This being the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner, I have so far looked only at what is going on right at the local level. Starting now, though, I am going to expand the focus. Gun rights in St. Louis are, after all, seriously impacted by state and federal gun laws. This is not to say that I will abandon local gun rights issues--as they come up, I'll discuss them, but to focus on local events exclusively would be to ignore many of the most pressing gun rights issues facing St. Louisans and others.
One type of proposed federal law that incessantly comes up for discussion is a new federal ban on so-called "assault weapons." The last such ban, of course, expired in 2004, after which, suddenly . . . such firearms continued to be used in only a tiny percentage of violent crimes. That little detail hasn't deterred the gun prohibitionists, though, who constantly comb the news waiting for the next killing in which such firearms are used, in order to have something to point to in order to make their case.
This time, it's Miami that has provided fodder for the citizen disarmament advocates, with a shooting involving an "AK-47" (I suspect that it was a semi-automatic copy of an AK-47, rather than a real, fully automatic one--real AK-47s have been, and continue to be, regulated under laws much more restrictive than the AWB).
Miami police issued a plea for information Saturday after at least one person with an assault rifle opened fire on a crowd of people on a streetcorner Friday night, killing two teens and wounding seven other people.
Certainly a horrible and tragic event, but I would argue that such violence is more an indication of the amount of work that needs to be done in repairing the badly frayed social fabric of this country, than it is an effective argument for restricting peaceable citizens' access to certain popular firearms, in a doomed attempt to keep those firearms out of the hands of criminals.
That, however, is exactly how some would use this incident.
"These are weapons of war, and they don't belong on the streets of Miami or any other street in America," Mayor Manuel Diaz said.
Like Mayor Slay, Mayor Diaz is a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and the fallacy of that group's claim that they're only interested in stopping illegal guns is exposed by the number of now legal guns they would like to make illegal (the AR-15, for example, generally considered an "assault weapon" by the prohibitionists, is now the biggest selling centerfire rifle in the U.S.).
In their drive to ban so-called "assault weapons," the mayors have powerful allies in the federal government, including a president and vice president who have made no secret of their wish to do so.
They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.
Vice President Biden, by the way, was one of the original sponsors of the now expired ban. Eric Holder, whom President Obama has chosen, pending Senate confirmation, as the Attorney General, has stated that he believes the Supreme Court's Heller decision poses no obstacle to such a ban.
And I had mentioned, I think, closing the gun show loophole, the banning of cop-killer bullets and I would also think that making the assault weapons ban permanaent wold be someting that would be permitted under Heller, and I also think would be good for my law enforcement perspective.
President Obama seems already to have abandoned even the pretense of honoring his campaign promises to "respect the Second Amendment," and we can expect the agenda of smotheringly restrictive gun laws to get underway in earnest any time now.
Are you ready for it?
----------
In other news, please join me in extending a warm welcome to our newest Gun Rights Examiner, Paul Valone, of the Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner. When it comes to gun rights advocacy, this is far from his first rodeo, and I have no doubt he will bring a lot of good insight to the discussion. In fact, he already has brought it, and on a subject near and dear to me--"Mayors Against Illegal Guns." Even if you're nowhere near Charlotte, please give him a look, along with the other Gun Rights Examiners.
- National Gun Rights Examiner: For the children (part two)
- Los Angeles Gun Rights Examiner: Three little words, Part I: take me shooting.
- Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner: More ccw training equals more priveleges?
- Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner: 'Gun Trafficking' bill for NC? Part 2: How 'Mayors Against Illegal Guns' lies to you
Comments
When you disarm the citizenry, then only criminals will have guns, not to mention that we will be helpless in the face of the coming Obama tyranny
Teachers get all the blame and responsibility for education. No one dares say that the real problem is rampant poor parenting. Such is the problem with gun control. Swiping the guns is not the solution and as you say, Kurt, "Work needs to be done to repair the badly frayed social fabric.."
It is not the tool, nor the possession of any specific tool that makes a person dangerous to others. It is their attitude and moral character.
