JG-TC.com > Opinion > Difference in rifles is mostly cosmetic

TODAY'S HEADLINES

SPECIAL SECTION

ONLINE POLL

ONLINE EXTRAS

SITE TOOLS

OTHER LINKS

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Lee Enterprises

Friday, November 28, 2008 10:25 PM CST
Difference in rifles is mostly cosmetic

In response to Kay Pease’s letter on the opinions page Nov. 22, Ms. Pease asks “Why do you need an assault rifle?”

I would ask Ms. Pease: Why do you need a Corvette that goes 120 mph or a crotch rocket motorcycle that goes even faster? You don’t.

But, we are a free country and should be able to own one if we should want to. She further writes, “Those are the types of guns we need to get off of the streets.” How about getting the criminals that would use such a gun illegally “off of the streets?”

Can Ms. Pease define exactly what an “assault rifle” is? Is it a rifle used in an assault? Is it a fully automatic machine gun that the media deceivingly portrays as an assault rifle?

I posed this question to more than 30 people that believe they should be banned. Not one could accurately tell me what exactly an assault rifle is. The difference between a semi-automatic rifle and an assault rifle is strictly cosmetics. Research it and find out yourselves.

She also makes some vague reference to a soldier that was electrocuted while taking a shower that was installed by Halliburton. I’m still not sure what that’s about. I assume she is trying to blame it on (as she puts it) “the secrecy and lies of the Bush/Cheney administration.” Only in America.

JACK SANDERS JR.

Oakland

Add your comments

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Not already registered?
Then click Here.

Comment policy:

JG-TC.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately. They go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed. Comments posted on Saturday may not be reviewed until Sunday afternoon.

In order to keep the page a set width, long lines (mostly long links) will be chopped. Try putting spaces in your links or consider using tinyurl.com to make a smaller link that you can include.

We will never edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to remove comments that violate our code of conduct.

No comment may contain:

* Potentially libelous statements; such as accusing somebody of a crime, defamation of character, or statements that can harm somebody's reputation.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults, threats, harassment or inciting violence.
* Commercial product promotions.

If you have any questions, please contact our moderator.

Harry Potter wrote on Nov 29, 2008 10:24 AM:

" Everyone over the age of 18 should be armed with an assault rifle, a couple of hand grenades, a machine gun, a bazooka or possible a few land mines especially school teachers, beauticians and Barney Fife type one man police departments. You never know when a Democrat, or as the right wingers now say, a socialist or Communist might jump out from behind a tree, looking for a government handout, right Barney? "

RAK wrote on Nov 29, 2008 11:13 AM:

" And enter the insults, ad hominems, and hysterics. "

The Question wrote on Nov 30, 2008 2:27 AM:

" "Everyone over the age of 18 should be armed with an assault rifle, a couple of hand grenades, a machine gun, a bazooka or possible a few land mines especially school teachers, beauticians and Barney Fife type one man police departments."
---
Exactly right, Harry. That way, when someone makes a suspicious move in a school or a Unitarian church, everybody can start blazing away in all directions. That'll show 'em. "

Killemall wrote on Nov 30, 2008 3:01 AM:

" A semi automatic is just what it says,"SEMI AUTO'1 bullet at a time

Assault Riffles are usally fuully automatic.one bullet after another untill it is empty or the barrel burns.

They are already illeagal.Except on the street where you can buy anything if you have the money.

HP,you girlie girl.Never got to go hunting much when you were youg,huh?

Bet you don't even fish cause one of dem idiots might have an Automatic pole. "

Poster51 wrote on Nov 30, 2008 6:51 AM:

" Assault rifles can no longer be manufactured or imported into the US. So as I traveled to Tulsa in early November for what is billed as the largest gun show in the US, I was surprised to see a very, very long line at one vendor. Upon closer inspection, the vendor was selling Ak-47s for $500 each. While they can't be manufactured or imported here, there is nothing about assembling the guns here. So the vendor had imported "parts" from Russia and Germany while finding the remaining pieces in the US. Sold out of 150 before noon the first day.

The other interesting thing about the Tulsa show is there is no waiting period or registration process. Walk in with cash, walk out with your weapon. While I didn't buy anything but some turkey calls, I found it fascinating to watch the people and to see what was available for sale, buy, swap, or trade. "

medic57 wrote on Nov 30, 2008 7:03 AM:

" Jack

You're mistaken, the difference is not simply cosmetic, a Semi-Automatic rifle will only shoot 1 bullit each time you pull the trigger whereas a fully automatic assault rifle will emty a 30 shot clip in about 5 seconds litterally destroying the object the gun is pointing at. No one needs a fully automatic rifle to hunt with, unless of course you're just wanting to fertilize the ground with what you shot.

I know what you're gonna say Jack, we weren't talking about fully auto rifles, yeah right, you know as well as I do that most people, when they are talking about assault rifles, they mean fully auto rifles. Only the military and law enforcement needs fully auto weapons, ther is really no need for anyone to own a fully auto weapon, they're only good for one thing.

Why do you need a Corvette that goes 120 mph or a crotch rocket motorcycle that goes even faster? You dont.

