(Advertisement)

Exploiting The Newtown School Tragedy

PRESIDENT, CONGRESS WOULD DISMISS OWN SECURITY IF THEY REALLY BELIEVED IN GUN-FREE ZONES

Posted: December 30, 2012 at 4:48 a.m.

The soul-chilling tragedy at Newtown, Conn., engenders a panic that leaves us vulnerable to exploitation. Opportunistic politicians portray the massacre as a crisis and start throwing out “solutions” that infringe on the right to bear arms while increasing the likelihood of more massacres.

This story is only available from our archives.

Opinion, Pages 11 on 12/30/2012

(Advertisement)



« Previous Story

Federal Health Mandate A Threat To Freedom

The Health and Human Services mandate regarding contraceptives and sterilization procedures has caused quite a stir among Catholics. Here’s why. Read »

Next Story »

You Have A Dangerous Child: Now What?

Even if you recognize your child’s a threat, then what? Read »

I've never heard anybody explain how Saddam managed to run his dictatorship when so many Iraqis appeared to have their own rifles (which they would shoot off in the air during weddings).

Posted by: Coralie

December 30, 2012 at 4:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

You already answered that in one of your earlier posts, Coralie, bombs and tanks.

Posted by: Moneymyst

December 30, 2012 at 4:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie,

It is called purges. Saddam took a play out of Stalin and Hilter's book.

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 30, 2012 at 11:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I think you've missed my point.
People were allowed to keep rifles, yet it didn't help them overthrow Saddam.
If he could hold down an armed populace with bombs and tanks, how much more so could the U.S. government with its infinitely greater arsenal hold down an insurrection here, even people armed with assault weapons.
In other words, it's a BS argument that citizens need military weapons in case they have to rebel against a U.S. dictatorship. Their weapons would not get them any farther than various survivalist militias that have tried the same thing in the past.
The whole idea is part of the Borderer ideology brought over from the lawless borderlands of England and Scotland.

Posted by: Coralie

January 4, 2013 at 11:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Try to take guns away from US citizens and see who quickly militias will rise up against the government. It will be the catalyst for the second US Civil War.

...just sayin...

Posted by: superdave10

January 4, 2013 at 1:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I think you're champing at the bit for a catalyst.
Nobody's talking about "taking guns away" from anybody but rather a ban on the sale of certain kinds of weapons, magazines, and bullets.

Posted by: Coralie

January 7, 2013 at 1:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie,

RE-

"Nobody's talking about "taking guns away" from anybody but rather a ban on the sale of certain kinds of weapons, magazines, and bullets."

Yeah back to the age of flintlocks.

Isn't it interesting how a large amount of the same people that want to get rid of guns to prevent murder want to protect the subsidized killing of the unborn.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 7, 2013 at 3:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Yeah back to the age of flintlocks."
And why not? That is what the Constitution refers to. After all, we must show utmost respect to the Constitution, and we can't expect that the meaning of the Constitution could have evolved. Look at all of the evils done under the Constitution now because liberals have caused interpretation of the Constitution to evolve.

Oh, wait-- maybe we can let the interpretation evolve after all:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs...

RE "Isn't it interesting how a large amount of the same people that want to get rid of guns to prevent murder want to protect the subsidized killing of the unborn."
Murder is the violent killing of a person. The unborn are not persons. Isn't it interesting how a large segment of the population is ignorant of this brace of facts?

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 7, 2013 at 3:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

If the unborn are not persons then the dead are not either. Can you murder a non-person? Why, when a pregnant mother is killed, is the killer charged with a double-homicide? Subject for thought, Cat. Get caught on another hot tin roof?

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 7, 2013 at 5:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Why, when a pregnant mother is killed, is the killer charged with a double-homicide?"
Possibly because, as you have pointed out yourself, some laws are stupid. Or possibly because the additional murder charge accrues to the rights of the pregnant woman (the killing is an abrogation of her right to terminate the pregnancy or bring it to term), not of the fetus. Also note that the killer is not always convicted of double murder, even when he is convicted of the murder of a pregnant woman.

Such laws are a result of anti-abortion politics, not of sound lawmaking. They don't change the fact that a fetus is not a person.

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 7, 2013 at 6:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

AlphaCat,

RE-

"Such laws are a result of anti-abortion politics, not of sound lawmaking. They don't change the fact that a fetus is not a person."

So you disagree with the law thus unborn babies aren't people?

"anti-abortion politics" you say? That is demeaning to anyone that has lost a baby to a murderer. They are either people or they aren't.

The Arkansas Supreme Court has ruled that they are people.