Possession of any specific tool does not change their character. And, as has been said many times, those inclined to harm others will certainly not be stopped by any "laws" against hurting people, much less prohibitions on certain tools. Making it difficult or impossible for everyone else to possess those tools for self defense will not change that - but will most certainly make it easier for the criminal to harm others.
Anyone who cannot be trusted not to harm others (regardless of the tool) should not be allowed out of jail or should be accompanied by a guardian. If we let them out of jail, the "punishment" should end.
And we can discuss another time all of those prohibited from self defense tools because of bogus "crimes" where nobody was harmed at all.
I also urge everyone to stop using the term "assault weapon." It merely feeds those who would destroy both our liberty and our lives. Assault is a behavior, not the name of an object.
Freedom of speach, thought, assembly and worship, Not having soldiers posted in your house without consent, Not being forced to testify against ones self, being free from unwarrented search and seizure, all of these things are basic civil rights protected in the constitution amendment's 1,3,4 and 5. Somehow, there's an invisible amendment in there that people can not see, do not hear, and still claim they "Defend the constitution" even though they trample it under foot. It's the right of the people to keep and bear arms, a right that the Federal government is told it shall not infringe.
It is one thing to regulate criminals, the insane, and those who have proven themselves a danger to others, but to violate and suppress the obvious civil rights of persons who have committed no offense is completely against the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law. As a matter of American principle, the people's right to keep and bear arms must not be infringed, and this includes arms relevant to defense of self, community and even the nation. As such, AK-47s, AR-15s, and even M16s are completely relevant arms for civilian possesion, and deserve protection under the civil rights guarded by the 2nd amendment.
But I'll still have a really useful battle rifle even if I turned in all my ARs. Bet this one won't make the list of banned things...shhhh...thisisnot_a_url_ormaybe_it_is_h t t p :/ /www.gokart.net/shop-utopia/mccann/rifles/458garand/458garand.html
Darn filters! You'll figure it out.
John Garand did a pretty good job but he started with an undersized cartridge for bunker busting. Luckily, we now have the technology to fix old Garands to use proper ammunition.
Wow--I had no idea Garands could be "hotrodded" that way. I should have been able to guess that it would be you who DID know, though, Tom ;-).
My on and off GF accuses me and my tastes (liking guns) as being phallic (she grew up in Cali so she can't entirely help it).
But since the .458 Garand is actually SHORTER than an issue Garand, am I desirous of having a smaller but monumentally effective phallus? I'm confused in a new fashion now by the anti-gunner "penis size==bigger gun" equivalency they seem to like to postulate upon. Where's Freud when you need him?
I should e-mail her and ask.
BTW: Mine is being done in .458 Lott not WinMag as you know I don't like the Win cartridge case capacity compared to Lott or .450 Ackley.
Pardon the threadjack.
I've said it before, Tom, but it bears repeating: You da' man (da' CRAZY man, but I like that)!
Arm yourselves now while you still can!
RT
www.total-privacy.us.tc
"coming Obama tyranny..." Im with most of you guys in that banning a gun based on a certain look or features is incredibly dumb. The only tyranny we have to be afraid of is the one caused by economic collapse which was brought on by the policies and actions of the previous administration. Look at what is going on in Iceland today. That is our future here in the United States. The only reason to ban guns is if you are afraid that the population might actually use them against you. Bush might have loved guns, but he sure did his best to create situations where people might find reason to use them. Wouldnt peace be preferable?
When the US gives up all nukes, I'll give up all my guns. Till then, the paraphrase is obvious: "You'll pry it from my cold dead hands." The same reason that the US won't give up nukes is the same reason I won't be unarmed, the criminals and crazies will be better armed and then I'm nothing but a potential victim.
So they are going to make it illegal to buy semi-auto weapons? Isn't it illegal to shoot people? So, it is illegal to shoot people and they still do it. And now it is going to be illegal to transfer semi-auto weapons and they aren't going to do it???
Doesn't the second amendment simply state that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?
While some will read that as "the government has no right to limit the type or quantity of weapons a citizen may own and use", I would contend that there are rational limits that can and should be applied. Do people need flame throwers, C4, or bazookas for self-defense and hunting? Of course not. So where does the line get drawn?
