Like many of you, I’ve been the recipient of angry gun nuts’ talking points. Yesterday a real gun nut told me to “shut the hell up” because he fought in Vietnam and held real weapons whereas according to him, I know nothing just because I support reasonable gun control. That was after one of them asked why he should care that children died. Clearly these are not well socialized people, and just as clearly, they don’t speak for most gun owners.
Little does Gun Nut know that I have covered our military training on some pretty hefty weapons that I could barely hold up to my shoulder, and own a gun myself (though not a semi-automatic rifle, even a sporting one is not something I need for self-defense). I covered safety and skill training with our troops, as well as sitting in on a rules of engagement class.
I’ve also interviewed plenty of police in my time and had discussions about levels of engagement and weapons. These things only solidified my belief that TRAINING is important and no citizen should have a semi-automatic assault weapon modeled on the weapons built for military and law enforcement without some serious training.
Only fools think they don’t need to learn anything before handling something so powerful.
So to all of the gun nuts who claim that a semi-automatic assault weapon is the “same thing” as a hunting semi-automatic, I say you are the problem and you should not have access to an assault weapon precisely because you don’t respect the differences, the capability, and the power of such weapons.
If the military and police have to train to use these weapons, why don’t you? Why should the police have to face untrained civilians carrying these weapons?
Respect for the incredible destruction these weapons are capable of is the first sign that maybe you can handle one. Pretending they are the “same” as a hunting rifle is the first clue that your ignorance renders you too dangerous to come near one.
Training is not a cure-all, either. As we can see, these weapons do not belong in the public sphere. They don’t belong in our homes. One adult who is trained properly does not fix the problem of access for those who aren’t, or the mental illness or pure crazy rage of those who aren’t. There is no legitimate reason for having an assault weapon. You’re not going to be able to fight the “government” with an assault weapon and you don’t need it for self-protection. You don’t need it to hunt (I’m not referring to semi-automatic sporting rifles here — read more carefully — though I note that use of one removes the “sporting” aspect from the equation) unless you are a complete idiot, which brings us back to those of you who should not own a gun in the first place.
For all of the gun nuts screaming about how their weapons are the same as any other weapon, get a clue. The 1994 assault weapon ban specifically protected over 670 types of hunting rifles and shotguns.
Here’s how the Brady organization defines the difference between semi-automatic hunting rifles and semi-automatic, military-style assault weapons:
Q. What is the difference between semi-automatic hunting rifles and semi-automatic, military-style assault weapons?
A. Sporting rifles and assault weapons are two distinct classes of firearms. While semi-automatic hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile to kill an animal, semi-automatic assault weapons are designed to kill as many people quickly, as would be needed in combat.
Opponents of banning assault weapons argue that these military-style weapons only “look” scary. Assault weapons look scary and are scary because they are equipped with combat hardware. Combat features like high-capacity ammunition magazines, pistol grips, folding stocks, and bayonets, which are not found on sporting guns, are designed specifically to facilitate the killing of human beings in battle.
These combat features include:
A large-capacity ammunition magazine which enables the shooter to continuously fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Many assault weapons come equipped with large ammunition magazines allowing more than 50 bullets to be fired without reloading. Standard hunting rifles are usually equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines;
A folding stock which facilitates maximum concealability and mobility in close combat (which comes at the expense of the accuracy desired in a hunting weapon);
A pistol grip which facilitates spray-fire from the hip without losing control. A pistol grip also facilitates one-handed shooting;
A barrel shroud which enables the shooter to shoot many rounds because it cools the barrel, preventing overheating. It also allows the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon, without incurring serious burns, during rapid fire;
A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor which allows the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night, an advantage in combat but unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes. In addition, the flash suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid fire;
A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer which allows an assassin to shoot without making noise;
A barrel mount designed to accommodate a bayonet which allows someone to stab a person at close quarters in battle.
So, gun nuts, cry us a river about your imaginary loss of rights as you continue to refuse any responsibility for learning about the actual law you’re complaining about. Once again, we are back where we started. If you are too ignorant to learn about the law as you scream about it, then you are simply giving more fodder to the idea that you, specifically due to your angry ignorance, should not be able to own an assault weapon. If you are too lazy and stupid to be a responsible citizen, then you are too dangerous to own an assault weapon.
I don’t believe I’ve ever called anyone a “stupid idiot” before in all of the years I’ve written here. So, Gun Nuts, consider yourselves special.
Thanks for making the case for those of us who support reasonable, common sense gun control. The second amendment does not come before other rights, and it seems we must protect the rights of our citizens to life and liberty over your right to be a dangerous idiot. I dare say you should thank us for protecting you from yourself, but I get the idea that you can’t see what we see.



RMuse
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 3:21 pm
Good call Sarah! The only similarity between hunting and military weapons is kordite, brass, and lead. Assault-type weapons are designed to stalk and kill as many human beings with least effort, and efficiently.
loading...
get real
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 5:49 pm
Sigh.