Poor analogy, the difference between a fast car and motorcycle and a Fully Automatic Assault Rifle is, with a fast car or motorcycle, you can always let off of the trigger, with an Automatic Rifle, by the time you do that you will already have popped off 30 rounds.

As to your description of an assault rifle -- The difference between a semi-automatic rifle and an assault rifle is strictly cosmetics.

So you're saying the only difference then between a Automatic Shotgun (as their called) and a pump shotgun is strictly cosmetics, at least in your eyses.

Really though, there really is no good reason for anyone to own an Assault Rifle, as anyone knows, a semi-auto assault rifle can be turned into a fully auto rifle with very little cost.

And by the way, most criminals don't carry semi-automatic weapons, they have carried fully automatic weapons since the days of Al Capone. Simply put, the NRA doesn't want ANY constrictions on any type of weapons.

By the way, the 2nd ammendment does not say anyone can bear arms.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

That's a pretty broad statement, but is does state that the only legal reason to even own a weapon is if you are in a Well Regulated Militia. The NRA actually started up just to help the military.

Ther is simply no reason for anyone to own any kind of Auto or Semi-Auto type of rifle, everything that anyone would hunt can be done so with High Powered Bolt Action Rifles or Shotguns, unless you are going for a Grizzly Bear, and their is really is no reason to kill them unless they are a danger to population.

But then again, it always come down to the NRA, they simply want all weapons available to anyone who wants to purchase them, and that's just wrong. "

medic57 wrote on Nov 30, 2008 7:56 AM:

" Everyone over the age of 18 should be armed with an assault rifle, a couple of hand grenades, a machine gun, a bazooka or possible a few land mines.

I'll agree with that, they should also be given aan Army, Air-Force, Navy or Marine uniform for 4 years. A really good way to fix the immigration problem in this country would be to hand every Mexican crossing the border, that is over 18 years old, a rifle and uniform and tell them, you're in the service now, after 4 years of defending OUR country, it will then become YOUR country and then you can legally get a job and pay taxes. "

Harry Potter wrote on Nov 30, 2008 9:45 AM:

" It seems to me that you are the one who gets all hysterical over any gun issue, RAK.

Gonna hit us with all of those NRA sound bites and talking points again?

Or how about one of those brilliant NRA gun nut interpretations of the 2nd amendment? And of course, leave that pesky bit about any militia out. LOL! "

mindboggle wrote on Nov 30, 2008 10:23 AM:

" medic57, I didn't know that cars or motorcycles had triggers! Jack Sander's analogy was good.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. You may try and ban the "assault" rifles from law abiding citizens, but those who desperately want to buy one in the "black market", will find a way to. "

Harry Potter wrote on Nov 30, 2008 10:37 AM:

" Sorry to disappoint you, Killemall, but I still hunt and fish. I just don't need a AK47 to do it. LOL!

While not realising it, you sort of let the cat out of the bag with you girlie girl comment. A lot of people such as your self seem to need to have guns to feel like a real men, and make the assumption that those who aren't enamored with them are less masculine. Your insecurities are showing there, fella.

There will be no charge for that analysis, I'm always happy to help the less fortunate, especially these with multiple deficiencies. Curse of us liberals, you know.

Next time I'll help you out with your atrocious spelling and grammar. Seriously, you could use help in that department too. "

Billie Brant wrote on Nov 30, 2008 10:44 AM:

" I fail to understand why a pump shotgun is sometimes called an automatic shotgun. I have a Remington 870 12ga (trap grade) and there's nothing automatic about it. I have to "pump" it manually with each shot. Yeah, it will hold three shells, but automatic? No way. Why "they" want to classify it as such is beyond me. "

ed miller wrote on Nov 30, 2008 12:26 PM:

" from wiki

The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally meaning "storm rifle"), "storm" used as a verb being synonymous with assault, as in "to storm the compound". Sturmgewehr was coined by Adolf Hitler[1] to describe the Maschinenpistole 44, subsequently re-christened Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first true assault rifle that served to popularize the concept.

The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:

* It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder;
* It must be capable of selective fire;
* It must have an intermediate-power cartridge between pistol and traditional rifle;
* Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.

The term "assault rifle" is often more loosely to include other types of arms, particularly arms that fall under a strict definition of the battle rifle, or semi-automatic variant of military rifles for commercial or political reasons.

The US Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges

Semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 and civilian versions of the AK-47 are not assault rifles, as they are not selective fire. Nor do belt-fed weapons or rifles with fixed magazines meet the definition of an assault rifle.

In the military, we RARELY fire in full auto as it is inaccurate and wastes ammo. It is better to use 3 round bursts. Some versions of the M16 actually have this setting instead of AUTO. "

1 cav wrote on Nov 30, 2008 12:50 PM:

" Thank you for your letter Mr.Sanders.
As you can see on this blog,their is not one here so far that knows anything about what they are talking about.
Except RAK and Killemall.
Medic57 study up a little. True assault weapons have been outlawed since the 1930's. Read the assault weapon ban description of assault weapons please.
Thanks again Mr. Sanders.
Maybe Harry Potter/the question should get off the taxpayers roll at EIU and go back to work at the paper? "

RAK wrote on Nov 30, 2008 1:17 PM:

" So why don't you show examples of my 'hysterics" Harry instead of proving my point. All I've seen here from the other posters are lots of inaccurate statements on how semi-autos can easily be turned into fully auto (go ahead and try it, I'll be behind a thick wall when you do), gangbangers using machineguns, and how the NRA wants to arm schoolchildren.