I rarely hear gun enthusiasts explain the need for automatic weapons, because the arguments are so easily shot down. Pardon the pun.
morons.
no matter how big your gun can be, bad boys will always have it bigger.
escalating your weaponry will just make you endanger more peaceful people.
suddenly . . . such firearms continued to be used in only a tiny percentage of violent crimes. That little detail hasn't deterred the gun prohibitionists, though, who constantly comb the news waiting for the next killing in which such firearms are used, in order to have something to point to in order to make their case.
Sounds like the same argument for partial birth abortions, so we should also stop making that an issue because it is such a small and trivial number.
suddenly . . . such firearms continued to be used in only a tiny percentage of violent crimes. That little detail hasn't deterred the gun prohibitionists, though, who constantly comb the news waiting for the next killing in which such firearms are used, in order to have something to point to in order to make their case.
Sounds like the same argument for partial birth abortions, so we should also stop making that an issue because it is such a small and trivial number.
suddenly . . . such firearms continued to be used in only a tiny percentage of violent crimes. That little detail hasn't deterred the gun prohibitionists, though, who constantly comb the news waiting for the next killing in which such firearms are used, in order to have something to point to in order to make their case.
Sounds like the same argument for partial birth abortions, so we should also stop making that an issue because it is such a small and trivial number.
Great. Another useless ban. Banning "assault weapons" is not going to reduce gun violence. Citizens will just use pistols and shotguns while the criminals are using the banned guns.
Seriously some of these comments are ridiculous. Look up past events in which countries banned guns and see how well that turned out (Nazi Germany).
I don't understand why certain people think they need access to assault weapons. Sure, our constitutional right to bear arms was established so that citizens could defend themselves against an oppressive army. However, looking at the size and strength of our army today, there caries little reason for Americans to arm ourselves against a force that will inevitably crush us. And by that virtue, we don't need to worry about the military turning against us - it's too big to rally everyone and people would dissent!
If assault weapons are used in such a small percentage of homicides, then surely the "non-assault" type has proven effective. Why not be content using these weapons?
The only reason I can think of to keep current gun rights is the enjoyment gained using assault weapons at the shooting range. They truly are exciting to use. However, besides their recreational purpose, there seems no real reason to keep them. Self-defense and hunting just don't require assault weapons.
Your guns keep getting stolen, and ending up in other countries where they are killing people. At least have the common sense to ban the really dangerous guns.
Or, what the hell... let people own nukes. They are "arms" after all. Banning them is clearly a violation of that piece of paper you don't care about anyway, so why not open it up?
Actually in Australia in 1996 we had a gun massacre in Tasmainia(our southern state). Our government swiftly banned ALL semi-automatic weapons and legislated to make it very difficult to own a gun. Current massacre count post 1996 in Australia? 0.
In all seriousness, what exactly do you NEED to own an AK-47 for? And if you do make it illegal to own one, it makes it a lot easier to spot illegal firearms. If you can name me 1 legitimate reason for own any combat weapon, fine... But I want a legitimate reason, and a 300 year old Bill of Rights, isn't a reason.
I've been seeing alot of these talks about the assault weapons ban as I myself am a gun-nut, but think about it, with all these restrictions they are only forcing existing weapons to have mods that will suddenly make them 'legal', but it can still spit lead out of the barrel.
Now think about countries like Australia, and most parts of Asia, where firearms are outright banned. No long list of what constitutes an assault weapon or any other bullshit like that, just banned, if it spits lead its gone.
If America is really serious about eliminating firearms in crime they should follow their example (which honestly isn't gonna do anything to crime rates, just change what weapons are found at a crime scene). Otherwise they should screw the 'assault weapons ban' because its not gonna anything to the killing capabilities of a firearm
Says John: "Your guns keep getting stolen . . . "
Just checked, and no--they DON'T "keep getting stolen"--what's your point, again?
good. they should be banned. Their has been laws and restrictions on arms even in the era that the constitution was written. the 2nd amendment does not guarantee you the right to have a gun. especially an assault weapon.
good. they should be banned. Their has been laws and restrictions on arms even in the era that the constitution was written. the 2nd amendment does not guarantee you the right to have a gun. especially an assault weapon.
you have been Dugg so a big hearty welcome to the mob of Digg libtards and barking liberal moonbats sure to arrive any time now.
