Our follow-up on Mayor Bloomberg's recent court setback will have to wait. A terrible thing happened yesterday that we need to talk about now, as the facts unfold:
An Alabama man with an assault weapon burned down his mother's house around her, shot his grandparents, aunt and uncle dead, then killed five other people Tuesday before turning the gun on himself, authorities said.
Gun owners are right to wonder if this is the event that will be the catalyst for making a new 'assault weapon' ban a priority.
Why?
We know Obama wants to ban semiautomatic firearms.
We know Eric Holder does, too, and thinks it's important enough to talk about the game plan before the rest of the team is suited up.
We know the Brady Campaign is hot on the heels of any opportunity to exploit their push "to restrict civilian access to military-style assault weapons."
And we know from history how "massacre" events are used as fulcrums to leverage support for gun bans.
We saw it in California.
So it's not like there's not a pattern.
As I observed when the House leadership was scrambling to distance themselves from Holder's early disclosure:
Anyone who thinks we're not one highly publicized incident away from a reinvigorated full court press to ban semiautomatics and more is kidding themselves.
The popular wisdom says Team Obama is too busy with other priorities. In case anyone hasn't noticed, the economy is in the toilet, the guy can't even assemble a cabinet, and some are beginning to express "buyer's remorse" as his popularity slips. And if the history of "gun control" edicts shows us anything, it's that when politicians have no clue, what better way is there to distract, make it look like they're doing something, and get favorable publicity, than to propose something that will be wildly popular with the media?
But aren't I being premature and hysterical?
Pray that I am. Pray that enough floodlights are turned on and enough pots are banged by "extremists" like me to give those who would exploit yesterday's killings pause in advancing their agenda.
And while you're at it, get ready for the predictable blood dance.
UPDATE: The situation in Germany won't help.
UPDATE 2: Bloomberg News is reporting the killer "fired about 30 rounds from an automatic weapon..." Informed gun owners will understand the significance of this. Did the reporter get it right, or is this more intentional or uninformed misreporting?
Check out the latest from other Gun Rights Examiners:
Austin Gun Rights Examiner: Gun control, pro-choice women, and the Brady Campaign
Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner: Baiting liberals for fun and profit!
Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner: Holding gun manufacturers responsible for crime
DC Gun Rights Examiner: Federal law suit filed after DC refuses to register handgun because it’s the wrong color
Denver Gun Rights Examiner: Let's get guns on campus....in the right hands
LA Gun Rights Examiner: Gun Lobby Outvotes D.C, Part II: The Hell of consequences.
Milwaukee:
Minneapolis Gun Rights Examiner: The first thing you do is drag him inside
Seattle Gun Rights Examiner: Democrats still don’t get it on gun rights, says Rasmussen poll
St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner: Would George Washington want American citizens to acquiesce to oppression?
Wisconsin Gun Rights Examiner: Wisconsin's brand new 137 year old carry law
Comments
And now we have another crazed gun wielder in Germany who shot 10 kids at a school.
I don't mind people owning personal firearms but I don't see how assault weapons are good.
Karen,
You're correct. "Assault weapons" aren't good. However, they aren't bad either. What anything is used for is 100% the responsibility of the person using the tool. I'm sure we would all rather see good people with firearms rather than bad ones, but once you realize that there is no way to keep bad people from getting guns, the only solution is to make sure more good, law-abiding people have them.
Don't make the mistake of blaming the tool, or think we should remove the tool from everyone else because someone twisted did something bad with one.
For that, we need to look at:
A. What an "assault weapon" is
B. An ultimate, last resort purpose behind the Second Amendment and
C. What you're prepared to have society do when men like me refuse to give ours up.
That last one is the real stickler.
RKBA supporters: Light, not heat, please.
The shooter in the Illinois church "left an arsenal of guns in his bedroom".
What constitutes an "arsenal" these days to the lame stream media?
"two 12-gauge shotguns, a rifle and a box of 550 .22-caliber bullets"
A brick and a box of 22 rounds? 2 shotguns? A rifle?