Exactly what I predicted would be said.

Why don't you tell us about "those brilliant NRA gun nut interpretations of the 2nd amendment"? Go read the recent Heller v DC decision, the Il state constitution, and the Federal Codes before you do.

In reply, there will be no actual evidence presented and just more personal attacks, stereotypes and even more ad hominems. "

RAK wrote on Nov 30, 2008 1:28 PM:

" "Upon closer inspection, the vendor was selling Ak-47s for $500 each."

No they weren't. They were selling semi-auto clones.

"The other interesting thing about the Tulsa show is there is no waiting period or registration process."

Which is the standard in the majority of the US. FFL dealers still need to conduct background checks on all firearm sales though.

"So you're saying the only difference then between a Automatic Shotgun (as their called) and a pump shotgun is strictly cosmetics, "

A pump shotgun is not "automatic".

", as anyone knows, a semi-auto assault rifle can be turned into a fully auto rifle with very little cost."

No they can't. Modifying it will more likely lead to slam-firing or exploding rather than a functioning fully-auto. They take extensive modification w/ precision tools (which is very obvious when done and highly illegal).

"most criminals don't carry semi-automatic weapons, they have carried fully automatic weapons since the days of Al Capone.

Sure they have. Evidence of this?

"the NRA doesn't want ANY constrictions on any type of weapons. "

Sure they do. Evidence of this?

"That's a pretty broad statement, but is does state that the only legal reason to even own a weapon is if you are in a Well Regulated Militia."

The Supreme Court says you're wrong. Heller v DC. Read it.

But of course none here will be able to provide any evidence for their claims nor dispute my replies with anything more than nonsense.

I guess I'm just being 'hysterical' by presenting actual sources and facts. "

RAK wrote on Nov 30, 2008 1:43 PM:

" 1Cav:

Technically, fully autos are not outlawed federally (they are in Illinois however). They required registration, an FFL license, Tax Stamp, etc.

It was the 1986 law that stopped any further manufacture of domestics for anyone other than police or military. Currently there are about 200,000 on the list. A real AK-47 costs about $5000 (that's five thousand for the innumerate) while an M-16 or Uzi goes for about $20K.

But there I go being 'hysterical' again by presenting actual facts instead of ignorant nonsense. "

Harry Potter wrote on Nov 30, 2008 4:25 PM:

" Maybe Harry Potter/the question should get off the taxpayers roll at EIU and go back to work at the paper? "

--------------------------

Taxpayers roll? "

Harry Potter wrote on Nov 30, 2008 4:50 PM:

" Any mention of guns will bring the old whiny RAK out of the wood work every time. I'll bet he has a house full of guns in all shape and forms too. Probably practices his quick drawl in front of a mirror too. A text book case of insecurities, no doubt. But those guns probably help him make up for a lot of his self perceived inadequacies on his part. LOL! "

RAK wrote on Nov 30, 2008 5:12 PM:

" Hee Hee.

Harry, you're so predictable.

Thank you for proving once again that you have no interest in any sort of adult conversation and only want to limit yourself to trolling.

Can't bring yourself to read the recent Supreme Court decision?

Poor little sad troll. "

Harry Potter wrote on Nov 30, 2008 5:25 PM:

" Just when we thought there was a limit to how low politicians could go this year, Republican Mike Huckabee took our breath away by joking about an attempted assassination of Barack Obama. Even worse, Huckabee hilariously joked about shooting the man who is set to become the first African-American presidential nominee in history in front of the most gun-crazed audience in the country: armed-to-the-teeth convention of the National Rifle Association. "

RAK wrote on Nov 30, 2008 5:44 PM:

" And what Harry neglects to mention is that Huckabee got booed for that comment and he later apologized.

But don't let facts get in the way.

What's that matter Harry? Are your tired ad hominems needing some additional embellishments?

Got to drag some red herrings across the screen to distract from the fact that you refuse to look up anything that might contradict your beliefs?

Can you refute anything I've said with factual evidence?

I doubt it. "

Harry Potter wrote on Nov 30, 2008 5:44 PM:

" I recall a similar thread a while back where one of the more vocal gun nutballs, after several days of posting on a gun issue, mentioned using a state medical card for his kids insurance needs. Remember that one RAK? You should. Now don't try to deny it. And say, how's that quick drawl practice going? Perhaps you should go to Oakland and practice with Barney Fife. You two could even wear your camouflage outfits, as I sure you have several, right? LOL! "

RAK wrote on Nov 30, 2008 5:56 PM:

" And what does that have anything to do w/ the topic at hand Harry? Why don't you provide a link so people can put things in context instead of taking your word for it?

Of course all of this is just an attempt to distract from the fact that the Supreme Court stated that the Second Amendment is not limited to militia membership.

Care to prove me wrong Harry or will you just respond w/ more of your patented nonsense? "

Harry Potter wrote on Nov 30, 2008 6:21 PM:

" And what does that have anything to do w/ the topic at hand Harry?