I chuckle at the "cop killer" bullets ban. I practice head shots only against intruders--no body armor there! My .45 is 7 for 7 at 7 meters--not bad for an old man. If push comes to shove I can always manufacture my own (illegal anyway) dum-dums from ball ammo and a hacksaw.
My doors and windows are backed up with criss-crossed stainless steel cable that is anchored inside to the walls with eye bolts and carabiners--no surprise no-knock crap for me. It costs about $30 per door and a little less per window; easily unhooked from the inside in case of fire. I guarantee cop(s) or crook(s) cannot pull the cable loose and ever try cutting stainless steel cable with bolt cutters? Impossible. All I want is time to finish my business in the bathroom, flush the toilet, and the cable buys me at least 5 minutes--plenty of time to flush the toilet and pull up my pants.
A fishing net material inside the doorway and windows keeps flash-bang grenades by the door; if these grenades are so safe then tough cops should not be bothered if one detonates next to their ankle, right? Part of my arms race.
My cameras do not record on site. Pictures go via WiFi/mesh to my neighbors and elsewhere to preserve evidence. It is nice to be an electrical engineer. I expect the cops to lie through their teeth and want them held accountable.
My next project is some battery-powered aircraft landing lights aimed at the doorway so that intruders are blinded by the light. Also some stink-um, puke-um to be sprayed the same time the lights come on. Several gallons of marbles would be fun to watch along with a 118 dB signal horn to wake the neighbors. Gods and goddesses but I love a good arms race.
The cable/eye bolts are available from any hardware store and the decorative fish net is available from any craft store.
Have I given you enough ideas yet? All my ideas are non-lethal and not a booby-trap, just a deterrent to illegal entry.
What has the president said or done that makes you think that he abandoned his respect for the second amendment?
By their nature, citizens hold contempt for government whereas subjects dutifully champion it. The difference between the two is the level of individual freedom. Subjects will never know the loss of what they never had. The idea of the individual over the common good is just too foreign for some, but we learned long ago a common good is impossible without liberty.
Oppression and tyranny never go away. It comes in many forms and takes on many faces and history shows repeatedly that an unarmed man is a subject.
@cameron Barrie
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't crime, especially violent crime, up in Australia since 1996?
You ask for one legitimate reason to own a weapon like an AK-47. I would say that personal desire and enjoyment of such an item is a legitimate reason. You would probably disagree, but perhaps there is something you enjoy that I could argue is not worthy.....alcohol? Maybe you like fatty foods or driving a fast car. I could probably find something in your life that others would not find 'legitimate'.
@Chris Jackson
It is a commonly used argument that the power of the US army prohibits an armed populous from asserting their rights. However, let us remember Iraq. Although the insurgents were eventually aided by Iranian arms (probably), they initially held off a far superior American army with AK-47s, improvised explosives, and guerrilla tactics. Modern military power can destroy, but what good is a wasteland to the conquering power?
>> President Obama seems already to have
>> abandoned even the pretense of honoring his
>> campaign promises to "respect the Second
>> Amendment,"
How so? What did he do?
You make a statement like that and nothing to back it up with....
cameron Barrie (purportedly of OZ):
Martin Bryant used no AK-47 or semi-automatic lookalike in the Port Arthur massacres. He used an AR-15, the most popular and best selling sporting rifle in America. If you're gonna dig up dead bones to wave in my face, at least pick up the right fookin bones.
C*nt idiot.
People like you made Australia and Tasmania lose thosands and thousands of dollars in hunting tourism, just as has Canadia and the UK.
I'll take my dollars to Africa or spend them in the states, thank you.
First rule of placing an argument in a debate, don't have a GLARINGLY OBVIOUS FACT WRONG THAT MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE AN IDIOT.