"Arkansas: The killing of an "unborn child" of twelve weeks or greater gestation is capital murder, murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, manslaughter, or negligent homicide. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 5-1-102(13)(b)(i)(a), read with Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 5-10-101 to 5-10-105. (A separate Arkansas law makes it a battery to cause injury to a woman during a Class A misdemeanor to cause her to undergo a miscarriage or stillbirth, or to cause injury under conditions manifesting extreme indifference to human life and that results in a miscarriage or stillbirth. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 5-13-201 (a)(5)(a))."

http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/St...

Yeah, I'm sure some do think that is a real stupid law....

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 8, 2013 at 2:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "So you disagree with the law thus unborn babies aren't people?"
No-- I'm pointing out that these laws simply add the ability to charge a killer with double homicide in such killings without addressing the legal questions of whether/when a fetus is a person, which has been settled in other law as not being the case. These laws are in conflict with established legal precedent. Of course, precedent might well catch up, as there are plenty of courts in the more backward states, and I cite such a case below. I also note that you are being careless with your language. A fetus is not an unborn baby. If you want to have a rational discussion, use language more carefully. If you cannot use the word "fetus" when talking about fetuses, you can't talk rationally.

RE "'anti-abortion politics' you say?"
Yes. They attempt to weaken abortion statutes by introducing a new legal category under which a fetus can be considered a person.

RE "That is demeaning to anyone that has lost a baby to a murderer."
Tell that to the people who have bad motivations for writing bad laws. And again: a fetus is not a baby.

RE "They are either people or they aren't."
According to the Arkansas Supreme Court, sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't. See below.

RE "The Arkansas Supreme Court has ruled that they are people."
That is not a court ruling; it is a statute, courtesy of our fine state legislature. Note that according to that statute, the same outcome-- the loss of a fetus-- is treated as either one of various capital crimes or battery, depending on the nature of the crime against the mother. In other words, this law pertains to the rights of the mother, not of the fetus. (At least women have more rights now than they did in the Old Testament, but the law is parallel to Old Testament law. Very impressive.) Fetuses don't automatically have rights, because they are not always persons. Here are some more notes on the statute, including the various cases in which it does not apply:
http://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/...

Here is an actual 2001 Arkansas Supreme Court case, in which the court ruled that, in cases of homicide and wrongful death, a viable fetus is a person. The case provides a good, if convoluted, summary of the evolution of the law regarding fetuses.
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?...
(The dissenting opinion is especially interesting. I think I'll go to law school.)

RE "Yeah, I'm sure some do think that is a real stupid law."
It is stupid insofar as it contributes to a jumble of laws that the Supreme Court had to untangle, and that it was written to spite federal law. It also is stupid because it was written as an emotional response rather than a rational one.

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 8, 2013 at 1:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank says " back to the age of flintlocks."
This is an extreme either/or exaggeration.
Nothing between an AK-47 and a flintlock?

In Lords of War Nicholas Cage says of the AK-47 " It's so easy, even a child can use it; and they do. The Soviets put the gun on a coin. Mozambique put it on their flag."
Wikipedia: "It is also found in the coat of arms of Zimbabwe and East Timor, the revolution era coat of arms of Burkina Faso, the flag of Hezbollah, and the logo of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.".
The AK is widely used by drug traffickers, rebels, street gangs, and terrorists the world over.
What a wonderful invention!

Posted by: Coralie

January 8, 2013 at 3:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Isn't it interesting how a large amount of the same people that want to get rid of guns to prevent murder want to protect the subsidized killing of the unborn."
This is a non sequitur--these two ideas are not related and it would be very hard to prove that the same people believe both..
"Get rid of guns" is an overstatement.
Who subsidizes abortion?

Posted by: Coralie

January 8, 2013 at 3:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Isn't it interesting that our Rangers, Seals, Special Forces, ect don't use this wonderful weapon, the AK-47. Write the Pentagon, Coralie. You and Nicholas Cage should educate our US Military. Those stupid soldiers of ours, Oh so outguned, I am about to faint.

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 8, 2013 at 4:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The AK-47... the AK-47. Coralie you are more out in left field than I thought and have very misconstrued ideas about the American gun culture or what guns are legal in the US. Is everything you know about guns from the movies?

RE-

"This is a non sequitur--these two ideas are not related and it would be very hard to prove that the same people believe both.."

Hmm, let's think about what the voting record shows. Moreover let's looks at the conflicting platforms.

Alpha,

RE-

"A fetus is not an unborn baby. If you want to have a rational discussion, use language more carefully. If you cannot use the word "fetus" when talking about fetuses, you can't talk rationally."