----------------------------

OK, so you admit you spent the kids insurance money on guns and ammo, huh? Some parenting! "

RAK wrote on Nov 30, 2008 6:35 PM:

" More patented nonsense. Not that I'm really surprised.

At least you admit that you're remaining willfully ignorant while making libelous statements against other posters.

Poor sad little troll. "

RAK wrote on Nov 30, 2008 6:36 PM:

" I mean really Harry. Why don't you show some evidence for your unending accusations and insults?

Oh, right, you can't.

Poor sad little troll. "

Harry Potter wrote on Nov 30, 2008 8:17 PM:

" RAK lets the rest of society pay for his kids insurance so he can buy more guns. (notice that he doesn't deny it) Pathetic! "

RAK wrote on Nov 30, 2008 8:26 PM:

" Poor Harry. I guess when he can't defend his nonsense, repeating himself over and over is the only thing he can do.

Like I said though, all of it is merely a distraction from the fact that "Assault Weapons" differ from "hunting guns" only in cosmetic features and the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment is not relegated to Militia membership.

He is unable to dispute either of these facts nor support any of the other nonsense he's posted so he has to try and change the subject and make more false claims.

It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. "

Harry Potter wrote on Nov 30, 2008 8:42 PM:

" Sorry RAK, but I have to sign off now and go to bed. I have to get up early so that I can go to work and pay for the insurance for all the deadbeats kids. "

RAK wrote on Nov 30, 2008 8:52 PM:

" Yep, that's Harry for you. When called to the carpet to defend his nonsense, he scurries away until he can get more of his backers to post more nonsense.

Really Harry, what am I supposed to 'deny'? That you make up fallacies and try to change the subject when you're unable to support yourself. You got me, I can't deny that.

For those who wish to actually educate themselves, here's the original "Assault Weapon Ban" from 1994:

http://tinyurl.com/6kevzl

And here's the recent Supreme Court Case Heller V DC:

http://tinyurl.com/5aeat3 "

Locke wrote on Nov 30, 2008 9:10 PM:

" Not a great example, so let me expand upon it. A military assault rifle is like a V8 Corvette. A civilian assault rifle looks the same, shares many similar traits, but has a V6 under the hood.

The official, good enough from wiki, was given, but when Clinton passed the "assault weapon ban" it clearly prohibted a number of things on manufactured weapons. These included collapsing or folding stocks, muzzle flashes, bayonet mounts, barrel shrouds used for a forward grip, a seperate forward handlegrip, anything with a pistol-like rear handlegrip, and of course, expanded magazines.

The difference is much more than cosmetic. Civilian assault rifles are rugged, durable, fire powerful ammunition, and can be used in the same role -- a firefight, although at a significant disadvantage without the option for selective fire.

I saw someone throw out the militia argument. Fine, let us define militia, within the context of the time the Bill of Rights was adopted. The militia were civilians who drilled irregularly for the defense of their community or state. Our current National Guard is under the control of the state, but subject to the federal goverment, and drills regularly at established times. In fact, the National Guard more closely resembles the original conception of our early Armed Forces.

Want more proof? Militias were to provide their own armament, uniforms, livestock, and artillery. You would literally have a farmer who kept the town cannon at his barn and brought it out to drill maybe once or twice a year! A simple, ordinary farmer with a cannon, that is the militia.

Right, a militia, a non-government controlled organization of armed-citizens are essential to free-state. The militia is where we have deviated from the Constitution, not the fact citizens have weaponry! Do you people know nothing about how our Founding Fathers felt about the British Army? You know, jury of our peers because citizens were being tried by British admirals aboard ship? You know, having to feed and house Redcoats because they demand it?

There is a very clear reason why we have the right to bear arms, and it is not to hunt or shoot Indians. If I had my way, I'd have an F-16 sitting in my back yard. "

barb dwyer wrote on Nov 30, 2008 10:21 PM:

" there once was a statement made to the effect of ' for the first time in modern history our government has brought forth full gun registration for all of it's citizens thereby making our streets safer for everyone...we hope other nations will follow our lead in the future ' this statement was made by adolf hitler in 1938...so he could find out where the guns are and take them...i dont think ...no wait ..yes i do think all people of the U.S.A 18yrs or older should have to carry a loaded pistol at all times..i truly believe the dumb stuff would go on for very long..sure there would be idiots..but that sort of thing would sort itself out quickly...just my thoughts "

medic57 wrote on Nov 30, 2008 10:33 PM:

" It's funny (if that the right phrase) you can buy AR15 to M16 conversion kits all over the net, I have a friend that has an AK47 fully automatic assault rifle, it's funny, he said it was just a matter of owning a file to changing a Semi-Automatic AK47 Assault Rifle into a Fully Auto Automatic Assault Rifle. Funny, if an AK47 semi auto is an assault rifle and a AK47 fully automatic is an assault rifle, what is the cosmetic difference? "

The Question wrote on Dec 1, 2008 4:21 AM:

" "yes i do think all people of the U.S.A 18yrs or older should have to carry a loaded pistol at all times."
----
Good thinking. That's just what made the Wild West so peaceful. "

Early Bird wrote on Dec 1, 2008 5:40 AM:

" Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

........................................

Thanks for pointing that out, medic.