Just trying to help.
"Their has been laws and restrictions on arms even in the era that the constitution was written."
Are you the English teacher I had fired from my local community college because you were teaching my friend's daughter wrong usage of words?
Says muduffer "How so? What did he do?
You make a statement like that and nothing to back it up with..."
His naming of rabidly anti-gun officials to nearly every cabinet position was a good clue (his pick for attorney general, for example, is on record as stating that the Second Amendment does not prohibit gun bans. His stated policy agenda of banning "assault weapons," mandating "childproof" guns, closing the mythical "gun show loophole," etc. are also pretty good clues as to his real position on the Second Amendment.
Why do we need to own assault weapons ?
Why attach a label to a weapon at all ?
You folks need to understand that ANY firearm is capable of harm. Caliber, magazine capacity or eye candy not withstanding.
Though it's an argument that always falls on deaf ears, it's not the weapon but the wielder that's the problem. Going after the weapon is the easy way out. Similar to banning cars for drunk driving.
I own a few weapons myself that would
fall under the ' assault ' weapon description you all like to tag them with. Including the grand daddy of the boogy-man weapons, the .50 BMG. Guess how many of them have EVER been used in a crime ?
Zero. None. Nada. Zip.
They're fun to shoot. I use the .50 for
long range target shooting. Why ? Because it's fun. Why do you smoke ? Drink ? Party ? Because you enjoy them.
Same thing folks. . . same thing.
The idea of citizens owning firearms has absolutely nothing to do with hunting or sporting use. It has everything to do with being a fallback measure if our government ever oversteps its authority. Period. It's
the final variable that keeps the
government from ignoring the people it is supposed to represent. An angry populace is easily ignored if they are disarmed. . . .
Give that same group the means to remove the offending individuals by force and all of a sudden their voice
demands much more attention.
I hope people are paying attention. In reference to the above article about an AK47 style rifle being used by an obvious criminal in Miami recently. 1989, Stockton California, Pat Purdy shot several people with an AK47 style firearm. This event started the assault weapons ban that was enacted in 1994. I wouldn't be surprised to find that our anti-gun groups are behind tragedies like this to further their cause. People are not beyond doing this sort of thing. Similar to the anti-abortionist burning clinics and killing people inside while claiming to be pro-life. By thy way I did not vote for Obama and would not vote for anybody that doesn't have enough logical reasoning to understand that its bad people who need to be barred from society and not the objects that they use to harm others.
I own two AR rifles, a .308 and .223. I hunt deer and Antelope with the .308. Varmints,predators, and target shoot with .223. If I "NEED" a self defense weapon I'll take an AR with a 30 rnd mag over a bolt rifle or pistol everytime. If thats not legitimate enough for some people, tough s..t. The "need" argument is old and tired, the only things people really "need" are food,water, and shelter. If you "need" people are that concerned with "saving lives", go after Abortion. That little procedure kills over a million Humans a year in America. It's the "Bill of Rights" not the "bill of needs". Now go lay down by your dish anti-gunners.
Ok...I grew up with firearms. My grandfather had dozens and dozens. He was a card carrying NRA member, big game hunter, etc, etc.
I have been around weapons my entire life.
I currently own two firearms.
I felt compelled to post on here so that we can be entirely, absolutely clear...these utter off-the-wall wakos on here who are actually stupid enough to think that their gun ownership affects governance in this country...yah, there are those of us who own and use guns that find these people just as alarmingly insane as the general populace does.
There are those of us who do not suck up the "police take minutes, criminals take seconds" idiodic paranoia, nor do we buy into the "we are keeping them honest" insanity. We simply have a personal perference, and are MORE than willing to keep those personal preferences in accordance with our society and norms.
...and to those taking enough time from peeking out their covered windows ever three seconds to see if the man is coming for them to actually post, truth be told, yes you are the type of people we want to take guns away from. The fact that you do not comprehend that you are an issue is the issue. The rest of us gun owners will do just fine without you, thanks.