We are going to have to agree to disagree on that.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 8, 2013 at 4:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I was talking about the WORLD gun culture not the U.S.
"But these days it's not desperate revolutionaries and militiamen around the world who are buying the Soviet killing machine. Gun-toting American civilians account for 28-percent of sales.
The New York Times reports that the Kalashnikov factory in Izhevsk, Russia—a town called the "Armory of Russia"—is selling just as many AK-47s to the United States as to the Russian police and military combined. "
"A recent New York Times article about Izhmash Machine Workss, the Kalashnikov rifle factory in Russia, makes the almost amazing claim that US civilian consumer demand is keeping the factory open.

About 70 percent of the factory’s output is now civilian rifles, up from 50 percent two years ago. Of the civilian arms, about 40 percent are exported to the United States. That means American consumers are now buying about the same number of Kalashnikov-style weapons from Izhmash as the Russian army and police."

Posted by: Coralie

January 8, 2013 at 5:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie, let me spell it out, now follow the bouncing ball.-----The AK-47 is not a good combat weapon, the military knows this, stupid civilians don't. One does not take a BB gun to a real gunfight. Stay away from movies Coralie. Next thing we know you will be telling us the supiority of the B-17 flying fortress over the B-i Bomber, because th B-17 killed more people.

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 8, 2013 at 7:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Oh, "WORLD gun culture". I see. So you know all about those full auto AKs that are already illegal in the US. It is true that Americans buy the semi version of the AK, functionally no different than a deer rifle.

Money is write. The AK is a piece of junk. Some disagree with me, but going into a firefight, I would prefer to have a Colt product. Good thing my employer knows a few things about weapons.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 8, 2013 at 11:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

You are talking about the lovely Colt M41A which makes an AK-47 look like a Buick in a drag race with a nitro powered Funny Car.

I like the MP5A3 Submachine Gun. Made by Heckler & Kock, chambered in 9mm, no recoil, and a cycle rate of 800 rounds per minute. 30 or 15 round detatchable magazines plus a total weight of 5.5 pounds.

Tank, not only does your employer know a few things about weapons, the best weapon manufacters in the world build weapons especially for your employer.

No, Coralie, you and Mr. Cage can't buy these, you can buy only movie props that look like these. Now some gang banger goes to see Mr. Cage exterminate a bunch of extras in a movie, some gun maker sees a chance to make a profit, copies the real weapon, takes all the neat features off, sells it to collector, gang banger steals weapon, uses it to kill a bunch of unarmed peoples, and Coralie and Nicolas Cage want it outlawed.

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 9, 2013 at 6:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Yep, people are naive in many ways, including me. That is how the government takes away freedoms. "For the good of the people". Take away all the guns from citizens and you will not see any reduction in crime. You will just see more become victims because of their right of ownership taken away. I wish the media would cover the stories where having a gun saved them from becoming a victim of crime.

Posted by: mycentworth

January 9, 2013 at 8:36 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Only a matter of time before some Freud wannabe does some copy and paste of definitions and tries to apply them to this thread as well.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 9, 2013 at 1:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Take away all the guns from citizens and you will not see any reduction in crime."
And as long as idiotic overstatements like this are the sum of the argument from one side of the discussion, there can never be an intelligent discussion of the issue.

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 9, 2013 at 2:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I think that if the government takes away guns from everyone then we will see a reduction in gun crimes. Logically not a reduction in crime overall. Now if the government takes away citizens and guns, then, both.

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 9, 2013 at 3:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I never said the AK-47 was a great combat weapon!
That wasn't my point at all.
However, it is used all over the world by quasi-military groups.
What's the matter with you guys--you love to argue with things that somebody never said.

Posted by: Coralie

January 9, 2013 at 3:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Now, let's get a few statistics on just which states have the most guns.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles...
However, since this is based on NCIS checks, it may not include non-legal sales.
Most of the top gun-owning states are either South or Rocky Mountain West.,
Just what you would expect.
On this list, Minnesota was 19th, Wisconsin 25th, and Michigan 41st.

Posted by: Coralie

January 9, 2013 at 3:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

That is what I was meaning, Moneymyst. Taking away guns or gun control will not change the heart of a killer, rapist, thieve, etc.

Posted by: mycentworth

January 9, 2013 at 4:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The tragedy in Georgia.

At a two-story home on Henderson Ridge Lane in Loganville just after noon a woman was working in her upstairs office with her 9 year old twins by her side. Her husband was away at work. She heard a noise and looked out a window and saw a black man attempting to break into her house on the first floor. She called 911 and her husband, both advised her to gather her twins and hide. She went through a closet and into the crawl space in the attic.

She heard a crash downstairs as the intruder broke into the house, she heard him as he searched the downstairs, and then heard his footsteps as he came up the stairs. She was on the cellphone with her husband and the intruder heard this. He opened the closet door, didn't see anything, then he opened the smaller crawlspace door, looked in, saw a frightented women with two little children and a cellphone in her left hand and he smiled.