Many of here keep that many handy in our homes.
"the guy can't even assemble a cabinet"
it's funny you mention this, because the actual messiah -- if you're christian, anyways -- was the son of a carpenter, after all.
"arsenal (n) : a MILITARY establishment for the storing, development, manufacturing, testing, or repairing of arms, ammunition, and other war materiel."
Don't be fooled. The anti gun crowd's ultimate goal is to ban all private possession of firearms. The so called "assault weapons" are just the low hanging fruit due to the ease that the general public can be conned into associating them with machine guns.
The simple truth is that any weapon used to assault another person is an assault weapon. If Brady et al ever succeed in getting the military lookalikes banned they will only consider that permission to go after the next target. Probably those evil semi-auto handguns or the deadly bolt action scoped sniper rifles used to kill tens of thousands every year. The dead of course are deer and other legitimate game, but that detail will get missed somehow.
Logic and reason are on the side of the pro Second Ammendment crowd. That should be the end of it. But the other side shows no more inclination to let logic and reason stand in their way than they have in the past. As Rahm says: "Never let a good crisis go to waste".
And lets not forget the more folks were killed in Germany where they have MUCH stricter gun laws, proving that the gun laws don't work. . .
But, but, Germans are so above this kind of thing; they have much more comprehensive gun control. Only we brutish Ami thugs do gun violence :p
Flash point? Not yet. The big one will be a false flag operation with much more bloodshed, although this is a step in the wrong direction.
@Karen Harper:
So with a firearm you can't go balistic - just with assault weapon (whatever that might be) enable you to do that...? Think!
No gun law will ever prevent a pyscho or a criminal from getting a gun.
Karen, seriously, I don't mean any offense - what is your definition of "assault weapon"? What are they and what makes them more deadly than any other kind of weapon? If you're just misinformed by the media, that is understandable since they have waged a deliberate effort to misinform. But everyone has a responsibility to accept the truth.
What saddens me is that Alabama is a conceal carry state - yet not one of the victims or any bystanders returned fire. The only way to stop this kind of violence is to put more guns in the hands of responsible citizens. That is what we should be demanding.
Crazed killers by definition do not obey gun laws.
Its not the guns but the mind controlling drugs in every one of these mass killings.
Notice the cops that got shot at didn't return fire, another problem. They more than likely are fat parasites who wet themselves.
Here's what's scary. The Alabama shooter, Michael McClendon, had an AK-47, AR-15, a shotgun, and 2 pistols on his spree. I think we'll find that before getting laid off, he was considered a normal, average person; like many of us consider ourselves, and like we always hear about people who end up committing crimes like these after being put in extraordinarily stressful situations. I like my handguns for personal protection, too; but who really NEEDS an AK and an AR? The damage potential with those weapons is considerably more severe than what he could have accomplished with regular self-defense weapons; and it actually made him better armed than the police pursuing him. Normal people turn abnormal every day when put in dire straits; so I'm tired of the assertions that only crazy people and career criminals commit gun violence. That being the case, why enable them with something designed for the battlefield? At least give other citizens and police a fighting chance with their own normal weapons.
It will be Karen's point that the disarmers lean on most heavily, because that will divide our house quite effectively without conceding anything. It is a favorite tactic, and unfortunately it works very well, because most people are easily distracted from the real question by something that creates horrible mental imagery--and thus easily taken in by red herrings such as, "nobody needs [insert category here]" or "I can understand [category X] but not [category Y]", or the like. Even otherwise reasonable people are taken in by this Faustian pact; its professional salesmen have been at it a long time and are masters at human exploitation.
The problem, of course, is that what underpins this way of looking at things is an absolute faith in, and implicit conferrence of legitimacy on, a very specific party to "take care" of the problem. This worldview has been so effectively drilled into us since the day we were born that this party need not even be named, but we all know what it is--wait for it--government.
- The government the Founders warned us would try to do exactly this sort of thing, given enough time and leeway to do so.