You're right, banning weapons based on a name is silly---bans should be based on real lethality figures such as number of rounds per minute etc.
If we obey Scalia's view of "strict constructionism"---that the Constitution can ONLY be read in the light of 1787, then the only thing the 2nd amendment protects is muskets.
While I wouldn't go quite that far, being a "living document" believer, I don't see how registration of firearms, something which would be very helpful, goes against ANY reading of the 2nd amendment.
Says gh0st:"I felt compelled to post on here so that we can be entirely, absolutely clear...these utter off-the-wall wakos on here who are actually stupid enough to think that their gun ownership affects governance in this country...yah, there are those of us who own and use guns that find these people just as alarmingly insane as the general populace does."
Be sure to come back tomorrow, gh0st--if you liked this column, you're going to LOVE that one.
Says drklassen: "You're right, banning weapons based on a name is silly---bans should be based on real lethality figures . . . "
OK--I'll play. How 'bout THIS lethality figure: deaths by beating with fists/feet, etc. generally outnumber deaths by gunshot from ALL long guns, of which so-called "assault weapons" are only a subset.
Continues drklassen: " . . . such as number of rounds per minute etc."
The "number of rounds per minute" of one semi-automatic firearm is about the same as the number from any other semi-automatic firearm.
By "etc.," did you mean the power of the round fired by the gun? Are you aware that "assault weapons" are generally considered marginal for deer, while popular deer rifles are chambered in much more powerful calibers, .270 Winchester, .30-06, etc.?
Should we read the First Amendment the same way--so the government can shut down movable type printing presses, radio, TV, and the internet any time it suits our public servants to do so?
Plenty of useful idiocy at work here in these comments; Lenin would be proud and Jefferson would probably have opened fire by now.
For those who still, despite it all, have not got the word: disarmament is not about statistics, nor about safety, nor about street crime, nor about law. If it were, then we could discuss minutiae with some hope of consensus, but we are provably not in this position:
- The disarmers still, somehow, feel that just one more restrictive law will inexplicably do what tens of thousands of others have not.
- Those who demand personal sovereignty will not be swayed even if statistics DID show that enforced public disarmament offered some benefit of increased safety or reduced street crime. It ain't about that.
No, these discussions of safety, crime, and law are simply useful fictions that keep us distracted from the central problem, which is of course that we are continually told--by "the proper authorities"--that we should implicitly distrust our neighbors, our brothers, our countrymen, and certainly "ferrigners"--in fact, we should distrust everyone but "the proper authorities", who have just the answer to all our ills: everyone (except "the proper authorities", of course, who seem increasingly to be exempt from every imposition they demand of us) should voluntarily give up the means of resisting personal and public tyranny, and everything will be just swell.
Wow, that idea is so good I'm shocked that nobody thought of it before!*
And so we have modern useful idiot, unquestioning in his confidence that the state always has the answer, asking petulantly why his fellow man has any "need" for this or "use" for that or otherwise somehow to justify the basic human right to protect oneself without prior restraint.
Then there is the contention that an armed populace cannot resist a modern military, should it come to that. To whoever believes this, you need to read your history a little more closely.
Finally, regarding this specific, tired "assault weapon" nonsense, Tench Coxe said it pretty well in 1789:
"...Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people."
And remember, Coxe was originally a Loyalist. If "original intent" matters, this is just not that hard to understand. Other examples proliferate, saying the same thing.
Ultimately, here it is: I am a peaceable individual and have hurt nobody--there is no justification, whatever, for prior restraint on my privacy, liberty or sovereignty. I have read my history and understand that when someone asks you to give up the means of resistance, it is because he is going to do something that he expects you to resist.
So, to the disarmers: No. Get that? NO.
______________
* Um, as to that: in the 20th century, governments disarmed and murdered more of their own people than were killed in all declared military wars combined.