So says RMuse who almost certainly has never fired a firearm, owned a firearm or knows the history and design of firearms, nor of firearms training or anything at all about terminal ballistics.
I don’t know much, but at least I’m a Liberal gun owner who knows it. What I do know is that there are over 300 million firearms already in the US and that it is impossible to confiscate the tens of millions of ‘assault’ rifles, the hundreds of millions of high capacity magazines and the billions of rounds of ammunition that are already out there in every corner of America.
There are no easy solutions to control gun violence in a society that worships and glamorizes guns.
Btw, you mean ‘cordite’? That hasn’t been used in many years, if at all. Gunpowder is what is used.
loading...
stumptownhero
Dec. 20th, 2012 at 12:32 am
Dear Get Real,
The problem is not the “gun” or even the style of the gun but the bullet delivery system and the type of bullets fired. By definition an Assault weapon is an offensive weapon and the SCOTUS has yet to find a Constitutional right to own offensive weaponry. Therefore the solution to reducing the number of people killed in Sandy Hook types of attacks is to limit the size of the magazine which can be attached to ANY semi-automatic rifle or hand gun to 10 shots. Possession of magazines larger should be punishable with a 3 year not parole sentence HOWEVER citizens should have 12 months from the passage of this new law to turn the high capacity mags into law enforcement would would buy them back for the price you can demonstrate you paid.
This would get 90% of the existing supply off the streets and run the price of the remaining 10% so high the Adam Lanza’s of the world could not afford to buy 8 clips or get ahold of 8 in two weeks without anyone noticing!
Secondly, Fragmentary bullets should be banned and a similar grace period and buy back program should be implemented. These bullets have only one value and that is to improve lethalness of each hit.
These two simple and FAIR proposals would not prevent any future attacks but would reduce the number of people killed in each attack by giving victims more time to escape and CC permit holders more time to act.
Equally important is that these two proposals would not infringe the rights of citizens to arm themselves for defense of life or property.
loading...
Kevin Shinn
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 3:25 pm
My old stomping grounds of Bethlehem Pennsylvania got some exposure on the issue of training and the (non-)efficacy of concealed carries for these situations: http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2012/12/proof-that-concealed-carry-permit.html
Dreamers…
loading...
Leah Burton
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 3:30 pm
I second every word of what you wrote, and add this…not only do they not understand the Brady Bill and the reasons why banning assault rifles which are designed for one purpose only – to kill as many humans as fast as possible – they don’t understand the 2nd Amendment.
The right to bear arms was written at a time in this country when the authors felt it might be necessary to draft citizens into a militia to protect our country, including the government. There was no imaginable concept of assault weapons, and sophisticated weapons as exist today.
I was raised in a law enforcement household. We were taught to respect weapons. We never even toyed with the notion of touching them without supervision on the firing range. My father rose to the highest ranking police officer in Alaska and told us that more people are killed by their own weapons because they do not know how to use them. That is a national fact.
He is hugely supportive of assault weapons bans and acknowledges that there is not one valid reason that these weapons exist outside of combat. And he served in Viet Nam as well, in combat. Idiots like the one you engaged with also think that not banning cop-killing and armour piercing bullets violate his 2nd Amendment rights. What an ass!
How about this…allow people to own the exact weapons that were available at the time the 2nd Amendment was conceived and written. Period. I guarantee you that the numbers will drop dramatically. If Lanza had to stop and reload his musket after each shot…I submit that there might have been one tragic fatality instead of 27.
That’s your 2nd amendment!
loading...
tj
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 4:19 pm
and what about fertilizer, ammonium nitrate and nitro-methane and diesel fuel and ryder trucks.. you can still get all this stuff
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 4:37 pm
Not everyone can buy them Those laws have been changed
loading...
tj
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 4:59 pm
they are still very easy to get and much more destructive.
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html;jsessionid=07AAE86DE419E0BC7E1EA0047E9EAA7F?adpos=1s5&crlp=18587326939_2416792&MT_ID=69&keyword=amonium+nitrate&clk_rvr_id=428248430710&geo_id=10232&adgroup_id=%7BADGRP_ID%7D&crdt=0&_nkw=ammonium+nitrate&_nkwusc=amonium+nitrate&_rdc=1
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200867014356
and fertilizer is even easier to get…
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 4:59 pm
And that doesnt have anything to do with getting rid of assault rifles.
Period.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 5:04 pm
Your first link. The stuff is technical grade. Only good for making cold packs. Not explosive. As hero beck says, do your homework
loading...
tj
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 5:05 pm
IM just showing that there are other things out there but when you get faced with the truth and are proved wrong you get nasty, Im all for debate I beleive mental illness needs to be addressed I believe in training. Ive gone through it I had my wife go through it but thr fact is evil will find away no matter what the weapon is
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 5:19 pm
Im not nasty.Im just saying you are running from the guns
loading...
tj
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 5:14 pm
I found it in less then 2 minutes. YOu could use that but you need other chemicals too, ammonium nitrate is harder to get but if you know someone who farms its still easy to get
loading...
tj
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 5:22 pm
Im not running at all, I agree with you on some of your stuff. Like I said I believe in training I believe mental illness needs to be addressed I just dont believe its the “guns fault” mentality.
loading...