- The government that has had such wild success with every--uh, most--hmm...some--er, a few--help me out here, guys--ANY?--social or economic malady they so arrogantly claim authority, expertise and jurisdiction over?
- The government that does such a remarkably noble job of restraining itself to the limits specifically written into its charter document.
- The government that so nobly recuses itself each time--uh, most--maybe some--huh, WHEN, actually?--from any situation that is prohibited it by the Bill of Rights' protection of individual liberties.*
THAT is who we implicitly trust to "take care" of such a grave problem? Ever read history? It takes some pretty creative revisionism to miss the central theme of government's core personality. Simply put, there is no entity in human history that is more untruthful, manipulative, coercive, bloodthirsty, exploitative, encroaching, self-aggrandizing, arrogant, sanctimonious, intolerant, and documentably murderous, than government. "A disease masquerading as its own cure," indeed--its only real talents are the very worst things humans are capable of. Why in the blue marble, then, do we continue to automatically confer it authority, competency and legitimacy?--because it is absolutely not from any reading of any history I've ever seen.
*Whatever* the problem is, we can do better than that. Hell, we DID do better than that, before the pernicious piddlewits got really good at stealing our money and using it to create problems to solve. (Drug war, anyone?) But in order to do that, we have to admit that there are other solutions than PROVEN FAILURE.
It's not about statistics, safety, or street crime. No new law/infringement/edict/program/effort is suddenly going to do what the tens of thousands that came before it have failed to do. It takes a red herring, and a darn good one, apparently, to make us forget that complete failure.
There is another way of looking at the world, although even its very discussion will be shouted down as heresy by useful idiots everywhere, and the witch-hunt campaign will begin.
In the end, we will of course get some sort of AWB, because as usual, the goons are not asking. (JD Tuccille recently said, "Governments are the only vendors that don't let customers walk away", which I think just absolutely nails it.) What we do with this will set the course for our future.
"Assault weapons", whatever those are, may or may not be good. (They did pretty well for some Old Dead White Guys, "Domestic Terrorists" to an oppressive government that wanted to disarm them for their own good, long ago and far away...) But we KNOW, from history, that government is not good.
Which brings us right back to David's stickler. This sentiment will continue to grow, now, in direct proportion--direct RESPONSE--to the continued removal of peaceable alternative options by those uninterested in leaving the peaceable alone.
_______________
* If one accepts the "Only Ones" as the "standing army" the Founders wrote of, which is hard to dismiss with continued militarization of even small-town police agencies, then every provision of the Bill of Rights has already been violated. Every one.
G8R8U2 says:
...I like my handguns for personal protection, too; but who really NEEDS an AK and an AR? The damage potential with those weapons is considerably more severe than what he could have accomplished with regular self-defense weapons; and it actually made him better armed than the police pursuing him. Normal people turn abnormal every day when put in dire straits; so I'm tired of the assertions that only crazy people and career criminals commit gun violence. That being the case, why enable them with something designed for the battlefield? At least give other citizens and police a fighting chance with their own normal weapons.
Texas Shooter says:
I like my pickup truck, but who really NEEDS a Corvette? The damage potential with those cars is considerably more severe that what a drunk could have accomplished with a regualr vehicle; and the Corvette actually made the criminal have a faster and better handling vehicle than the police pursuing him. ... I'm tired of the assertions that only crazy people and drunks drive recklessly or impaired.That being the case, why enable crazies and drunks with something designed for the racetrack? At least give other citizens and police a fighting chance with their normal vehicles.
G8R8U2, I have an AR. Should it be taken away from me?
Why are AR-15s and semi-automatic AK-47 copies bad? (I assume it was not a real AK-47, and if it was, it was already illegal to own) Are all .223 and .308 rifles bad, or just ones that look like the ones soldiers carry?
If this killer had used bolt action rifles of the same caliber, would that have been less scary? I can work a bolt and re-aim pretty fast - not quite as fast as my AR-15 reloads, but it really wouldn't make any difference if people were running or not. I'm sure I could take out as many people as this guy did. Is that less scary?