Do we really want to stop or reduce the numbers of people killed each year? If so, why don't we focus our attention in a direction that would make the most significant impact on saving lives? I can answer that. It's easier to pick on firearms even though they only account for a small number of deaths per year. By the way, please don't include criminals who were shot by police and honest law abiding citizens protecting their lives and property. But if you must go ahead, the number is still much much lower than the needless deaths on our highways. Consider this;
Car Crash Stats: There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes. Also, thanks to our sedentary lifestyles, fast food and lack of self control we can thank heart disease for the number one killer at over 900,000 people per year. But hell, let's go after the guns, I mean after all we all have to drive and eat so those deaths are ok right?
" I don't see how registration of firearms, something which would be very helpful, goes against ANY reading of the 2nd amendment.
January 27, 2:25 PM" (drklassen)
Thats 100% BS! Show me ONE fact that says registration of firearms is helpful in fighting gun crime. I find it comical how you gun haters throw out phony stats like you actually have done some research.
Cameron Barrie:
Austrailia was formed when the British Empire dumped their convicts onto a prison continent, and the former convicts killed and out procreated the aboriginal people.
America was formed when English colonists got tired of being treated like red headed step children, and killed red coats by the thousands (with assistance from the French of course).
Americans take owning a gun seriously. Tuscon Arizona is one of the most highly armed cities in America. Many, many machine guns, grenade launchers, and destructive devices... even privately owned mini guns... yet it's one of the safest cities in America. Lots of suburban houses, white bread folk.
Miami however... Youtube "Gangsta N Thugs" for a candid look at Miami.
It's the culture stupid.
The focus on the means for gun violence is understandable, because facing the roots of the problem can be too overwhelming.
To see the gun as the source of the problem is to see a fork as a cause of obesity. Take the fork away, and there are always going to be spoons, chopsticks, fingers, etc.
Genocide has been committed in our own generation with 800,000 Rwandans killed in 100 days, primarily with the use of machetes.
It's not the weapons which must be controlled, because we humans will simply never run out of them.
There will always be anomalous behavior that cannot be predicted or controlled. Laws which attempt to curtail egregious behavior via a supply-side approach to gun control are destined for failure.
Humans no longer interact with each other, but with machines that then communicate to the other machines. Video games, texting, emailing, all serve, more or less, to dehumanize our interaction with humans.
Our human hearts are in atrophy. We are gradually losing our humanity to technology. Until we can change the hearts and minds of those who would do evil, (a multi-generational undertaking, to be sure) we will always have the periodic tragedy that costs innocent lives, and leaves survivors lives changed forever.
Meanwhile, let's not mistake the finger that points at the moon, for the moon itself.
"These are weapons of war, and they don't belong on the streets of Miami or any other street in America," Mayor Manuel Diaz said.
The above is a quote from Miami's Mayor following a criminal use of an "AK-47 type assault weapon". The following is my letter in response. Now I m sure most of you can and will articulate your points better than I but please take a moment to let this Anti-Constitutionalist know your thoughts.
To: Manuel Diaz 'mannydiaz@ci.miami.fl.us'
Subject : Gun Bans? You sir, are an idiot.
I just finished reading a quote regarding the shooting incident in
Miami in which you were quoted as saying, “"These are weapons of war,
and they don't belong on the streets of Miami or any other street in America."
You cannot simply spew this incessant garbage. There are millions of law abiding citizens in the USA that own AK-47s, as well as other so called “assault” weapons. Do you honestly think by banning a certain type of weapon you will reduce violence? Your city has laws against
the production, sale and consumption of illicit drugs yet Miami is well known for easy access to cocaine, marijuana and other drugs. How about Cuban Cigars? Can’t get those in Miami either?
My guess, and it is just a guess, is that you will find that your shooter was most likely not permitted to even own the weapon. So if you want to ban gun ownership, I say do your job and remove the guns from the criminals first, then come for mine. Until then keep your opinions about the suitability of use for any weapons to yourself.
Without respect,
Richard J Evans
Citizen and Gun Owner
USA.
Please feel free to blast Mayor Diaz by filling his emailbox with your reactions at mannydiaz@ci.miami.fl.us
Isn't every weapon techinically an "assault" weapon?
Matt, I've always thought so, too--but the gun prohibitionists aren't the type of folks to allow themselves to be slaves to . . . rationality.
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!