For those that agree with the recent Supreme Court decision that seems to ignore the above part of the constitution, I would say that you must agree that the constitution is an evolving document, and not, as many conservatives claim, a document that must be strictly interpreted as it was written. Obviously there was a reason for that clause to be put into this particular amendment.

Funny how when a lower and more liberal court makes a decision of this magnitude that goes against the grain of the conservatives they start screaming about legislating from the bench. I don't recall hearing such complaints on this issue.

And wasn't this the same Supreme Court that went against the wishes of the Florida Supreme court a few years ago and ultimately gave us George Bush? So much for the states rights issues we hear from the radical conservatives on a regular basis.

It's evident from reading from some of the posters above that the NRA has some prepared talking points for its members to respond with.

These are the same stale responses we hear from them everytime this issue comes up. "

RAK wrote on Dec 1, 2008 7:54 AM:

" Medic:

No they're not "fully auto". If your friend has a real 'conversion kit" then he also has an FFL license or he's in violation of federal law. If he has an imitation one, all he's doing is 'bump-firing' a semi-auto, still one pull of the trigger, one shot. BTW, a semi-auto is classified as an "assault weapon" where fully auto/select fire is an "assault rifle". Why do you think the anti-gun groups invented the term? To easily confuse people who don't know any better. "

RAK wrote on Dec 1, 2008 7:59 AM:

" Early Bird:

No, it wasn't the same makeup on the Supreme Court. Several different judges.

If you disagree w/ the Heller ruling, dispute it w/ facts. Find statements by the Founding Fathers on their intentions that the 2A was supposed to be relegated to militia membership only.

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he 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 ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788."

But providing actual facts and evidence must just be 'talking points' in your world. Straight out ad hominems are your strongest argument. "

RAK wrote on Dec 1, 2008 8:14 AM:

" Since most people are unable or unwilling to dispute the Heller court case, let's look at their obsolete arguments via federal and state militia statutes:

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > 311
Prev | Next
311. Militia: composition and classes
How Current is This?
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Illinois State Const. :

ARTICLE XII
MILITIA
SECTION 1. MEMBERSHIP
The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons residing in the State except those exempted by law.

More of those "hysterical NRA talking point facts" again. "

sapient wrote on Dec 1, 2008 8:27 AM:

" The constitution is an evolving document only when liberal judges decide to take the power into their own hands and circumvent the meaning of the constitution. By doing this they can interpret the constitution to say what they want it to say, not what it does say. Sort of like a woman's "right" to kill her unborn baby. "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 1, 2008 9:04 AM:

" Speak of carrying pistols, what about the standoff/shooting at the store (can't remember which one, Best Buy, Hallmark, who knows) this past week. I'd say from this single incident the majority of people were lucky there weren't other folks "toting" in that store. Now did those guys have a permit to carry concealed weapons? Doesn't really matter does it? "

The Question wrote on Dec 1, 2008 9:32 AM:

" Hooray. Bush is giving this poor guy his guns back. Now he can return to his pastime of poisoning bald eagles.
President Bush has pardoned Leslie Owen Collier. Collier is a Missouri hunter and farmer who, in 1995, attempted to help wild turkeys make a comeback in his area by poisoning the coyotes that fed on them. The problem? The poison also killed three bald eagles that scavenged the coyotes' carcasses, and a slew of other birds as well. As killing the national bird is a federal crime, the farmer was sentenced to two years probation, and he had to give up his guns. "I guess I was humbled is the best way to say itI never thought it would happen," Collier said about his pardon in a phone interview. "It was emotional. I almost came to tears, really."
Almost makes me cry, too. "

even steven wrote on Dec 1, 2008 10:40 AM:

" "...shall not be infringed." That's the part of the 2nd Amendment that carries the weight. The reason we have the Second Amendment is so the common citizen can protect himself. Having been jumped by a gang of thugs, beaten severely, robbed, and left for dead in a field a couple decades ago, I take my RIGHT to defend myself and to be armed very seriously.

And are there really "assault rifles" any more than there are "defense rifles"? No... there aren't. "

1 cav wrote on Dec 1, 2008 11:27 AM:

" RAK, I was talking in general terms,because I doubt any of these writers even know any one who has a Federal permit. Let alone all the things that it entails to get a permit and the restriction about even taking one out to fire it. But I believe your wrong about the states.. Yes there is states that have even tighter restriction than the Federal laws??
************
It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) in its National Firearms Registry.

To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the BATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of "reasonable necessity," and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant "would be consistent with public safety." The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence.

Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.

(Sources: talk.politics.guns FAQ, part 2, "FAQ on National Firearms Act Weapons", and from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, National Firearms Act FAQ. See also, "The Firearms Owners' Protection Act: A Historical and Legal Perspective" [Hardy, 1986]) ) "

medic57 wrote on Dec 1, 2008 12:24 PM:

" RAK

I have seen him empty a 30 shot clip in about 4 seconds, by the way, I never said he was legal.

even steven

Read the first sentence,

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.

Says to me you need to be in the service to own a gun.

shumphreys

Toys R Us, those two deserve what they got, more air and food for the reast of us, as fars as their wives go, maybe a life sentence for both for instigating the shootout.

sapient

Is it any less evolving when a Republican does the same thing? I am neither liberal or conservative, what's right is right, I think of the Constitution the same way as I think of the Bible, Literally.