Robin
Dec. 21st, 2012 at 11:40 pm
And mcveigh was another nut that thought the gumint was out to get him!
loading...
tj
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 5:17 pm
and i dont like beck I think hes an idiot, IM also not a Rep or a Dem im a free thinker Im independent I dont think politics should be defined by a letter.
loading...
lm945
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 5:20 pm
As anyone who’s had the flu can tell you, you can’t even buy OTC cold remedies any more without showing ID.
But every Tom, Dick and Charles Manson can walk into a gun show and buy whatever they want. No questions asked. No ID required.
loading...
tj
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 5:24 pm
not in Maryland, where I live Im all for back round checks Im all for checking to see if someone has a history of mental illness like I said I just think the PERSON should take blame and not an object.
loading...
Larry Dillon
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 6:19 pm
Yeah tj that was a problem with the Oklahoma City Bombing.However these little 6 and 7 year old weren’t blown-up,they were blown-away.Blown-away as 3-11 rounds each slammed into their bodies and blew their heads apart like watermelons.Cars,knives,baseball bats,tire irons and finger nail files were also not used.
It also was guns at Columbine,not homemade manure bombs.Same at Va Tech,no one got bombed are ran over just shot to death.When the nut brought carnage in the movie theater he didn’t use a baseball bat or a Ryder truck with ammonia and bullshit.He shot ppl with an assault rifle.When the temple was attacked ppl were shot not stabbed to death…Would you like me to continue proving my point because I can or do you now know how deluded your remark was.
loading...
tj
Dec. 20th, 2012 at 3:40 pm
larry hows chicagos gun ban doing?? how well did DCs gun ban work?
loading...
stumptownhero
Dec. 20th, 2012 at 12:38 am
You probably are not aware that that after Oklahoma City to purchase large quantities of ammonium nitrate you have to demonstrate a need and register your purchase.
I don’t remember farmers getting all up in arms about that reasonable step to reduce mass death do you?
loading...
tj
Dec. 20th, 2012 at 8:45 am
I do know this, and if you read all my post I even said if you know a farmer you could get it
loading...
Sman
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 3:32 pm
Here’s the dope, dopes: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/10/foghorn/the-truth-about-assault-weapons-and-assault-weapons-bans/
loading...
djchefron
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 3:38 pm
Who would have thunk it?There are more gun stores in America than grocery stores.
Guns in America, a Statistical Look
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/08/guns-in-america-a-statistical-look/
loading...
Melania Gulley
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 4:00 pm
I am from Texas.. West Texas, Midland precisely. I was born and raised in Texas. I now live in Michigan.
Any person who wants any kind of gun control back home is looked at as unreasonable or crazy. They want to arm teachers now.. Lets put weapons in teachers hands so we can have even more fatalities. With or without training. Guns that close to angry, hormonal children is a bad idea. If we must have guns on campuses , It should be in the hands of cops or military who are trained not just how to fire a weapon but also how to defuse a situation and not escalate one.. But back home they want more guns, always more guns is the answer.. Its a sad thing when common sense and logic is thrown out the window for more weapons on the streets.Texas has a wild west mentality. and they don’t see reason or logic.. they want more access to guns and we send people to death row more there than anywhere. And statistics speak volumes. The death penalty is not a deterrent to crime if it was crime rates would be way down. And Mental health is important so we don’t have to worry about posting armed guards at our schools, churches and shopping malls.. Texas will never learn these lessons I am afraid
loading...
tj
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 4:21 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting
yea arming people wont help will it….
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 4:39 pm
All that did was prevent him from comitting suicide. He was leaving when the guy got his gun
loading...
tj
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 4:51 pm
his plan was to go to another school please read the WHOLE story
loading...
tj
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 5:00 pm
I love how I get thumbs down for the truth! hahahahaha
loading...
Tom
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 5:24 pm
Maybe because your “truth” is actually NRA talking points.
loading...
tj
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 5:28 pm
tom tell me how this is not truth?
loading...
tj
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 5:01 pm
the principle also had to run over 1/4 to his car and then 1/4 back because he parked to far away from the school so he would not violate the gun free zone… that didnt work
loading...
stumptownhero
Dec. 20th, 2012 at 12:44 am
And if he would have had a Tazer he could have acted faster with the SAME result.
I’m all for training and paying willing teachers and administrators how to use Tazers but never allowing them to fire bullets in a school. To do that property requires a training regimen of a police officer and we can barely pay the teachers now!
loading...
tj
Dec. 20th, 2012 at 8:46 am
because tasers never kill.
loading...
Reynardine
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 4:05 pm
They think the black man in the White House is coming to take their *guns* away. And they think women are using children as an excuse to take their *guns* away.
loading...
Rob Harrison
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 4:07 pm
Maybe we should remind these over blown opinionators that we could just return to the weapon in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment: a single shot hand loaded muzzle loader. It would solve a lot of problems…..
loading...