The smile left his face when he noticed the .38 S&W six shot revolver in her right hand. She missed with the first, but the other five found paydirt. The woman ran to a neighbor's home with her children. The intruder attemped to flee, but collapsed in a nearby driveway. Police arrested 32-year old Atlanta ex-con, Paul Slater in connection with the crime. Officers said they followed the trail of blood and found Slater on the ground saying, "Help me, I'm close to dying."

In February. Slater was arrested on simple battery charges. According to the Gwinnett County Sheriff''s Office, he has been arrested six other times in the county since 2008.

Latest news from Chapman Medical Center, he had been placed on a ventilator and suffers from punctured lungs, a punctured liver, and a punctured stomach. A hospital spokesman said this evening that if Slater survives the night, doctors will try to operate in the morning.

And Obama what to take away this mother's firearms. Shame!

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 9, 2013 at 4:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Moneymyst--

RE "And Obama what to take away this mother's firearms. Shame!"
Obama has no such intention. There is no intention on the part of anybody (worth taking seriously, anyway) to "take away" anybody's guns. And this case is entirely irrelevant to the issue of having guns in public anyway.

I'd say "Nice try", but it wasn't.

Maybe I'll see you in federal court someday.

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 9, 2013 at 6:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Know Obama that well, Alpha? Know what he is going to do? If ya need any help when the Feds come for you, you can count on me. Alpha.

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 9, 2013 at 7:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Know Obama that well, Alpha?"
At least as well as you do.

RE "Know what he is going to do?"
As I indicated above, I know what he isn't going to do.

RE "If ya need any help when the Feds come for you, you can count on me. Alpha."
Thank you. I'm sure you have experience.

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 9, 2013 at 8:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Oh my. We don't agree with Coralie. "What's the matter with you guys"..... Ha!

AlphaCat,

There are serious threats out there to people's right to carry. And if nobody stands up to those threats, then they are are much more likely to become a reality unless people pitch a fit. Rights are rights.

The Civil Rights fight would have never even been fought if people wouldn't have stood up.

I'll just be hanging out bitterly clinging to my guns and religion.... and everything else the Constitution protects.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 9, 2013 at 8:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "There are serious threats out there to people's right to carry."
While most such threats are in your imagination, there are quite a few notorious threats to your right to carry: the mass-murdering nutcases who carry. Can you name any other real threats?

RE "And if nobody stands up to those threats, then they are are much more likely to become a reality unless people pitch a fit."
There is no explicit right to carry semiautomatic weapons with high-capacity magazines granted by the Constitution, and the ridiculous notion was not even posited until the 1970s.

RE "Rights are rights."
The right to not be massacred in a hail of bullets from a high-capacity magazine in a semiautomatic weapon being among the most cherished of them.

RE "The Civil Rights fight would have never even been fought if people wouldn't have stood up."
You misapply the Civil Rights fight if you think that gun owners are the current equivalent of black people in the 1950s and '60s (and '70s, '80s, '90s,...). The fight for civil rights was fought by, and on behalf of, people with too few rights-- not people who assumed too many. Mr. History Buff.

RE "I'll just be hanging out bitterly clinging to my guns and religion.... and everything else the Constitution protects."
The operative word being "bitter"-- like so many conservatives.

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 9, 2013 at 10:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Whoa! I guess I been out celebrating the birth (or is it the death... I'm bad with holidays) of our Lord and Savior too long - I missed this controversy altogether.

Obama's coming to take away my right to abort the unwanted pregnancy of my underage wife now?!? What about her 30 round magazine? Pull the ol' gal's trigger, and she'll pump out tax-money consuming rounds until she runs dry.

Then, you get to pay for the damage those little human bullets cause. For the next 60 some-odd years.

Posted by: CaptainQuint

January 9, 2013 at 11:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

AlphaCat,

I cherish all of our rights. I'm not going to sit back and denigrate the importance of one in favor of another.

RE-

"Can you name any other real threats?"

Legislative call for the ban on certain weapons based on their appearance or magazines based on an arbitrary number.

RE-

"There is no explicit right to carry semiautomatic weapons with high-capacity magazines granted by the Constitution"

You care to be a strict constructionist about the Constitution now? We can go down that path if you like.

RE-

"The fight for civil rights was fought by, and on behalf of, people with too few rights"

I couldn't agree more. Moreover, if those that were the victims of civil rights abominations would have been well armed, that sad poitn in our history may have not happened.

Just because people are standing up for different rights now, doesn't make those rights any less important just because you don't agree with them.

RE-

"The operative word being "bitter"-- like so many conservatives."