So, serious question - would you honestly be less scared if this guy had fired the same bullets from a different looking rifle?
I deeply resent the idea that poverty, unemployment, or stressful life circumstances are the factors that drive nutcases to commit these horrible crimes. There are millions of people who are unemployed, poverty-stricken, or stressed out that DON’T take a firearm and kill other people.
There is a previous poster who suggests that no one needs anything beyond the basic self-defense weapons. That same poster opines that the shooter even outgunned the police. It seems in this person’s mind that the police should have bazookas, and the citizenry should be content with slingshots! I don’t think so.
Texas Shooter says:
I like my pickup truck, but who really NEEDS a Corvette? The damage potential with those cars is considerably more severe that what a drunk could have accomplished with a regualr vehicle; and the Corvette actually made the criminal have a faster and better handling vehicle than the police pursuing him. ... I'm tired of the assertions that only crazy people and drunks drive recklessly or impaired.That being the case, why enable crazies and drunks with something designed for the racetrack? At least give other citizens and police a fighting chance with their normal vehicles.
Wow, and I thought there could be some sensible discussion of the topic. That's about as stupid a reply as could be made. I'm not aware of too many folks choosing a corvette to go on murder sprees. That always seems to be the argument of lesser educated gun-rights activists... compare guns to some other object in society that also happens to kill people. Except people don't pick up these other objects to go murder people. The fact of the matter is, we have to draw the line somewhere. Anybody choosing an AK or AR for self-protection or self-defense would be the very people who have no business handling firearms at all. First, there's virtually no situation in real life where either of those weapons would be the optimal choice to defend yourself or your home. A handgun or shotgun are those choices. Self-defense, by definition, makes the use of a high-powered automatic rifle a poor choice; because self-defense takes place in close quarters. The only thing a person could defend themselves against with one of those would be a military assault of their home by an army; and it would have to be at a much greater distance than a front yard. In fact, defending one's home with either one in a neighborhood would be just as likely to kill a neighbor as the intruders, because of the rounds. Second, nobody in their right mind hunts with either one of them, either. Why? Because they're not the ideal tool for the job; same as self-defense. I could defend my property or kill a deer with a bomb, too; but I don't hear anybody saying we should let all citizens carry those around. Like I said, there has to be a line. Let's face it... those kinds of guns are toys for adult-aged adolescents. They're fun to shoot; but really don't have any practical purpose in the everyday lives of average Americans. And, their availability makes the potential for disaster, either by the owner or the burglar who's stolen them, outweigh their value to private citizens.
"First, there's virtually no situation in real life where either of those weapons would be the optimal choice to defend yourself or your home."
Have you mentioned that to the Korean business owners who used so-called "assault weapons" to defend their businesses during the L.A. Rodney King riots, G8R8U2? In some areas, businesses defended by such means were about the only ones to survive.
It's not up to you or anyone else to tell me what I don't "need."
By the way, the massacre in Germany, where gun laws are VASTLY more restrictive than anywhere in the U.S., kinda calls into question the effectiveness of gun laws for stopping violence, doesn't it?
G8R8U2, Someone exposes your use of an idiotic post hoc arguments and you turn to ad hominem arguments. Good work @$$hole.
G8R8U2, you again fail to address any of my points. You seem to think hunting rifles are just fine, yet a hunting rifle would have done the job for this shooter just as well. He could have easily attained the same body count.
Semi automatic rifles have plenty of uses. They are the weapon of choice in a natural disaster or civil unrest. You can defend a larger piece of property from a greater distance. They are also more useful against tyrannical governments and their standing armies - you know, all that stuff the Founders wrote that pesky and inconvenient Second Amendment for. It was never the intent that the citizenry would have less useful weapons than the military.
G8, your response to Texas shooter is immature in the extreme. Why? Because you miss the central point of his comment and opine that it wasn't reasonable.