Mike
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 5:37 pm
Or maybe we should remind the lefty’s that the 2nd Ammendment is about giving citizens the right to protect themselves from our own government if need be. Even you lefty’s can’t deny we are moving closer to needing that right now than any other time in history.
P.S. Can’t wait to see if I can get a record number of thumbs down from the ignorant and ill-informed.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 5:46 pm
You can remind us but then again we would have to laugh at you. Your chances of protecting your self against the government are about .00000000058%
The leftys arnt the ignorant ones, and the ones you will need to protect yourself from are the 2% that own 80% of your wealth. Not sure who you listen to to, but they are making you look “ignorant and ill-informed.”
loading...
djchefron
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 5:56 pm
You remember your hero Richard Bork a mans man conservative.Lets see what he has to say about the 2nd amenment
Former appellate Justice Robert H. Bork, the controversial conservative whose nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court was rejected by the Senate in 1987, said Tuesday that he saw no constitutional barriers to states barring assault weapons.
http://articles.latimes.com/1989-03-15/local/me-587_1_state-gun-laws-constitutional
Hmmmm.say it so oh superduper mega hero for the right.What else do you have to say?
Bork’s 1997 book Slouching Towards Gomorrah, something of a must-read for a great many on the right, has the following line: “The Second Amendment was designed to allow states to defend themselves against a possibly tyrannical national government. Now that the federal government has stealth bombers and nuclear weapons, it is hard to imagine what people would need to keep in the garage to serve that purpose.” Bork was against gun control, but it was up to the people. For most of his life, he thought that the Constitution was no impediment to gun control laws
http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=22
Damn a man that thinks we are Slouching Towards Gomorrah and I for one was hoping there was a train to get there sure holds some lefty views on gun control.
loading...
djchefron
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 5:58 pm
I meant Robert.When I was typing my friend Richard called me.Sorry for the typo.
loading...
Larry Dillon
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 6:28 pm
We need guns in case they try to enforce Fascism.ROTF.
The only political party that promotes fascism is the Party of Tea-Nuts.The stand in goose-step with a crony immoral capitalistic system.All the wealth of the country is being REDISTRIBUTED to the “upper” upper-class.Reagan started that war of fascism with “trickle down” economics.
Of course the Tea-Nuts are also the only Party thats is actively trying to force their deranged deluded belief system(can hardly call it a faith)in to our laws and government.They wish to legislate their twisted doctrines and dogma’s onto the whole country.It reeks of a Fascist Theocracy;speaking of Nazi Germany.
So if we need guns to take out a fascist regime then we need to start taking out the Capitalistic Kings,the self appointed preachers and prophets and the bought and paid for politicians promoting and legislating this deluded form of rule.I suggest starting with the Koch brothers,Pat Robertson and the Family Research Council and Michele Bachmann and Paul Ryan.I would include Rick Santorum but that Jesus Junkie has become irrelevant.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 6:30 pm
I said earlier that the 2% will be the armed faction in time, and the GOP supports the 2%. The GOP will be the ones to take your guns
loading...
Larry Dillon
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 6:40 pm
“you can have my assault weapons and grenades,claymores.IED’s,anti-tank weapons,small nuclear warheads and anything else I think I have a right to posses when you pry it from my cold dead hands.”………That can be arranged.Lets make it so.
loading...
tj
Dec. 20th, 2012 at 3:42 pm
I thought you were non violent your talking about killing people…..
loading...
tj
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 6:15 pm
we could also do the same with the 1st if you dont think that the constitution doesnt cover the advancements we made. It would not cover TV/ internet / newspapers because all they had was quills and ink to write with and horses to deliver stuff that would take weeks to get
loading...
Larry Dillon
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 6:48 pm
I don’t know anyone who has blown 6yo’s brains all over their Crayons and Elmer’s Glue with the internet,newspapers or TV’s.TJ you bring up lots of straw man issues.Your a delusional little gun zealot.A paranoid frighten little man.I wont let the bad government get you buddy.Me,President Obama and the Progressive movement will keep you safe from the evil Tea-Nuts.They are the only ones you have to fear.
loading...
tj
Dec. 20th, 2012 at 8:07 am
Really the internet has NEVER cause anyone to kill themselves or hurt someone else is that what your are saying? REALLY are you that much of an idiot!!! I never said the government was after me I dont believe that I want my gun so I can protect myself my family my home my property. Im not a “scared little man as you put it.. sorry
loading...
Reynardine
Dec. 20th, 2012 at 11:30 am
Maybe you’re not a man at all, which could mean, but not necessarily, that you are a biological female.
loading...
tj
Dec. 20th, 2012 at 3:26 pm
No I am a man
loading...
djchefron
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 4:23 pm
Maybe we are going about this wrong.Stop fighting on 2nd amemdment grounds.If they want the right to buy and sell guns there is something that could be done right now.People ask what else is there to do.