"Bitter" wasn't my word originally. I was being facetious about comments made towards people I happen to agree with about some things.

I do appreciate your well thought out comments and debate.

Respectfully,

Tank

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 9, 2013 at 11:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "I cherish all of our rights."
So do I. Further, I cherish the responsibilities that go along with them.

RE "I'm not going to sit back and denigrate the importance of one in favor of another."
So you're not denigrating the importance of the right to life in favor of the right to own and carry semiautomatic weapons with high-capacity magazines? And isn't there sort of a right to not be compelled to carry a weapon in order to feel safe?

RE "Legislative call for the ban on certain weapons based on their appearance or magazines based on an arbitrary number."
Those would be guns that are not currently legal for concealed or open carry in public, except under certain circumstances (locked in the trunk of your car, for example). You are conflating right to carry with right to own.

RE "You care to be a strict constructionist about the Constitution now? We can go down that path if you like."
"Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Again, there is no explicit right to carry semiautomatic weapons with high-capacity magazines granted by the Constitution. Indeed, the proper regulation of a militia-- a militia being integral to the Second Amendment-- would seem to preclude having such weapons freely accessible to the public. This has nothing to do with strict or loose interpretation: that right is not explicitly granted, and the militia is explicitly mentioned. People are also not allowed to own nuclear or biological weapons. Of course, we now have a socialized militia; the National Guard should have all of these weapons.

Did you read this?
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs...

RE "if those that were the victims of civil rights abominations would have been well armed, that sad poitn in our history may have not happened."
They also would never have happened if the perpetrators of the abominations had not been so well armed: African tribesmen were perfectly able to defend themselves until Europeans and European weaponry appeared in Africa. The same is true of all the people at Newtown who had their ultimate civil right curtailed so abominably.

RE "Just because people are standing up for different rights now, doesn't make those rights any less important just because you don't agree with them."
Again, you fail to see the difference between basic human rights-- dignity, self-determination, life itself-- and the invented right to own and carry, untrammeled, a type of weapon that is apparently of no widespread use except to kill people in large numbers.

RE "I do appreciate your well thought out comments and debate."
Thank you. You are worth having a discussion with. Your comments have improved somewhat over the last year or so.

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 10, 2013 at 12:36 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Liberials took the words, "assault rifle" and put it onto a rifle that is a look alike to a real assault rifle. What is sold today in gun stores as an "AR-15" is NOT an assault rifle.

A true assault rifle fires rounds continously as you hold the trigger down, whereas a look-a-like assault rifle fires one round at a time with each trigger pull.

As for trying to reduce magazines to a maximum of 10 rounds instead of 20 or 30, it will make no difference. Anyone who was in the military or law enforcement knows you can "piggy back" magazines, (course Cat doesn't) and carrry double the amount of ammo and swap them out within less than two seconds. You can even do that swapping single mag of 10.

Lessons to be learned from this post:
1. Liberial brains cannot accept reason
2. Liberials must have someone to follow
3, Liberials will never stop on an agenda.
4. Liberials will lie to get what they want.

And finally the BIG one: (Ready Cat?)

5: Barack Obama will go down in history as the greatest gun salesman that ever lived. Sam Colt to the back of the room.

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 10, 2013 at 4:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Actually, I do not mind the ban on military weapons for civilians. I do understand the mindset of the gun control advocates. However, I do mind the rooster of all gun owners being made by govt. If I own a gun, it is nobody's busniess, especailly the govt. If I passed the background check, that should be the end of the process. The criminal will still break the law, but the law abiding are the ones suffering the enforcement. Unless I commit a crime, then leave me alone. That is like taking away your car because people are getting killed by them. Cars have been driven into crowds, so must be a deadly weapon.

Posted by: mycentworth

January 10, 2013 at 8:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"I do appreciate your well thought out comments and debate.
Respectfully, Tank."
That wasn't addressed to me.
Tank, I am tired of insults, of your twisting everything I say, and of ignoring any cited sources I've used as evidence of my arguments.
Is it because I'm a woman?

Posted by: Coralie

January 10, 2013 at 12:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Liberials took the words, 'assault rifle' and put it onto a rifle that is a look alike to a real assault rifle."
Partly because gun manufacturers and sellers market these weapons as "assault rifles".

RE "What is sold today in gun stores as an 'AR-15' is NOT an assault rifle."
It is indeed embarrassing when liberals occasionally show themselves to be as uninformed as conservatives usually are. Strange you should notice.