Of course the strictures mentioned in his comment were unreasonable, which was the point he was making. They were parallel in unreasonableness to something you said earlier. You don't "need" a Corvette, but we don't have the right to tell you you can't have one. Yet, you would deny rights to arms to others based on what you think we might need? Isn't that just a little hypocritical, especially when one considers that the right to arms is a natural right whose protection from government infringement is guaranteed by our constitution? Which by the way, your right to a Corvette is not, at least not an enumerated right.
You don't get to decide what I "need", or what I might have based on what you think I might need. If liberty is so foreign to you that you would control the exercise of rights for others, why would you think others cannot deny you the same?
If you truly want reasonable discussion, quit being unreasonable.
And I haven't even addressed the erroneous assertions you make as to suitability and/or likelihood of the need for such weapons. You assert that you know what is best for defense and that no scenarios will play out where these particular arms are of legitimate utility. You even pretend to make psychological assertions about the type of people who own or buy certain arms. My, aren't you the arrogant one?
Insightful response, Steve. You must have been the valedictorian of your class.
Kurt, you're right... it's certainly not up to me to decide what you need. However, we do live under a set of laws that determines what we all can and can't possess. I'm sure there are lots of people who think they NEED lots of things that they simply aren't allowed to. We could banter all day about the spirit of the Second Amendment; but I hardly think the folks drafting it had AK's and AR's in mind. In any event, the instances where the use of them is appropriate has been far less than the instances of their misuse. And, considering the potential, they just don't make much sense; regardless of whether or not anyone THINKS they need it. I mean, I guess if you were a Korean business owner in L.A. during the riots, you're thankful you had them; although I never read anything about any business owners warding off the rioters with their AR's and AK's. Of course, I guess they could have just as easily had insurance, and avoided that mess altogether. Some have opined that there's no difference between having a regular rifle that's .223 or .308 and one that's of this variety. Well, that's ridiculous, of course; but assuming that's true, then why have an AR or AK instead of a regular hunting rifle in those calibers? I'm a gun owner. I've always been an advocate for private gun ownership. I just don't see the need for these particular types of guns; and I'm a firm believer in the idea that, regardless of whether it's a right or privilege to have them, if they overwhelmingly cause more harm than good, they're a bad idea.
As for scenarios in which there might be a legitimate use for weapons like these, I simply agree with the thoughts in articles I've read in Shooting Times and Guns & Ammo. Most of the time, the authors of those articles have said there simply aren't many instances where those would be good choices for self-defense. For one thing, for it to be self-defense, a perpetrator has to be within a certain distance... a distance which makes almost any firearm sufficient. If a person or people are far enough away to actually need a high-powered round, they're far enough away for it to no longer be self-defense. Inside the home, long guns aren't ideal because of the confines... again, according to "experts". Additionally, the rounds from those kinds of weapons could travel through your walls and into the homes of neighbors at sufficient velocity to kill innocent people. Those assertions by those authors of the articles made perfect sense to me. If they don't make sense to other people, that's fine. Personally, and that's what we're talking about here (our own opinions), I feel like if I can't put down, disarm, or convince an intruder he's picked the wrong house with the number of rounds I have in my .357 or .45, I probably don't have any business handling guns in the first place.
G8,
I'll contemplate ditching my AR10 the moment the .gov does. Not a moment sooner.
I gladly support your right to decide which weapons are appropriate for you - as long as its reciprocal.
Using your logic of "does more harm than good", shouldn't we ban swimming pools? The number of drownings is far and above that of deaths caused by a military style weapon. I mean, swimming pools are enjoyable and all (kind of like I and many others enjoy 3 gun competitions using an AR style rifle), but really - what "good" are swimming pools? The potential for drowning still exists.
G8,
If you're following the "experts", your handguns are FAR more dangerous than a shotgun for CQB. Check out some of the vids on downrange TV. Those handgun rounds have plenty of power to go through multiple walls and injure an innocent.