That’s where Article 1, Section 8 comes in. It’s the Commerce Clause, and it gives Congress the power “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” That pretty clearly says that when it comes to buying and selling, there can be regulations. It’s a direct correlation – selling something? That activity can be regulated. The power there is within every limitation one can think of, a power that even Justice John Roberts’ opinion on the Commerce Clause as it applies to the Affordable Care Act can’t undermine.
loading...
djchefron
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 8:14 pm
Well that ends that plan for now.The top Republican with jurisdiction over firearms regulations in the 113th Congress has shut down talk of gun control in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., massacre, a sign that the House will be the largest obstacle to overhauling federal gun laws.
Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte of Virginia told CQ Roll Call on Tuesday that he does not favor tightening controls on firearms, such as banning assault weapons or high-capacity clips, after 27 people, including 20 children, were killed by a shooter in Newtown last week.
As long as the American Taliban is in controled of one branch of the government nothing is going to change.REMEMBER 2014 now is the time for the thugs to look for a new line of work.
loading...
robyn ryan
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 4:51 pm
Let’s start with ‘well regulated’ and work from there.
loading...
get real
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 5:01 pm
The problem with the Brady organization – and many other highly anti-gun organizations and individuals – is that they are ignorant of the very subject they comment on. Not you Sarah, any responsible gun owner is way ahead when it comes to firearms knowledge.
For example, the point of a high capacity magazine is not to ‘kill as many people as possible’ but to rather get as many rounds downrange as possible and as quickly as possible. There’s a big difference.
Military and law enforcement studies have shown that is the way to stop the threat more effectively when they are under fire. That’s why they also have the select fire (fully automatic) option. It is very easy to miss your target in a high-stress environment.
That’s one reason why you commonly see reports of the police firing many, many rounds at a single threat instead of just a single shot.
The question of whether these rifles – even though they are semi-automatic and not automatic – should be in the hands of civilians is another matter entirely.
Facts matter, and it’s important to get things right rather than to just simply react.
loading...
harris stein
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 8:56 pm
“That’s one reason why you commonly see reports of the police firing many, many rounds at a single threat instead of just a single shot.”
Usually when all the dust settles after incidents like this it turns out the police at the scene were never under any threat at all. They over reacted. Not only that but in the heat of the moment the police will engage in a circular firing squad which leads to friendly fire injuries or deaths.
loading...
Ken
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 5:08 pm
I would extend what djchefron said. Make it a commerce issue.
Pass laws that extend full civil and criminial penalties to the last registered owner of a weapon if it is ever used in a crime.
The idea is if you can’t control your weapon you shouldn’t own one. So if a gun is stolen and used in a murder you are equally guilty of murder. Classify it as aiding and abbetting. If you didn’t allow your weapon to be stolen then it couldn’t be used in that murder. Straw man purchasers would probably dry up after we fry a few in Judicial murders on the electric chair.
Require insurance on each weapon. The insurance is specific for a single weapon for a single individual ( real not corporate person) if it is used by other then the insured person for any reason insurance is cancelled to them ( after pay out to victim) and the insurance companies can pursue the insuree for compensation/fraud. They have done this on health insurance so they know how to make the violators life hell. If owners wish to insure others it is new policy no riders allowed.
Tax the profit out of weapons, ammunition, reload equipment and supplies. This is along with Chris Rock’s idea of making each bullet cost a $1000
For true hunters this would promote accuracy.
Ban the accumalation of “arsenals”. Recent news is of an individual owning 46 weapons. Who needs 46 weapons for subsistence hunting? If you can afford 46 weapons you probably can afford not to have to engage in subsistence hunting.
A shotgun, 22 varmint rifle, hunting Rifle ( 30/30, 30/06 etc) and maybe a pistol for when you are cutting wood and the bear shows up between you and the tree where you leaned your rifle against.
NO pistol grips on anything but the pistol.
No clips more then 10 rounds ( even that is a bit much but soft spot for Ruger 10/22) require manufactors to ensure that mechanism that hold the clip will fail if larger clip is used.
Anymore then that is just waste and ostentasious display of…
loading...
Reynardine
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 5:53 pm
Your assessment for what would constitute a legitimate arsenal for civilian use is pretty spot on. But the solution to the problem of theft is civil liability upon a finding of negligence.
A gunsmith or firearms instructor, I’d point out, may have to test fire your weapon. And the net result of requiring everyone to have insurance is that the rich would be armed and the non-rich wouldn’t be. Someone may call that a desirable state of affairs. I don’t.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 5:57 pm
What you have just said is that the GOP supported 2% would be armed. So who would it be to take your guns away?
loading...
Ken
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 7:07 pm
” But the solution to the problem of theft is civil liability upon a finding of negligence.”
Not if the law is written that it is a mandatory finding.
The loss of a weapon is by definition Negligence.
Criminial liability in the manner of aiding and abbetting.
By the way cars are not designed to murder. They can, and have, but primary purpose was not concieved as killing tools.
Guns on the other hand were originally developed to promote death on the battlefield.
Also in many states if you allow your car to be taken through your incompetence ( i.e. leaving keys in ignition etc) you are held liable for damages.
loading...
Reynardine
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 7:59 pm
And the car-in-the-ignition business is one of civil liability. I would point out that you are talking about strict liability applied not only in a criminal context, but in that of murder, the most malum in se of crimes, a crime whose very essence is that of premeditation and malice aforethought. And, lest you come back at me with felony murder, that crime in all events requires that the death in question result from, or in the course of, an intentional *felony*, which foreseeably could result in death or great bodily harm. Your idea makes as much sense as charging a rape victim with murder because her rapist became infected with AIDS.
Do you intend to practice law? By all means, practice it! But don’t inflict it on the public until you’ve learned to do it right!
loading...
tj
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 6:06 pm
Would you do the same with cars? If someone stole your car get into a police chase and killed someone would it be the car owners fault?
loading...
tj
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 5:15 pm
and I dont like beck
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 5:29 pm
CNN Poll just out. 52% of Americans want tight restriction or the outright banning of guns
Ouch
loading...
Kim
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 5:45 pm
I’d be happy to assist with prying assault weapons out of the cold dead fingers of the nuts who say that’s what we’ll have to do to take theirs. Anybody with me?
loading...
tj
Dec. 20th, 2012 at 3:45 pm
funny how the anti gun people are talking about killing.
loading...
Larry Dillon
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 6:32 pm
Regulate.Ban Assault Rifles(no reason to posses them,I want them is not valid)Ban High Capacity Magazines(no reason to posses them,again I want them is not valid).I believe those 2 thing will come to pass.
End Gun Show Loop-Holes.I live in Texas and have many “good o boys” for friends.Attend lots of Gun Shows with them.Because of the loop-holes its almost possible to buy weapon grade plutonium without so much as a glance.I watch ppl buy shit every time I go with out so much as a name sometimes.Only the deluded don’t see a problem with this.Push for strict mental health requirements and make evaluations mandatory.License and register at point of sale.Require a written Test and a Practical Test.Implement regular re-certification and licenses to make sure all is still legal for one to continue to posses.Responsible gun owners shouldn’t have a problem.Criminals and the Paranoid have the issue.
loading...
tj
Dec. 20th, 2012 at 8:11 am
As much as you think Im a gun Zealot…. I agree with a lot that you say here… Everything but that bans. Im good with everything else you said!
loading...
JT
Dec. 22nd, 2012 at 12:52 pm
It’s been proven that an AWB will not work. There are tens of millions of them already out in the public and the same goes for hi-cap magazines. Banning the manufacture and sale of…would have an impact on the law abiding, responsible gun owners who can pass a background check, but criminals who obtain them thru illegal means will not be affected. There are just to many out there.
I think closing the gun show loophole and requiring an FFL for every purchase being they from a licensed dealer or private party is a good idea. I would definitely be in favor of that. But…that would be effective for people who want to obey the law. Criminals would not be effected as they would just buy and sell on the black market in spite of what many on both sides consider reasonable measures.
People who are mentally ill that require medication in order to keep from lapsing into psychosis for example, should be put on a national data base. However that would only work for those who have been diagnosed. What about the ones who have never seen a doctor for their affliction? Some people who may be ill enough for treatment can function in society well enough to get by, so how would these people be documented?
“Require a written test and a practical test”…
Would this test be somewhere along the lines that an individual would have to acquire a BA to pass…or could a law abiding responsible person with a 7th grade education be able to pass it as well. Where does discrimination factor in?
Many agree on both sides of the aisle that something should be done. Facts need to be considered as well as ideas that are presented and discussed to determine if a solution is possible or just a waste time. Gun owners who are unmoving in their beliefs need to realize that there is a problem and everyone shares this burden. Gun control advocates need to understand that this a situation that needs to be discussed in a open unbiased manner as well. Maybe if we come together something will…
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 22nd, 2012 at 1:30 pm
the “impact on the law abiding, responsible gun owners” dont need assault rifles either
loading...
JT
Dec. 22nd, 2012 at 2:13 pm
The whole “need” thing is a cop out.
Food, shelter, clothes, toilet paper…can be seen as needs.
$250,000 homes and a Mercedes are not a “need” either. They are wants!
So if you WANT to defend your home with a baseball bat behind the door…do as you please. If I WANT to defend my home in a manner I see fit, I will do so.
So don’t tell me what you feel I “need” and I will do the same.
loading...
kyle
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 6:49 pm
I own 4 rifles. A german 8mm bolt action rifle from WW2 that I use for deer hunting (8mm is similar in size to most American caliber hunting rifles) so should it be banded because it was at one point in time a battle rifle?, a 17HMR which is a very small caliber rifle for varmit hunting, a .22 rifle and a 6.8 SPC, which would fall into the “assault” rifle catagory. I use each for hunting, I have training and I truly feel when I go down south for hunting wild hogs I do need a semi-auto, granted it is only a ten round clip but wild ferral hogs are dangerous and an invasive species, I hunt to protect the native wildlife and native plants. I do feel gun ownership should come with responsibilites but labeling all guns as bad is not the right way to go.
loading...