RE "A true assault rifle fires rounds continously as you hold the trigger down, whereas a look-a-like assault rifle fires one round at a time with each trigger pull. "
A true assault rifle can be set to fully-automatic fire. A civilian "assault rifle" supposedly cannot-- but it can be altered to fire automatically. In that respect, then, an "assault rifle" is as dangerous as an assault rifle. Since there is no real civilian need for such a weapon other than male enhancement, why not let Big Pharma do the job for you and keep these weapons out of the hands of people who would alter them for nefarious purposes?

RE "As for trying to reduce magazines to a maximum of 10 rounds instead of 20 or 30, it will make no difference...."
It will to people who are not well-trained in handling magazines. Further, controlling magazine size would seem to go hand-in-hand with controlling the availability of ammunition, which, along with keeping some types of weapons off the streets, looks like a good approach for solving the problem at hand.

Lessons to be learned from most of Moneymyst's posts:
1. Conservative brains cannot accept reason
2. Conservatives must have someone to follow, even if it is the NRA
3, Conservatives will never stop on an agenda.
4. Conservatives will lie to get what they want.

And finally the BIG one: (Ready Moneymyst?)
5: As long as there are conservatives to fan the fears, Barack Obama will go down in history as the greatest boogeyman that ever lived. Why? See 1. through 4.

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 10, 2013 at 2:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Actually, mycentworth, military weapons are allready baned from public use.

My weapon of choice is the XM25 Counter Defilade Target Engagement System (CDTE). This is a sholder fired air burst grenade launcher. It fires 25mm grenades that are set to explode in mid-air at or near the target. Comes with a laser rangefinder, transfers the detonating distance to the grenade ready to be fired, and it is the first small arms weapon to use smart technology.

I has a square magazine of four, which would work under AlphaCat's guidelines. It is a simi-automatic which also would work for AlphaCat. Another good thing about this rifle is the stopping power; when the perp or perps are hit, you can put whats left of them or him in a Wal-Mart bag.

Now it I was allowed to purchase one of these little babies, hell, the government can have all my other guns, they are worthless. Problem is that, so far, the US Military allow's only the 101st Airborne to use them.

Rifle by Heckler & Koch. Target acquisition/fire control by L-3 IOS Brashear.

Have a nice day AlphaCat.

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 10, 2013 at 3:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie,

RE-

"That wasn't addressed to me.
Tank, I am tired of insults, of your twisting everything I say, and of ignoring any cited sources I've used as evidence of my arguments.
Is it because I'm a woman?"

Your right. My comment to AlphaCat wasn't addressed at you because you can't address your disagreement without insulting us dumb, illiterate, Southerners.

My comments don't have anything to do with you being a woman? Boy you would just love that so you could label me a misogynist, if haven't already for having a different opinion than you on some key subjects.

http://i.imgur.com/KrUij.jpg

AlphaCat,

We have a fundamental difference of opinion about what invented rights are. And I have a much more expanded view of the defintition of the right to life.

RE-

"You are conflating right to carry with right to own."

The same could be said about you.

RE-

"Your comments have improved somewhat over the last year or so."

Ok. I'll take that with a grain of salt as not being a complete insult.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 10, 2013 at 5:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Alpha,

RE-

"Further, controlling magazine size would seem to go hand-in-hand with controlling the availability of ammunition"

What? Are you serious. The only thing that would control the availability of ammo would be to put a limit on it. Then of course, that is assuming poeple follow the law.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 10, 2013 at 5:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "The same could be said about you."
Not accurately. I have discussed only prohibiting certain types of weapons-- that is, the right to own. You, like many others, are exaggerating that to include the right to carry any gun. I haven't mentioned carry rights at all.

RE "Ok. I'll take that with a grain of salt as not being a complete insult."
Reread your comments over the last year or so and see if you don't agree with me.

RE "What? Are you serious...."
If one puts a limit on the amount of ammunition one may buy, in concert with requiring that the spent shells (and magazines) be returned when purchasing more ammo, then it would seem to make sense to put a limit on the size of the magazines as well. This would result in selling more smaller magazines, which would discourage altering them for massive capacity. I think perception of value would also play a part. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 10, 2013 at 5:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Need assault-gun ban, lawmakers
December 18, 2012 at 4:58 p.m.

"It is so easy to make a clip that will hold as many rounds as you can carry. Wheelbarrow them in. The answer is not to restrict or ban the sale of guns, but to limit the sale of ammunition to so many rounds over a certain period of time with ID and require the shooter to bring in spent cartridges before he can purchase more."

Posted by Moneymyst

AlphaCat if you are going to quote me, credit me.

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 10, 2013 at 6:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "AlphaCat if you are going to quote me, credit me."
I didn't quote you. And you are not the only person on the Internet who has suggested such a thing.

You can't even be civil to somebody when they agree with you.