Back on topic - we still have very few details of what occurred in AL. Likely, we'll never know the reason why. But, I wonder, if someone "snaps", what prevents that person from devising some other evil and heinous way to kill a large number of innocent people? Suicide bombers come to mind immediately.
I keep an M-4 variant by the bed and my .45 is always on my belt that's already in my pants.
I live on a very rural property. If somebody attacks me, trespasses at night with cause to do harm, I have the right to shoot them. Even in the back, according to Texas law, not that I'd wish to have to do so.
If the dogs get riled or something's up in the night that's disturbing, I'm going out the door or through my house with a Carbine AND a .45.
There's a sign at the end of the drive that says trespassers will be shot. It' ain't a joke sign and I'll own what I like. .45s and .357s are sidearms. I have plenty of those. They aren't rifles.
You being full of yourself doesn't make you the arbiter for all things good in the world of defensive firearms, G8R8U2. And it sure as hell doesn't give you the right to determine what my needs are or might be.
If it's worth shooting with a handgun, it's worth shooting with a shotgun... then it's definitely worth shooting with a rifle and the rifle is and always will be the Queen of any battlefield short of artillery and airstrikes.
Personally, if somebody or a gang comes in your house with actual firepower, rather than a pistol, you aren't worthy and you don't deserve to own firearms if they know what they are doing and you will be killed. Maybe you should go turn in your .357 and .45 now and save waiting for it to be proven later?
You're right about a rifle not always being the right choice for home defense. I live in a condo and overpenetration would be guaranteed. It would be irresponsible to fire that in my home. I have a .40 handgun for that instead.
But if there's ever a natural disaster like Katrina in my area, and I need to go pick up my mother to make sure she's safe, you bet I'm bringing the AR-15 with me.
Right tool for the right job.
Sorry G8R8U2, I didn't mean to post as you, I was trying to address you and I put your name in the Name field.
Disenfranchised Citizens Slaughtered Per American Law
March 9th, 2009, in Atlanta, Georgia, nine innocent people, denied the right to self-defense under penalty of imprisonment, were killed by a deranged man with a firearm. The shooter, obviously aware of the Law that would have caused extreme grief to his victims, used the opportunity to slaughter them without opposition.
Atlanta police were not at the scene of the shootings, because the police have no responsibility to be there to protect each of as as individuals. Their only charge is to harass and or arrest those individuals who own firearms to protect themselves, thus making the police more useless than they already are.
We can all be grateful to the fine law enforcement individuals of Atlanta for the excellent way they arrived to catalog and report the events after the nine individuals were slaughtered.
Hopefully someone will sue the Georgia and Atlanta governments for forcing innocent individuals to “stand naked and unarmed” before their attacker. The only reason these people are dead is because elected officials, seeking ultimate power without responsibility, used their private armed thugs to ensure that we are unable to oppose them when they force us to bend to their will.
God and Sam Colt have mercy on the soles of the slaughtered. As for the elected officials and their hired thugs....
Byline
Steven G. Bub
G8, I no longer much care about the arguments about fine points, so I'll not bother with them. My question is simply this: regardless of the (rather arrogant) question of "suitability" for the peasantry, when--EXACTLY--did it become acceptable to put the choice of what is evil and what is good, into the most provably abusive hands in human history? When did that make the leap from suicidal lunacy to legitimate policy discussion? And what are you prepared to do, personally, when the same point that you concede now, is later pressed on something that you DO care about? Do you think that those you appear to cast aside here will suddenly rush to your aid?
Seems to me that it's awfully easy to lob judgments at people who have done nothing wrong, while implicitly granting authority and legitimacy to that unnamed "force" (oh, and they're all about that) whose principal activity is forcible subjugation in the name of [whatever it wants to do today] and consolidation of its power.
(Enforced at the point, I might add, of evil black rifles.)
I find this a peculiar point of view, and I have yet to see an intelligible defense of it.
Here's a list of the weapons used... No indication of the 'automatic' status of the bushmaster, but as you know, the SKS is not an assault rifle and is not fully automatic.
www[.]montgomeryadvertiser[.]com/article/20090311/NEWS/90311038
"McLendon was armed with two assault rifles, an SKS and a Bushmaster, using high-capacity magazines taped together; a shotgun; and a.38-caliber handgun. At this time we believe that he fired in excess of 200 rounds during the assaults."
See David, DIGG does work. It pointed one of the anti-freedom folks here to spew some "reasonable restrictions" crap to bolster the gun banners argument.
"The damage potential with those weapons is considerably more severe than what he could have accomplished with regular self-defense weapons"
I'm throwing the BS FLAG. The "damage potential" from ANY firearm, as well as millions of everyday objects is the same. Death.
We saw on 911 that "something designed for the battlefield" can be improvised from everyday objects with just a bit of outside the box thinking. Hey, looky there, a big flying thing with loads of fuel that we can put precisely where we want to do loads of damage.
"At least give other citizens and police a fighting chance with their own normal weapons."
AH! "Fairness"! Everyone needs to be equal in your socialist paradise police state.
Man the level of stupid coming from you gatorraper or whatever the hell you name is scares me.
Let’s not cloud the issue. It’s not about what kind of gun, the caliber, how many rounds it holds or it’s possible uses. It’s about a RIGHT. A right that was so important it is second only to free speech. It was put there to ensure we always have a way to fight tyranny, to oppose a government that cares more about power than its citizens. An agenda is often advanced under the guise of something other then It’s true intent and we should not swallow the sugar coated poison pill and believe it’s good for us “cause is tasted good at the time”. Read the federalist papers and the other writings of the founding fathers. There is no mention anywhere on the sporting uses, restrictions of types or calibers of any fire arms. At the time flintlocks and muskets were the assault weapons of the time and EVERYONE owned one. Guns are a tool just like any other it can be abused or used for good. Instead of banning the tool go after the abusers of the tool. They tried the gun banning thing and it didn’t work. Time to try something new that makes sense and doesn’t infringe on ones rights.
The focus of law should be on taking those individuals off the street who "initiate the use of force to violate the inalienable individual right to life and property of other human beings". Any individual human being who initiates the use of force to violate the inalienable individual right of another human being, irrespective of the object or substance used, is a criminal to that extent. By said criminal act, the initiator of force, at that moment loses the right to life or any protection under the law and may be deal with by the moral retaliatory use of force at any level essential for the intended victim to maintain his or her right to life and property inviolate against criminal aggression including lethal force.
It matters not to a victim or victims what kind of gun or whether they were injured or killed by a truck, automobile, baseball bat, coke bottle, poison or the hundreds of thousands of other objects and/or substances that can be used to cause injury or death. i.e., the focus of the law should be on the "INITIATOR", i.e., THE CRIMINAL who initiated the use of force to commit the act of aggression against another human being!
Once again guns are tools. And just like my craftsman toolset there are certain tools that I rarely use, but I’m dam glad I have them when I need em! We have to remember that guns are primarily there to fight the government. Hunting, target shooting, ect. are a great bonus but not their primary intended purpose. If the government has full auto M-16s, We should at least have semi-autoAR-15s. You cant fight an army with slingshots and harsh language. Always remember that a right that is regulated, is not a right. It’s a privilege. And a privilege can be taken away….
~Brogan
"If a person or people are far enough away to actually need a high-powered round, they're far enough away for it to no longer be self-defense."--GR8RT8U2
By definition, battle carbines such as the 5.56 NATO and 7.62x39 are not "high-powered rounds". That distinction is reserved for the .30-06 Springfield/7.62 NATO and 7.62x54, so please ditch that straw man argument.
"[T]he rounds from those kinds of weapons could travel through your walls and into the homes of neighbors at sufficient velocity to kill innocent people."
In fact, 5.56 Nato has less penetration than may handgun rounds, which is why SWAT teams have rapidly been adopting the AR-15 battle carbine for urban deployment.
"We could banter all day about the spirit of the Second Amendment; but I hardly think the folks drafting it had AK's and AR's in mind."
In fact, military arms is exactly the type of weapon they had in mind.
Why don't you back off on your studies of tactics and constitutional law for a while? Batman comic books seem to be better suited to your intellectual development.
Military style semi-auto riles are used in competition, they are used in hunting varmints and smll game due to their lack of power for larger animals like deer. They are used for self defense and whatever owner want to legally own them for. Thats the factor about rights you don't have to have a need.
I cannot speak for the rest of you. I can only say that I will own what I damn well please and can afford, whether it be weapons, automobiles, books, or tiddlewinks.
And, I refuse to justify to man, god, or government my reasons for owning them.
How is that Germany example even possible? Aren't Europeans all disarmed unlike us barbaric Americans?
G8R8U2 says: "...I'm a firm believer in the idea that, regardless of whether it's a right or privilege to have them, if they overwhelmingly cause more harm than good, they're a bad idea."
How many of the exact same guns, on any given day, "caused more harm than good?"
On the same day that this murder spree happened, 80 million gun owners committed no crime. So the answer is to disarm these folks - or just the ones who have semi-auto military pattern guns.
There's "no need" for many potentially harmful things. But then, I just read that a bunch of folks in Massachusetts watched as an 80 year old woman was strangled on an escalator because no one had a blade with which to cut her scarf.
Many jurisdictions but bans on inanimate objects, and the old maxim about unintended consequences rears its ugly head.
Many politicians have body guards armed with full-auto military rifles. Why is this? Do their guards really "need" those guns?
It's not a matter of "need." And if some folks can't understand the direct correlation of the excellent "Corvette" analogy, there's little reason for debate.
Rifles aren't even in the top ten of firearms used in crime. The only long gun in the group is the Mossberg 12 gauge pump shotgun at number five. Number one is the S&W 38 spl revolver. The Blood Dancers don't like to talk about that, of course, because it would make it harder to hide the real agenda of complete disarmament of all but the servants of the state. Don Perata and Diane Feinstein will keep their guns _and_ their heavily armed bodyguards. Maybe a token like Stephen Spielberg will be allowed to keep his collection of "assault" weapons as a reward for his help in disarming the little people.
Why are assault rifles legal in the first place? They aren't ever a necessity to protect your family, property, or to hunt so what purpose do they serve? They only serve one purpose. Killing people quickly. Sure, they may be entertaining to fire but that entertainment is not worth all of the destruction they cause. I don't mind guns, but these kind of guns should be banned. If you really need to shoot somebody to protect something, do it one shot at a time.
Many of the same people that support these kind of weapons also support the US drug war. That is entirely hypocritical considering their normal argument is that "the government is taking away their civil liberties". Well if the government bans anything, they are taking away your liberties. Some things need banned. Adjustable rate mortgages, hard drugs and assault weapons. I don't think it is too much to give up for a healthier, livelier society.
"If you really need to shoot somebody to protect something, do it one shot at a time."
That's the problem, Cody. You've accepted what you've been told and formed an opinion based on that. There was not one single rifle on the 1994 "assault weapon" ban--and not any proposed for the new ban--that don't do exactly that--fire one shot at a time.
And if you did even more homework, and familiarized yourself with who I am and what I stand for before presuming you know, you'd find I am a very vocal critic of the Drug War.
Funny though--if the guns you fear are only meant for killing, why would you want the government to be the only ones that have them? Read much history? Or do you believe that being on the public dole somehow gives one powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men?
Bottom line, though, Cody- No. I'm not giving mine up.
Now what? Your move.
G8R8U2 says:
"That always seems to be the argument of lesser educated gun-rights activists... compare guns to some other object in society that also happens to kill people."
Is that what you just did when you said:
"I could defend my property or kill a deer with a bomb, too; but I don't hear anybody saying we should let all citizens carry those around."
23+ million gun owners killed no one today. You're welcome.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!