It is what is is and no one should be able to change it.

Some people deserve a pardon. Remember the woman from Monticello who gave Hilary an Indian Dreamcatcher, she scoured her area for the right componants, put it together and gave it to her, only problem was, it had an Eagle feather, she paid a fine and went to prison for possesing an Eagle Feather. It is against the law to even own aan Bald Eagle feather, even if you find it lying on the ground. She was pardoned by Clinton. "

BigApple wrote on Dec 1, 2008 12:49 PM:

" The problem with an assault rifle ban is the simple fact that it doesn't keep the weapons out of the hands of criminals. The crips, bloods, ms13, common criminals or whoever still find ways to get them.

Even without a ban in place criminals that want them aren't going to fill out the forms to get one legally. They don't want police to be able to trace it back to them. So the question is do law abiding citizens need the weapons? No. But there are a lot of things people don't need but still purchase.

I guess a simple argument is that if the bad guys have one I want one to protect my family and property. OK. I can see that. Its very rare that an honest person will ever need to fight off crooks packing AKs. But despite its rarity it has happened before. So I can see both sides of the argument.

But I don't understand how with all the other issues that face nation why the government should waste time with legislation that doesn't keep the weapons of the hands of those who have harmful intentions?

In theory a ban will reduce the number of registered owners.Which will then decrease the black market supply because there will be less thefts. But that will only be temporary. Since the majority of weapons on the black market today already come from foreign countries the number of smugglers and quantity smuggled will simply increase. As with nearly all illegal markets organized crime can supply the black market with ease and at a great profit. So the ban will have absolutely no effect on organized crime or the ability of an individual with bad intentions to acquire the weapons. If someone wants them bad enough theyll get them with or without a ban. All imposing a nationwide ban does is make it harder to trace the person who pulled the trigger. And if you choose to believe in the Fantasy World where a ban prevents criminals from acquiring ARs, then consider this, even if they cant get an assault rifle theyre just going to improvise and still act on their bad intentions. "

RAK wrote on Dec 1, 2008 1:11 PM:

" Medic:
So why haven't you reported him to the authorities? Do you support criminal activity?

"The Right of the People"

What does that say to you?

Who makes up the militia by law and by the writings of the Founding Fathers?

If you believe in a literal interpretation of the COTUS, then you would recognize that the militia was (and is) considered to be made up of the body of the people and that they were expected to provide their own equipment and arms.

It was the dissenting opinion in the Heller case that didn't use historical writings and instead relied on precedents that weren't established until the 20th century.

From the PA Declaration of Rights, 1790:

That the right of the citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned. "

medic57 wrote on Dec 1, 2008 1:32 PM:

" RAC

That's right, that is the PENNSYLVAN Contitution, not the US Constitution. "

even steven wrote on Dec 1, 2008 1:55 PM:

" One does NOT neet to be in the military to be in a militia. Just what IS a militia? A militia could be a group of neighbors banding together and defending themselves against marauding cut-throats. A militia could be two people saving some woman from being raped in a parking lot.

Like I said already, "...shall not be infringed" is cut and dried. It needs no explanation. All other arguments are trumped by this one phrase. End of story. "

Harry Potter wrote on Dec 1, 2008 2:10 PM:

" No, it wasn't the same makeup on the Supreme Court. Several different judges.

--------------------

So two is several huh?

Actually the two who retired were replaced with right wing ideologues and you know it.

If those two had been on the court in 2000, Bush would have won by an even bigger margin, because he would have picked up an additional vote. "

RAK wrote on Dec 1, 2008 2:59 PM:

" Medic:

That's right. It's the PA declaration of rights which was written before the Federal Bill of Rights by many of the same people.

Kind of gives one a clue as to what the mindset was, doesn't it?

So when are you reporting your friend w/ the illegal firearm? "

RAK wrote on Dec 1, 2008 3:08 PM:

" Poor Harry, can't even get his facts straight.

Bush replaced O'connor and Rehnquist with Roberts and Alito. Both O'connor and Rehnquist voted to overturn the FL Supreme Court.

So how would he have gotten a 'bigger margin'?

D*mn those hysterical facts.

Since you're continuing to try and make distractions, I take it you are unable to dispute the Heller ruling with anything resembling evidence. "

father bob wrote on Dec 1, 2008 5:00 PM:

" you can put lipstick on an AK-47 and...........hmmmmm....nevermind. "

Harry Potter wrote on Dec 1, 2008 7:11 PM:

" We need to keep this thread going for the sake of the one issue gun nutball, RAK. hee hee "

RAK wrote on Dec 1, 2008 7:17 PM:

" Poor Harry. Got caught in his ignorance so he tries to change the subject again.

Really Harry, showing how you really have no clue what you're talking about and that you're merely a sad little troll takes very little of my time. Of course trying to educate you is like trying to discuss Shakespeare with a hershey bar.

Once again, for those who wish to educate themselves, here's the DOJ paper on the Second Amendment:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf "

Harry Potter wrote on Dec 1, 2008 7:37 PM:

" I would say the the person who constantly sits and waits for someone to post so he can post his reactionary response would be the sad little troll, RAK. I notice that you seems to wait like some sort of a desperate and lonely person.