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 10, 2013 at 7:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

AlphaCat,

RE-

"If one puts a limit on the amount of ammunition one may buy, in concert with requiring that the spent shells (and magazines) be returned when purchasing more ammo, then it would seem to make sense to put a limit on the size of the magazines as well. This would result in selling more smaller magazines, which would discourage altering them for massive capacity."

I see what you are saying. I don't agree with it, but I see your point. What about folks that do their own reloading? Its popularity is growing quickly due to the cost of ammo. Morevover, what is restricting magazine size going to do to reduce violent crime in America?

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 11, 2013 at 3:24 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

If the second admendment grants the citizen the right to keep and bear arms and it that right shall not be infringed; that seems to me to mean "hands off" government. Now you could attack the admendment in two ways

One by the statement, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state---". If you read "militia" to be Law enforcement, National Guard, and Military then game over. They and they only shall keep and bear arms. However in the same sentence the writers use "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" which makes the people the reciever of the "right" and the "Militia" the why.

Ammunition is not mentioned. If one interpetes amunition to be part of the firearm, then that also would be off limits. If ammunition is an accessory to the firearm, then amunition could be controlled, both in quanity and power. If Obama gets one more Supreme Court judge, them ammunition supplies could dry up and be rationed.

This will propably occur and "of course" the gun nuts are out there buying knock off assault rifles by the thousands and might not have any ammunition to put in them. Tank is right, reloaders will then become a supply, but when power becomes rationed also?

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 11, 2013 at 5:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I wish power would be rationed, but I meant (gunpowder)

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 11, 2013 at 5:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

My mention of the AK47 had nothing to do with U.S. military, or whether it is a great gun in general, but with the fact that it is widely used across the world in 3rd world conflicts.
Amnesty International says:
"Every day, 1,500 people die in armed conflicts around the world — one person dead every minute.
Meanwhile, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to oppose all efforts to address a crisis created by an unregulated global arms industry. An industry that puts weapons in the hands of the most brutal tyrants, warlords, and even child soldiers as young as seven.
Today is the day to stand against the NRA's interference in U.S. foreign policy and demand it drop its opposition to the Arms Trade Treaty."
This has nothing to do with U.S. gun rights or the 2nd Amendment but everything to do with the gun industry defending its profits from this horrible trade.
Some other countries are involved too, but the U.S. is the biggest exporter.
Snopes counters typical propaganda on the Internet opposing the treaty:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/u...

Posted by: Coralie

January 11, 2013 at 1:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Reasonaable is as reasonable does.
I have found many Southerners as exemplified by letters to the editor, columnists, comments to these blogs, and the type of politicians they choose to represent them, are more swayed by prejudices and emotions than facts.
That doesn't make them either illiterate or dumb, but their cognitive style is not very rational. They are not noted for respecting either facts, logic or education.
Rants and insults are not my idea of civilized discourse.
The combination of the fiscal cliff crisis--led by Tea Party obstructionists whose base and oriigin are in the South--and a good case of the flu have left me pretty disgusted with Southerners, Republicans, the United States, and the human race in general.
I still reserve the right to prefer the sections of the country where I grew up, where I didn't keep bumping into these over-emotional men who insist on carrying guns everywhere.

Posted by: Coralie

January 11, 2013 at 1:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie,

What about those "over-emotional" women "who insist on carrying guns eveywhere"...?

RE-

"Rants and insults are not my idea of civilized discourse."

Could have fooled me

My family has been down with the flu as well. The combination of that and the anti-everything-not-liberal
rants, aetheistic proselytization, and general intolerance and disrespect for anyone's view that isn't in rainbow-painted left field has me pretty digusted as well... not with the US though.

I am thrilled with the US for being exceptional and a place where people can disagree without fear of being thrown in jail for it... for now.

I sincerely do hope you are feeling better.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 11, 2013 at 2:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Ref: "An industry that puts weapons in the hands of the most brutal tyrants, warlords, and even child soldiers."

You are, of course, refering to the Omama administration and Operation Fast and Furious which was by far the largest transfer of weapons into the hands of warlords, drug dealers, and children that we know of. 2000 firearms were transfered by Obama and the ATF into Mexico and as of October 20, 2011 only 700 have been recovered. Of course, as you point out, Coralie, the NRA was firmly agianst this operation.

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 11, 2013 at 5:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lock up the crazies, as we used to do (before "mainstreaming" was a word.)

That'll solve your violence problem. (If there really is such a problem in the first instance... .)

Posted by: CaptainQuint

January 12, 2013 at 3 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Fast and Furious"was a mess for sure, the worst of a series of risky 'gunwalking' operations, but hardly the largest illegal transfer of amall arms in the world.
"There are at least 639 million firearms in the world today, of which 59% are legally held by civilians."
http://www.globalissues.org/article/7...

