was being tossed about the Department of War decided that it did not want an infantry weapon with magazines that could be lost by soldiers. That design had already existed in blue prints since the 1930s. Eugene Stoner had to build the AR10 from the ground up. I believe Portugal’s military was the first to field the AR10.
  
  Report this comment
- WarMunger_Al
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 6:49pm
  Psychologically the the shooter might hurry more when he/she knows they have less rounds and they anticipate the magazine change. When you know you have thirty rounds, your sense of urgency might be less as you take better aim, at least at a range and not under duress. I bet in a real situation they both would empty the rounds faster…Just my theory.
  
  Report this comment
BlackCrow
Posted on March 19, 2013 at 5:51pm
I have a pocket full of NRA instructor certificates but I would still like to take a class under Sheriff Campbell. I’ve had personal instruction by two former Olympic shooters and one former NRA Board member, Sheriff Campbell would rate right with them.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- A Hoosier Says
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 9:41pm
  I live in Boone County, and I can tell you that the classes offered by the BCSO is VERY popular. People come from all around central Indiana to take their classes.
  
  Report this comment
AMERICA4EVER
Posted on March 19, 2013 at 5:50pm
I hear it is very easy to make the magazines they would accept into larger capacity magazines…taping together also. Any comments on this?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- JediKnight
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 6:23pm
  Yep, just get a repair kit.
  
  Report this comment
- AmericanStrega
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 10:50am
  Duct Tape.
  
  Report this comment
RestoreCapitalism
Posted on March 19, 2013 at 5:46pm
But of course taking guns from the law abiding citizens will create new crimeportunites which are kind of like jobs for thugs. If you think about it, when a thug robs you, it’s kind of like a grass roots wealth redistribution program. The left is so clever that way.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Back To Reality
Posted on March 19, 2013 at 5:39pm
The shotgun demo and the Mini14 demo were useful.

I’m not sure the magazine comparisons were helpful. What was essentially demonstrated was that our level of effectiveness with a 10-round mag X3 was not much different than with one 30 round magazine.

We now need to be prepared to defend why we want to keep our standard 30 round mags when we’ve just shown that having a few 10-round mags instead of a 30 round mag does seem to limit our ability to defend ourselves.

I have no intention of giving up my sizeable stash of both 30-round Magpul magazines or my 10-rounders, but I think I’ll stick to pure Constitutional arguments instead of the last part of this demo. It was well done, but it doesn’t really help us.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Logic-Rules
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 7:14pm
  BACK TO REALITY says <<>>
  
  HERE’S THE ANSWER!!!
  
  They did NOT show that limiting law abiding citizens to 10 round mags doesn’t limit their ability to defend themselves. What they did show was that limiting mass murders to 10 round mags does not reduce their ability to kill lots of people.
  
  A mass murderer is the one going on the offense. He gets to pick the time and place of the attack. He can prepare for months in advance. He can bring a backpack stuffed with dozens of spare 10 round mags, or even extra guns. He can spend the days prior to the attack practicing thousands of times to reload as fast as possible in a cold and calm manner.
  
  But say you are the law abiding citizen taking your 4 yr old daughter to see a movie. You have your gun, but you’re not wearing a bandoleer with a dozen spare mags. You certainly won’t have more than two spare mags, and you may not be carrying any extra ammo at all.
  
  When the mass murderer attacks, you don’t have much ammo, and you can’t reload easily because you’re using your free hand to hold your daughter behind you to protect her or because you’re extremely frightened.
  
  The mass murder is not limited by the 10 round mags, but you are!
  
  READ THE ABOVE ARGUMENT AND SHARE IT FAR AND WIDE SO PEOPLE K
  
  Report this comment
- Back To Reality
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 10:21pm
  Unfortunately you can’t claim that distinction logically.
  
  Report this comment
happ77
Posted on March 19, 2013 at 5:30pm
Have a Colt AR 15 and a Ruger Mini 30
Colt looks sexier, like the Ruger better

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- HumbleMan
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 6:06pm
  Mini-30 rocks. I have to say though, this video will most like just give those anti-2A folks want to ban the mini’s too.
  
  Report this comment
- RIDEMODELS
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 6:26pm
  Colt is probably loosy goosy like mine…..But the Ruger is probably more tight….That would be my assumption…..my go to for home has been my moss 500 for decades.
  
  Dead men do not file law suits….or am I wrong on that one?
  
  Report this comment
marybethelizabeth
Posted on March 19, 2013 at 5:26pm
There’s no benefit from a larger capacity clip.

Their elimination will burden no one.

Obviously the reactionaries are being used to oppose increase the demand for guns, causing a price increase and windfall profits to the weapons manufacturers.

The public suffers.
Log in to ReplyReply
- The-Monk
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 5:36pm
  BaryMethElizardbreath,
  
  There’s no benefit from your comments. The public suffers nothing with or without them.
  
  Report this comment
- stumpygrim
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 5:38pm
  @hairybreath aka encinom.
  Hey douchebagg,it’s “magazine” not clip, dumbass.
  
  Report this comment
- LakeHartwellSailor
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 5:39pm
  Once again, you are full of crap. I *LOVE* my so-called assault weapons….and my high capacity magazines. And I could care less what you think.
  
  Report this comment
- LakeHartwellSailor
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 5:41pm
  And Mary, if you feel there is no benefit to high capacity magazines (not clips), then I suggest you don’t buy any. However, I think I will buy 20 more!!!!!!!!!!
  
  Report this comment
- The-Monk
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 5:41pm
  Hi Stumpygrim,
  
  You’ll have to excuse the BaryMeth troll and the rest of the trolls….
  
  They’re really stupid and can’t think for themselves.
  
  Report this comment
- Commonsensical
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 5:51pm
  Maryelizabeth, there is NO benefit to banning larger capacity magazine(it’s NOT called a clip).
  
  Their elimination will SAVE no one.
  
  Obviously the reactionaries are being used to oppose guns, causing a liberty decrease and power grab by the anti-gun progressives.
  
  Report this comment
- JeffersonsPen
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 5:52pm
  Mary Mary Mary……………….The limitation is UnConstitutional. With your train of thought bullets made of mashmellows and thrown underhanded would be better for the poor little people who need all thier minds made for them…………………….go away!
  
  Report this comment
- RJJinGadsden
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 6:05pm
  She said “clip” LOL!
  
  Report this comment
- GuruMeditation
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 6:21pm
  @JeffersonsPen: I hear Obama has a couple of marshmellos.
  
  Report this comment
- LakeHartwellSailor
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 6:23pm
  Hey RJ!
  
  Yep, she said “clip”. Personally, I think that anyone who feels the need to engage in “conversations” regarding the banning of any weapons, MUST demonstrate proper use of terms.
  
  I mean, if I were to engage in a conversation about Quantum Physics, without knowing the proper terminology, how seriously do you think I would be taken? And I don’t know squat about Quantum Physics, so therefore, I don’t go down that road.
  
  I have to admit though, Mary does amuse me with her input. Its kind of like watching an episode of “Kids Say The Darndest Things”. Nonsense, but still kind of cute in an ignorant way.
  
  Report this comment
- progressiveslayer
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 6:38pm
  The only people suffering are us,we read your idiotic remarks and get nausea’s. You’re a glutton for punishment that’s why you make your ignorant views known,then sit there and watch your argument get trashed.
  
  Report this comment
- RJJinGadsden
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 6:41pm
  LAKEHARTWELLSAILOR, To be honest with you. I was so late to get to this story, that so many pretty well beat me to what I would have said to BARYMETHELIZABETH. My wife knows more about weapons and their components than all of these left wing liberals, and it certainly shows. Then again, she grew up in a rural part of Alabama while shooting pretty much all of her life. When I met her she had recently broken up with a university ROTC AMTU instructor where she was also a student. I fired expert with all required weapons through my time in the service until I retired, and again on a police department. She could easily give me a run for the money on a range. BARYMETH makes me laugh more often than not. To me her musings remind me more of users of recreational drugs of whom I have had to arrest in the past. As far as the Art Linkletter crowd of Kids Say The Darndest Things, AUSERNAME is more fitting for that title.
  
  Report this comment
- ACMESAGE
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 1:30pm
  silly me, you’re right nobody needs what you don’t need. And who am I actually resoning for myself as to what I might value for me, instead of you.
  
  Report this comment
STREBOR
Posted on March 19, 2013 at 5:25pm
The Gunophobes will twist the truth to fit their agenda. They don’t care how their ends are achieved just that they win at any cost or any lies.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Dismayed Veteran
Posted on March 19, 2013 at 5:22pm
I learned this yesterday and it really stuck.

Sheep often can’t tell the difference between a wolf and a sheepdog.

To the anti-gun crowd an AR15 is a wolf just like the M16.

Worse yet, a sheepdog can’t reason with a sheep.

http://sofrep.com/15278/sheep-wolves-sheepdogs/

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- justangry
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 5:27pm
  I like the analogy, but I think I should be able to have an M-16 too.
  
  Report this comment
- LakeHartwellSailor
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 5:32pm
  justangry
  
  Absolutely! As well as a fully automatic UZI, AK-47, HK MP-5, etc etc etc etc.
  
  You can come close, I got an SSAR-15 Slide Stock for my AR-15, and its pretty close to the “real thing”….but if you want accuracy, semi-auto is usually how I shoot anyway.
  
  Report this comment
termyt
Posted on March 19, 2013 at 5:15pm
Ironically, the AR-15 was not designed for war. Guns not on the list to ban, including the semi-automatic M1 Garand, which was the standard issue rifle for the US Army in WWII, was designed for war.

The AR-15 was designed to be the civilian version of the M-16, emphasis on civilian version.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Armyof One
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 5:37pm
  Nope. The AR15 (ARmalite design #15) was first named and marketed to militaries, notably the US Air Force, as the AR15. It did not get the M16 tag until the US Army fully adopted it in 1964. The rifle was part of a defense department weapons program to modernize the US military in 1957. Designer Eugene Stoner worked for Fairchild Aircraft, of which Armalite was a subsidiary. Colt soon bought the rights to produce the rifle.
  
  Colt offered it for civilian sale (and design) in 1963, ironically with the full auto trigger group…but no full-auto sear installed, or capable. (The rifle cannot run fully automatic without the auto-sear)
  
  In the last 25 years, I have worked on many original AR15 marked receivers that are still in service.
  
  Report this comment
- termyt
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 5:45pm
  Really? 1957. Huh, ok. I stand corrected. Thanks.
  
  Report this comment
- JeffersonsPen
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 6:00pm
  Have any of you held an M1? It has an 8 round “clip” not a mag and it aint light. It fires a 30-06 or can be 308. In both cases it is not the best choice compared to more modern 30-06, 308 design. With all that said it also falls into George Washingtons quote “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon, and citizen’s firearms are indelibly related. From the moment the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference; they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good. When firearms, go all goes; we need them every hour”
  
  Report this comment
- Rob in Katy
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 6:17pm
  And the point is? The Constitution, the 2nd, means for US to HAVE the same weapons as the Military, not something else less effective. There should be no distinction when we discuss what we have the RIGHT to own. This Military Weapons BS is something that the Traitors and the media are using to make a false argument.
  
  Report this comment
Cavallo
Posted on March 19, 2013 at 5:11pm
Facts don’t matter to leftists. Just emotion. They want to incrementally deprive the American of weapons to defend herself from them. They want victims, slaves, and boot licking sycophants; the ideal leftist is all of the above.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
denkat56
Posted on March 19, 2013 at 5:08pm
I wish I could afford one, with the standard clip, no more no less.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- LakeHartwellSailor
  Posted on March 19, 2013 at 5:17pm
  Magazine…not clip. Don’t mean to be a stickler for symantecs; but it is an important distinction.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.