And perhaps if you waited for at least a half an hour, before responding you wouldn't look so desperate for attention. LOL! "

Harry Potter wrote on Dec 1, 2008 8:07 PM:

" How's that campaign going to make it legal to carry a concealed weapon, RAK?

It seems that common sense won out on that one.

Personally, I hope it never gets passed, mainly because of obsessed single issue people such as yourself. You have such a hard time keeping your emotions in check on here, so I can only imagine what could happen if you were out in public, with a loaded weapon, and someone said something you objected to. Wow!

I have to get to bed pretty soon so I can get up and earn some money to pay for your kids insurance.

So nightie night now, RAK, look under your bed, triple lock those doors, turn on the security lights and load up all of those guns and don't let those bad guys get you now...... "

RAK wrote on Dec 1, 2008 8:26 PM:

" Aww. Harry shows that not only has he no clue about the Supreme Court except for his exceptional case of BDS (one wonders what he will base his delusions on after Jan 20th) but that he also has no clue about how people are able to access the internet. One doesn't need to 'sit and wait' in front of a computer anymore. Try and get into the 21st century Harry. You're starting to sound like Chuckie Albin.

But this little bit of irony :

"And perhaps if you waited for at least a half an hour, before responding you wouldn't look so desperate for attention. "

Beats all. Especially when he posted 20 min after I did.

So by Harry's own statement, he's 'desperate for attention'.

What's that? No more comments on Bush getting more SCOTUS votes? Why don't you change the topic some more to distract from your failings in your education.

Watch. He'll talk about something else now. Probably something about "keeping this thread going", blaming Bush for something else, or some sort of nonsense personal attack. "

RAK wrote on Dec 1, 2008 8:42 PM:

" Well Harry, out of the 14 counties that had a concealed carry referendum on the ballot, it passed in 10 of them.

Really Harry, show where I "have such a hard time keeping your emotions in check". I've asked you that once on this thread already. You were unable to provide evidence for it then either.

You can 'only imagine' what people will do because that's the only place it exists. Your imagination. Classic projection of what you would do if you carried a firearm. Just because you want to go shooting up malls and churches doesn't mean others do. FYI, I can and have carried in numerous states. Now you can go and wipe yourself.

Since basic facts escape you, it's no wonder you need to resort to personal attacks and other logical fallacies in your job as a professional troll.

It's really all you have. "

RAK wrote on Dec 1, 2008 8:46 PM:

" And keeping with the theme of educating those who wish to be, here's the 97th Congress's report on the 2A:

"The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms therefore, is a right of the individual citizen to privately possess and carry in a peaceful manner firearms and similar arms. Such an "individual rights" interpretation is in full accord with the history of the right to keep and bear arms, as previously discussed. It is moreover in accord with contemporaneous statements and formulations of the right by such founders of this nation as Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams, and accurately reflects the majority of the proposals which led up to the Bill of Rights itself. "

http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm

There I go. Letting my emotions go out of control again. "

Locke wrote on Dec 1, 2008 9:26 PM:

" The anti-gun crowd loves to redefine the 2nd Amendment to construe that the right extends only to the militia, and not the person. That is, the National Guard or Army has the right to have guns.

This is complete insanity -- and it's shows complete ignorance of the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights only expand upon the rights of the individual, while limiting the powers of the government -- ONLY. This was the whole point of the Bill of Rights!

Additionally, if one breaks down the structure of the statement, it is clear the "people", not the "militia", is the primary focus.

So really, those who use this argument understand neither history nor the English language. Sorry, but I think that argument's powder is wet. "

Harry Potter wrote on Dec 2, 2008 7:24 AM:

" FYI, I can and have carried in numerous states.

----------------------------------

How sad that someone is so insecure that they feel the need to carry a loaded weapon on them self when they travel. Talk about insecurities! You probably plan your vacations around the gun laws of the various states too.

Sorry the sit and wait comment went over your head too. But then anything not in black and white seems to do that to you. Curse of the simple mind, I guess. Have a good day, RAK, now get out there and get a job. "

RAK wrote on Dec 2, 2008 8:45 AM:

" Poor Harry. Now he's going to sit all day imagining the carnage he could do to his coworkers if he carried a gun.

Since he didn't deny it, it is now a fact by his own arguments.

What's that Harry? No more comments on the progression of CCW in this state? Howabout those Supreme Court judges? Just more of your SOP levels of ignorance and trolling? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Time for more education. The Federalist Papers written by the Founding Fathers:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/fed.asp

Excellent reading into what they were thinking and intending as they were establishing this country. "

.Doh wrote on Dec 2, 2008 9:08 AM:

" When you can't back it up with facts - poor little libtarded troll. "

RAK wrote on Dec 2, 2008 9:10 AM:

" It's really funny watching Harry move those goalposts when his fabrications are brought to light. First, he projects his own personal desires of slaughtering people by claiming that I would be unable to control myself if I carried a firearm. Since I do carry and nothing of the sort has happened, Harry did a little dance and changed his claims to that I'm 'insecure'.

The majority of politicians, hollywood, and other VIP's are 'insecure' as well, traveling w/ their private security and bodyguards. And people who get security systems for their homes must live in abject fear 24/7 by Harry's way of thinking. "

Harry Potter wrote on Dec 2, 2008 11:18 AM:

" The majority of politicians, hollywood, and other VIP's are 'insecure' as well, traveling w/ their private security and bodyguards. And people who get security systems for their homes must live in abject fear 24/7 by Harry's way of thinking. "

It would seem to me that these folks might have a legitimate concern for their safety, being celebs and all. What's your reason? Why would a little nothing of a nobody need to carry around a loaded gun?

And by the way, home security, including having a weapon handy is a smart idea.

I suspect sniveling cowardice on your part as a reason for having to carry a loaded weapon out in public. Either that or some sort of a insecurity over your masculinity. Something along the lines of what ails our friend Doh. "

Harry Potter wrote on Dec 2, 2008 11:30 AM:

" I just hope and pray that RAK is not a postal worker. If he was, it might explain a lot. LOL! "

Harry Potter wrote on Dec 2, 2008 11:45 AM:

" Gun nut kills eight after Bush speech Anton Antonowicz US Correspondent

Shoppers flee mall in terror

A crazed gunman shot eight people dead before killing himself in a crowded shopping mall last night - an hour after President Bush gave a speech nearby. "

Harry Potter wrote on Dec 2, 2008 11:53 AM:

" Wasn't Timothy McVeigh a gun nut too? Most of the gun nuts I've know seemed a little unbalanced. "

RAK wrote on Dec 2, 2008 2:08 PM:

" Ah, so now Harry states that he feels only 'important' people should be allowed to protect themselves. They're the only onese deserving of it because they have money or popularity. Quite an elitist view he has there.

His delusions of adequacy just get sadder every day. "

RAK wrote on Dec 2, 2008 2:11 PM:

" More education for those interested:

Here are the complete Annals of Congress, detailing all the debates and legislation since day 1.

http://rs6.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwaclink.html#anchor5

So far noone has been able to produce evidence showing the Founders intent was to limit firearm ownership to gov't run militia's. "

RAK wrote on Dec 2, 2008 2:20 PM:

" "I suspect sniveling cowardice"

More of that projection from Harry. He goes from fantasies of mass murder to admitting his own fears.

Come on Harry. Let's meet. We can have a nice little 'discussion' about your comments. I won't even be armed.

Are you up for it? "

RAK wrote on Dec 2, 2008 2:40 PM:

" Here's an interesting fact. Over 50% of violent crimes are committed outside of the victims home.

Harry, however, thinks it's 'smart' to have a gun at home but "sniveling cowardice" to carry one outside.

Why is it 'cowardice' to want to protect yourself in the place where more violent crimes are committed Harry?

Care to explain that 'logic'? "

Harry Potter wrote on Dec 2, 2008 4:00 PM:

" Now he's trying to pick me up. Sorry that's not my bag, but you might try asking the squeaky blue smurf out though. He seems more in your league, at least in the intelligence department. "

RAK wrote on Dec 2, 2008 4:19 PM:

" "" Now he's trying to pick me up. Sorry that's not my bag, but you might try asking the squeaky blue smurf out though."

Projecting again Harry? Sorry. I want nothing to do w/ your fantasies of watching other people use your much abused toys.

Hee Hee. At least we know who the 'sniveling coward' is now. "

father bob wrote on Dec 2, 2008 4:54 PM:

" RAK wrote on Dec 2, 2008 4:19 PM:
" At least we know who the 'sniveling coward' is now."""

andres back again???....i thought we ran him off. "

killemall wrote on Dec 3, 2008 1:16 AM:

" Mother Barb Wrote,
A lot of people such as your self seem to need to have guns to feel like a real men, and make the assumption that those who aren't enamored with them are less masculine. Your insecurities are showing there, fella.

I don't own any guns now since I don't have the time to hunt.Off base there a tad Mother Barb.

What do you hunt and what do you use??Still have your Daisy from the old days.

I don't need a gun to protect myself either,if you would like to find out.
You could give me a spelling lesson then I could give you a lesson.
Of course you don't. Step out from hiding behind your pc, and step up to the plate.Show us a real man.The only thing I see around here fully automatic is your mouth.
Spelling,I think you had better go back and look at your own posts first.I guess it was your fully auto mouth again.Man is the best foe to hunt,they kind of taste like chicken also. Never could stand the dark meat though.Dogfood. "

.Doh wrote on Dec 3, 2008 9:03 AM:

" I thought Harry was the new and improved Tom Andres, or was that Dohbaugh? LOL! "

Harry Potter wrote on Dec 3, 2008 10:21 AM:

" And by the way Doh, that little . in front of your name isn't really fooling anyone. You might as well go back to one of your other names. LOL! "

RAK wrote on Dec 3, 2008 12:03 PM:

" For those who wish to educate themselves:

The current state of the lawsuit against the city of Chicago's handgun ban and the city's attempts at stonewalling.

http://www.chicagoguncase.com/ "

father bob wrote on Dec 8, 2008 3:13 PM:

" if the difference i rifles is mostly cosmetic, you won't have any problem being without assault rifles...

you're rationale by the way mr. sanders "

father bob wrote on Dec 8, 2008 3:13 PM:

" excuse me....your not you're. "