Reynardine
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 8:07 pm
A bolt action of whatever provenance does not fall within the purview of what we’re talking about, which is extended, rapid fire weapons intended or modified for mass killings. As a Floridian, I can understand your anxiety about the dreaded javelina, but most people who hunt them don’t do so with such weapons (handle with gloves while dressing out and cook well-trichinosis is only one of the things you can get)
loading...
harris stein
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 9:26 pm
Well, as usual, you have the rabid gunowner folks saying “I should be allowed to possess all the firepower I want,” calling reasonable gun owners ignorant or trying to put words in the mouth of correct thinking gunowners. Enough already.
I said it before and now I will repeat it. If you are a rabid gunowner who believes you should be allowed to possess all the firepower you want then by all means possess it. Correct thinking gunowners know that it is complete nonsense to have banana clips or drums capable of holding more than 10 rounds and using them in a situation that does not require such firepower. So you bought a banana clip or a drum and you need to try it out. OK. Try it out and then save it for when you need it. I have high capacity magazines for my Mini-14 that are locked in a closet and will continue sitting there locked up until the Christian Dominionists come marching up my street and try to tell me to convert or die. Until then my high capacity magazines will sit locked up.
But you say you need to test your equipment to make sure it will work when you need it. Bullshit. You are nothing but a macho fool with no sense of reality or connection to history. You believe whatever the honchos at the nra tell you while they fleece you through the money they get from the gun manufacturers.
loading...
JT
Dec. 22nd, 2012 at 1:19 pm
“Correct thinking gunowners know that it is complete nonsense to have banana clips or drums capable of holding more than 10 rounds and using them in a situation that does not require such firepower.”
Then you say…
“I have high capacity magazines for my Mini-14 that are locked in a closet and will continue sitting there locked up until the Christian Dominionists come marching up my street and try to tell me to convert or die.”
Hmmm ok. Christian Dominionists. What about werewolves or zombies? LOL.
How about something a little more fathomable.
What about a group of heavily armed gang members who picked your house to use as a initiation for one of their new members, and the requirement is to rape and kill you, your wife and children.
Would that be a good time to get those high capacity magazines for your Mini-14 out of your locked closet? Good luck with that…and while they’re firing at you with banana clips they acquired illegally, you can fire back with your AWB approved 10 round magazine…uh…”clip”…. because there is no need for anyone in this country to own clips capable of holding anything more than 10 bullets.
Lets just ban all guns around the world and we can all live in harmony and sing kumbaya.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 22nd, 2012 at 1:29 pm
er..the gang member thing is les likely then the dominionists across America, both are not likely to start with
Banning all guns world wide is excellent, but I gave up Kumbaya.
loading...
JT
Dec. 22nd, 2012 at 2:21 pm
er…thats the problem. None of you have the thinking capacity to realize that you’re being illogical. I’ll look on CNN tonight for news coverage of those Dominionists marching thru the suburbs.
Singing kumbaya is highly more likely that getting a total gun ban in your STATE …much less the world. Be realistic.
loading...
NoE
Dec. 20th, 2012 at 1:43 am
I don’t understand why they think that the ordinary, everyday citizen who is armed will be able to stop someone. Ronald Reagan was shot while he was literally surrounded by armed, highly trained Secret Service agents and they couldn’t prevent it.
loading...
Anne
Dec. 20th, 2012 at 9:00 am
I have been on other forums where gun fanatics seem to view any reasonable measure of gun control as a step toward banning all guns. While I’m not a fan of guns, I can easily respect people who are responsible owners that make sure their weapons are secured and try to avoid situations in which they have to use them. On the other hand, the NRA leadership likes to drum up unfounded fears that all guns will be confiscated and they have been extremely instrumental in thwarting a lot of gun control legislation. It’s one thing to be a gun owner with a level head, but quite another to idolize guns to the point where one loses touch with reality. At that point, a person is impervious to reasoning and ignores the existence of facts that point to the need for sensible gun control.
loading...
harris stein
Dec. 20th, 2012 at 11:46 am
The nra honchos have a conflict of interest with the gun manufacturers. They are raking in hundreds of millions from the gun industry and then paying themselves big bucks salaries. It would be different if they were volunteers and weren’t taking money from the gun industry and were using membership dues to maintain their headquarters and museum in Fairfax, VA.
Instead they sold their souls to the gun industry. Now there is hell to pay.
loading...
tj
Dec. 20th, 2012 at 3:36 pm
I like to think Im a good gun owner even though I dont believe in the bans, As I stated I believe there should be back round checks I believe you should have legal ID, I believe in training all this I feel adds up to better gun control and better gun owners. I also believe that we need to address mental health in this country. I also believe we have lots of laws that should be enforced when it comes to gun crimes that are not enforced. There are to many criminals who have had gun conviction on the street!
loading...
tj
Dec. 20th, 2012 at 9:05 am
I know its not comparable, just wanted to say it cause there was a guy on twitter that said tasers dont kill people
loading...
Reynardine
Dec. 20th, 2012 at 11:40 am
The purpose of a taser is not to kill, though they can do so if used abusively or on an improper target. Their purpose, in fact, is to incapacitate without doing permanent harm. The only purpose of a gun is to kill…something.
loading...
tj
Dec. 20th, 2012 at 3:28 pm
I do know a taser is not ment to kill as I stated I just had to put that because there was a guy on twitter who said tasers dont kill, even after I gave him proof that a taser can kill he argued with me and stated that there was no way a taser can kill. I had to walk away from the discussion at that point
loading...
gilead
Dec. 20th, 2012 at 7:37 pm
Tj,
You are in over your head here, but thanks for keeping it civil.
Excellent commentary here; intelligent dialogue with sensible and rational content.
Light years ahead of the anti government gun nuts who believe they are a formidable force against the US military or police.
I could go on and on, some seriously baffling and irrational arguments offered by pro ASSAULT WEAPON crew.
Sad, angry and dangerous group of people.
loading...
tj
Dec. 27th, 2012 at 8:48 am
thanks I know Im over matched here but I enjoy good debates that are civil.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 27th, 2012 at 9:23 am
Everyone knows something someone else doesnt know Tj, never worry about being over matched if you have convictions and stand behind them
loading...
Bob
Dec. 21st, 2012 at 4:11 pm
You all just solved the problem keeping assault weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens. How are you are going to keep them out of the hands of criminals?
If banning assault weapons works, we should ban crack and meth too.
loading...
Reynardine
Dec. 21st, 2012 at 7:33 pm
The Lanzas gave every impression of being law-abiding citizens, and those weapons were obtained legally.
A while back, a truckload of corpses was dumped by broad daylight on a federal highway in Veracruz, Mexico. The weapons for these massacres are for the most part obtained from Americans who got them…legally.
loading...
JT
Dec. 22nd, 2012 at 6:37 pm
Quote…”The Lanzas gave every impression of being law-abiding citizens, and those weapons were obtained legally.
A while back, a truckload of corpses was dumped by broad daylight on a federal highway in Veracruz, Mexico. The weapons for these massacres are for the most part obtained from Americans who got them…legally.”
Mrs Lanza didn’t give off some “impression”…She was a law-abiding citizen who obtained HER weapons legally and according to the laws of Connecticut. Then her underaged maniac of a son KILLED HER and STOLE her >legal< weapons and therefore committed a CRIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
…and those weapons that were used to create that truckload of corpses you mention are probably a direct result of the Fast and Furious fiasco that was orchestrated by none other than your DEMOCRAT attorney general…Eric Holder!
So in response to the way you replied to "Bob"…use your brain and understand the facts before you spout off with your unintelligent bullshit…you ignorant "specious" fucktard!!!
loading...
Bob
Dec. 21st, 2012 at 8:47 pm
Then the assault weapons ban should work, right?
Problem solved. You all are brilliant.
loading...
Bob
Dec. 21st, 2012 at 9:35 pm
This calendar year so far, 446 school kids have been shot and 62 died from gunshots in Chicago, Illinois.
Do you think an assault weapons ban will help Chicago? No wait, Chicago already bans legal weapon ownership.
Why don’t your bleeding hearts bleed for the black kids of the inner cities?
You wouldn’t be exploiting the white kids in CT for your liberal political agenda now, would you?
R – A – C – I – S – T
loading...
Reynardine
Dec. 22nd, 2012 at 10:36 am
No point rating you. I’ll just call you a specious fuck.
loading...
Bob
Dec. 22nd, 2012 at 4:35 pm
Bless your heart, it’ll be okay.
Look, we all know you’ll be hypocritical to push your agenda. We’re used to that. It’s what you do. Don’t hide it. Be proud if it gets you what you want.
Just ask yourselves if you hate guns owners so much that you’re willing to see more people/children get killed.
It’s true that gun owners are watching the discussion that’s taking place in the MSM. But, so are the Lanzas of the world. You need to consider that in your well thought out, unemotional, fact based position.
loading...
Alex
Dec. 24th, 2012 at 7:42 am
Are these people commiting mass murders criminals or law abiding citizens who hav looped out and being that it’s your right to have a gun made it easier for them in the heat of their rage get a gun because they are so easily available and kill so many innocent people and where are the people who are so paranoid that own guns to stop these murders taking place guns are designed for only one purpose and intention
loading...
tj
Dec. 27th, 2012 at 12:21 pm
“where are the people who are so paranoid that own guns to stop these murders taking place”
Most of these happen in “GUN FREE” zones most people who have CC permits wont break the law.
loading...
tj
Dec. 27th, 2012 at 11:52 am
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/13684392-president-obamas-daughters-school-has-armed-guards-does-this-change-your-opinion-on-nra-proposed-armed-guards-in-schools
is it ok that a school for the rich has guards but they dont want regular kids protected
loading...
tj
Dec. 27th, 2012 at 1:24 pm
how much do the rich pay to keep their kids safe… 30k+ a year
http://www.sidwell.edu/admissions/tuition-and-fees/index.aspx
loading...