Posted by: Coralie

January 13, 2013 at 3:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

That works out to about 256 million illegal firearms in the world.
And what are people doing with them?

Posted by: Coralie

January 13, 2013 at 3:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Ah, stored in armories for use by the US Military and law enforcement if they are not in the hands of citizens leagally.

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 13, 2013 at 4:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The United States has less than 5% of the world's population.
And most of its citizens seem to be complete narcissists, who know little about the rest of the world and care less.
They think everything is about us.

Posted by: Coralie

January 14, 2013 at 4:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

True, some even think everything is about them.

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 14, 2013 at 5:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie,

Do you personally know "most of its citizens" (the US), and if so, do you speak for them; or are you proliferating a perception that started outside or our borders? Some people tend to be jealous of those that have it better off.

RE-

"And most of its citizens seem to be complete narcissists, who know little about the rest of the world and care less. They think everything is about us."

That is not evident in all the foreign aid workers and money sent about from both the public and private sector. Neither is it evident in all the opportunities aforded to the people that come to our country.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 14, 2013 at 10:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Americans know little about geography:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12591413/...
Some other countries aren't so hot on it either:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2...
Most Americans think that we spend much more on foreign aid than is the case:
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.c...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2...

Posted by: Coralie

January 15, 2013 at 4:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Actually I think the media is a great deal to blame. There is less and less foreign news all the time. Has to make way for the fluff and celebrities.
+++
I wish that there were world globes in all kinds of public places. I haven't seen a globe for years, even in a library.

Posted by: Coralie

January 15, 2013 at 4:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Hobby Lobby, Coralie. The even come in the nightlight catagory so as the little ragmuffin lays in bed at night waiting to go to sleep, he or she can contemplate on the world.

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 15, 2013 at 4:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Hobby Lobby may go out of business, thanks to Obama. Better get one of those globes soon. I'm going to check them out - one way to bring some light to the world.

Posted by: mycentworth

January 15, 2013 at 6:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

This little light of mine I,m going to let it shine. I can see it now a million little lights shine in the deakness. And the darkness (FFT) shall no overcome them. Go mycentworth, Go Coralie, Go Tank, Go Money! Let em shine and where the light shines in the darkness, the darkness shall not overcome it. And the beast (FFT) shall not overcome it.

And the glory ot the lamb of God shone throughout the whole world . And the men ran to and fro and tried to hide from the glory of the lamb, but they could not find shelter. And the Lamb sent the angel to herald the day of his comming and the trumpent. sounded and the dead in Christ heard just as Lazarus heard in the days of old. The lambs and the goats came forth and were lined up and the great white throne judgment had begun. And as mycentworth walked up the judge the Lord God Almighty said, Begone from me I don't know you and just at that point Jesus stepped up and said, "Yes you do Father, he is one of mine, see he is covered by the blood of the lamb." The Lord God saw and said, "This man is judged to be richeous because I can see no sin in him". Then FFT walked up and there was silence in heaven. The Lord God Almighty asked FFT why he should be allowed in since he knows not My Son. FFT said, "I have uncovered many myths and falsehoods that surrounds you, I am a free thinker and until now I did not believe you existed." And the Lord Almighty said to FFT, "I spew you out of my mouth, I never knew you!"

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 16, 2013 at 1:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Wow. What version do you read, mm? Got to get me one.

Posted by: mycentworth

January 16, 2013 at 8:15 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I just did that out of memory, would guess NKJ.

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 16, 2013 at 8:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Sorry, I'm not going to buy a bunch of globes to donate to public places. Don't have that kind of money.

Posted by: Coralie

January 16, 2013 at 4:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Hobby Lobby is a public place; or did you mean City Hall, Library, Department of Finance & Administration, Sheriff's Office, and Schools? I'm not sure the Fed's would allow that, after all, a globe could be constued as a religious symbol especially if lit up.

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 16, 2013 at 4:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"did you mean City Hall, Library, Department of Finance & Administration, Sheriff's Office, and Schools" yes, and doctors and dentists' offices.
Selling globes is not the same as displaying them one at a time.
.

Posted by: Coralie

January 27, 2013 at 3:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I agree, there should be more globes and less navitivy scenes. If you agree to that, Coralie, that would be the first thing I ever said that you agreed with me on.

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 27, 2013 at 5:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Nativity scenes are perfectly fine on church or other private grounds, just not government-supported..
Nativity scenes usually only appear in the month before Christmas, while I'm talking about globes being displayed all year.
Globes are not religious symbols, unless your religion includes believing in a flat earth.
If I wanted to spend time on a search, I could probably find that I have agreed with you on something..

Posted by: Coralie

January 28, 2013 at 12:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )