« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

The Return Of The Scary Gun Ban. 2012 Edition.

In the wake of the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut the usual suspects, including our president, have made noises about renewing the ban on assault weapons. This ban was a truly bad idea when it was first imposed under the equally feckless Bill Clinton in 1994 as the Orwellian named Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.

Why was it a bad idea? Because no one knows what constitutes an assault weapon other than it is scary looking.

Back in 2004, when the first assault weapons ban had lapsed and Senator Dianne Feinstein was trying to generate interest in its extension, I wrote a post on it called Return of the Scary Gun Ban. In it I laid out the reasons why the assault weapons ban was a ban on aesthetics and did nothing to reduce the presence of the weapons it targeted.

The official criteria for an assault weapon is a rifle that has two of the following features:

–Folding or telescopic stock

–Pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the stock

–Bayonet mount

–Flash suppressor or threaded barrel

–Grenade launcher

 

For a pistol to fall under the ban it must have a detachable magazine and two of the following features:

–Magazine that attaches outside of the pistol grip

–Threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer

–Shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned

–Manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded

–Semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm

 

In execution, the law was not of much use for anything other than amusing a couple of engineers over a weekend. For instance, a semi-automatic version of the AK-47 becomes completely legal if you remove the bayonet stud and flash suppressor. Many scary weapons were made legal by simply replacing the original stock and pistol grip with a solid stock tapped for the thumb like in the below examples:

 

and

 

These photos demonstrate how the M-16 (or it’s certifiably evil cousin the Bushmaster) or that Third World favorite the AK-47 can be changed from illegal

to something you can buy in any gun store

 

 

Note the bayonet stud and pistol grip have been removed without affecting the range, accuracy, cyclic rate of fire, or general lethality of the weapon. In the case of the AK-47, it has a 10 round magazine rather than the trademark 30-round banana clip. They may be butt-ugly but they are no longer assault weapons.

Even the Violence Policy Center noted in its statement on the expiration of the assault weapon ban how monumentally ineffective it had been.

Let’s make no mistake about the agenda here. The same evil man who killed 26 people in Newtown was not going to be stopped by a 10 round magazine or the lack of a pistol grip on his rifle. He had two automatic pistols in his possession. If he hadn’t the automatic pistols he would have had revolvers or a shotgun. The net effect on a captive audience would have been indistinguishable. The rampage was not ended with him being overpowered or the victims escaping, but by him deciding to kill himself. The ban on assault weapon simply allows the anti-Second Amendment people to use the next tragedy… and the last body had hardly hit the floor in Connecticut before the politicization of the tragedy was underway… to demand yet more restrictions.

As my friend and colleague Thomas Crown noted yesterday, Connecticut has one of the strictest gun control regimes in the nation yet it failed. It failed because evil people only rarely obey the law. The odds of this man having been deterred by a gun law are exactly the same as the odds of him being deterred by the law against murder.

COMMENTS

  • fightnright

    There are millions of folks with debilitating Aspergers and mental illnesses who would never dream of shooting a couple dozen small kids in cold blood – the trouble is trying to find the handful amongst those millions with brain pathologies throughout these United States who will choose to commit mass homicides.

    From what I have heard so far, Adam Lanza presented – in school and in public – as exactly the opposite of an aggressive or callous-unemotional killer. And what the Lanza family and Adam’s mother was living with was not all that rare or unusual. It’s unfortunately more common than one might think for natural biological/hormonal changes attending the start of male puberty to bring on symptoms of aggressive acting out in the mentally ill and clinically depressed in their homes: throwing furniture, breaking windows, threatening violence to others as well as suicide, setting fires, attacking family members with biting, beating, tearing and pinching of skin; destruction of property and self-injury etc. These events will last for years and years without ever going beyond those actions. And when you consider adding to that total the loner/sensitive/bully targets who fade silently into crowds and easily slip under the cultural radar, you know that the problem of society’s ever accurately isolating the individuals who might suddenly turn their hostilities outward toward society is enormous and near impossible.

    There are scores of young men and not a few women, most under treatment their whole lives, with exactly these frightening pathologies to be found in every decent size town across the nation. How can we locate and monitor or institutionalize the ones who just might cross the line, against the vast majority who can and will limit the compass of their dangerous behaviors to their homes and their extended family members? If the numbers involved are properly understood, it’s clear that all identified aggressive/disturbed individuals, and others with mental disorders similar to those which have resulted in previous heinous crimes will never all be under 24-7 guarded watch or lock and key for a fact. There are many reasons why victim disarmament is never the solution.

  • http://scipio62.livejournal.com/ scipio62

    Thanks, streiff. Excellent post.

  • cheesycon

    oh wow look at this sexy thing

    http://www.gandermountain.com/modperl/product/details.cgi?pdesc=GunVault-SpeedVault-Biometric-Gun-Safe&i=691455

    THAT would have stopped the CT shootings, pretty much. How would Adam Lanza have shot his mom with her own gun if he couldn’t open the safe?

    I want one of those :) So much more sexy than the boring locks we use.

  • joshinca

    Maybe the republicans should offer their own assault weapons ban that would simply list a number of weapons already covered by the 1968 GCA and the 1986 FOPA.

    Something completely worthless to let the d’s have a symbolic win.

  • joshinca

    I can see one of those on every teacher’s desk.

  • politicsinhd

    “He had two automatic pistols in his possession.”

    No, he didn’t. Guys, if we’re going to have a successful debate about this issue we are going to have to be able to use the right terms. At the very least it allows us to mock the abolitionists when they bleep it up.

  • streiff

    the problem with useless laws is that they inevitably ensnare the unsuspecting innocents as well as making the law ridiculous.

  • streiff

    yes he did. He had a Glock and a SigSauer. If you are going to correct me, be correct, Scooter. You don’t get second chances. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/15/connecticut-shooter-guns_n_2306913.html

  • jaydickb

    The only discussions I have seen that have any promise are the ones about arming selected school personnel. There may be something beneficial on the mental health front, but I haven’t seen anything yet.

  • cheesycon

    if there’s going to be any gun control legislation forced down our throats then maybe we can force some funding for biometrics on our pistols, not just our safes. That would be so awesome, just like Judge Dredd.

    making it so only one or two people can fire a gun, the legal owners, and no one else, would really solve a LOT of the problems overnight.

    I’m probably dreaming though. Is this even possible?

  • cheesycon

    it’s biometric, dude…

  • cheesycon

    so you’re defining “automatic” as firing, not loading. That’s one usage but it’s not the only way. When I got my .22 the gun shop guy called it a automatic, too. I mean, really if there are pistols out there that are “automatic” the way you describe, they must be military ones. I don’t know much about guns beyond what I’ve used but why would any enthusiast need automatic firing?

  • streiff

    a pistol that fires full auto is called a “machine pistol.” A pistol that fires semi-automatic is called an “automatic” because a revolver is technically a “semi-automatic.” This is not new information.

  • http://thecorruptworld.blogspot.com/ wayneinnh

    The “assault weapon” definition is roughly akin to saying anyone who drives a Toyota Camry or Ford Fusion is driving a race car.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    “Connecticut has one of the strictest gun control regimes in the nation”

    Nothing more needs to be said about gun control in the wake of this horrible incident. Gun control has nothing to do with preventing these rare attacks.

  • Dan Middleton

    Virtually any firearms reference you can consult will list the M1911 as a semi-automatic firearm. Also keep in mind when the M1911 and .45 ACP were being developed and named, “automatic pistols” in the sense of pistols that were not revolvers were still a relatively new innovation, so it made sense then to name the round thusly.

    It IS confusing terminology to people (and most of the credulous public that the gun fear lobby targets fall into this category) who know nothing about guns besides a vague idea that you pull a trigger and they shoot bullets.

  • streiff

    this is just silly. If you go into a gun store and ask to see an automatic pistol you will be shown a variety of semi autos. I don’t why you are insisting it is confusing when it really isn’t.

    Btw, I am an former infantry officer. I own pistols. I’ve been shooting most of my life. Don’t try to feed me baby**** and tell me it is butterscotch.

  • kowalski

    I think we can do it. I think we really have to put our heads together as a society – real “gun people” and non-gun people, not the armchair journalists and the ideological partisans and agenda-driven demagogues – and focus on that trend line like it was the most important thing in the world, because in a sense, it is.

    All the rest of the good things, the beneficial things, the things that I respect and love and cherish and yes – fear – about gun ownership depend on the movement of that trendline. If we can’t get the rate of random mass shootings moving in the other direction, we’re finished. We will be forced by our own revulsion to do things that we *do not* want to do, and shouldn’t do.

  • streiff

    this is the point.

    Automatic pistol is a well known term. It applies to a pistol that is magazine fed and fires each time you pull the trigger.

    2. This issue is someone correcting me for using the common and very correct terminology. For instance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_Colt_Pistol

    and

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_pistol

    3. Saying that the pistols are not referred to as automatics marks one as an imbecile who is trying to pick a fight.

  • streiff

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_Colt_Pistol

  • celador2

    I oppose gun buy backs. Police can out their time and mney to better use instructing gun owners in self and home defense than in disarminngt he people.
    Police may get more calls from a helpless population and want the public disarmed and defenseless so they are more powerful.
    The state should not be activie in rolling back a right.

  • streiff

    the story is about the call for a new assault weapon ban.

    Your definition of assault weapon does not appear in the former law, in fact, I’ve never heard of any law that bans a selector switch as that was outlawed in 1934 under the National Firearms Act.

    I have not read any story that says the Connecticut killer used a fully automatic rifle. Please provide a link.

    I don’t match credentials with people I meet on the internet, though I’m not really sure how the award you claim translates to being relevant to the subject at hand.

  • keithe

    Great post. Even setting aside Second Amendment and other concerns of liberty, the AWB was completely irrational, and served no purpose other than to make certain legislators and their constituents feel good about themselves for “doing something” about the problem (when in fact they did nothing useful).

    It will be interesting to see whether Obama and the dems learn from the mistake and propose restrictions that focus on the metrics that actually do factor in to these mass killings (rate of fire, lethality, etc.) versus cosmetics. I doubt it, because I think that for them this still is more about the appearance of taking “action”. So a politician can hold up a picture of a particularly nasty looking weapon and say “I took these off the streets and your children are safer!” Of course, if the war on drugs has tought us anything it is that these kind of bans, even when they are rationally conceived, do not work. There are 330 million Americans spread over a continent, if some of them want something, legal or not, they’ll get it. Children will not be “safer” by outlawing “scary” guns.

    The only semi-rational justification of “cosmetic” regulation – which is absurd upon reflection – is the idea that some of these mass murderers are living out a “fantasy” where they dress up as spec ops and a realistic weapon is a necessary component of the fantasy. As if these nutjobs wouldn’t go through with it if they couldn’t get ahold of an authentic-enough looking weapon. For me, this just illuminates the inherent inconsensistencies of the modern liberal mind. Doesn’t “gangster rap” encourage a fantasy of glorified violence and drug distribution? The left leaps up to defend the “artist” on first amendment grounds, or screams “racism.” After all, the music just “reflects the reality” instead of causing it. Do illicit sexual lyrics, movies and tv shows lead to more promiscuity among teens, and the consequent unintended pregnancies and STD’s? Does violent content in these same media lead “fragile minds” to kill? Of course not, we are told, its just music, movies and tv. But scary guns “cause” the killing. I just don’t get it.

    The common theme among this incident, the Oklahoma federal building bombing, the anthrax mailer and the unibomber is not a gun; it is a deranged madman. The debate should not be about bayonet studs and pistol grips; it should be about how we balance our constitutional liberties with our need to better equip the state to identify these nutjobs ahead of time to prevent them from doing things like this. I don’t know whether the 20 year old murderer in this incident had prior arrests or DFS involvement or school problems or other indicia that would have alerted authorities that he potentially fit within the profile of a killer – assuming he did, what action could the state take to protect the public from him? Its uncertain ground for sure, but I think the public will be more inclined to our views that those of the democrats when it comes to protecting people from these walking time bombs.

    Also, we need to steer clear of the “let’s arm the teachers/principal” argument. That is patently DUMB. Teachers should be selected on their merit as teachers (I know, its a shocking idea) rather than use of firearms. But why not a friendly security guard? Just about every courthouse has an armed security presence and courthouses are full of just about every demographic prone to violence – criminals, mentally ill, people litigating over custody, divorce, inheritances, etc. The fact that we have armed guards in our banks but not our schools says something about what many feel is worth protecting.

  • streiff

    the reason that security guards in schools are not armed, especially in high schools, is the fear that students will be able to get possession of the weapon in a bump-in-the-hallway scenario or a physical assault. I think the gun safe with the biometric lock has a lot to recommend it.

    Do we really believe teachers are selected based on merit as teachers? This is a different subject and I don’t want to threadjack my own story but I think that is a very arguable proposition.

  • PowerToThePeople

    Down here we have cops assigned to each school. They are actual Sheriff’s officers who are assigned to protecting the schools. Some of the bigger schools have multiple officers who patrol both the outside and inside of the school.

    While this does offer some degree of protection, I agree that it is time to arm the teachers who are willing to be armed. That biometric safe would be a great start. Imagine every room of the school having a weapon that could defend against the type of carnage we just saw.

    But alas, I think we as a country are too liberal to ever see school safety become a reality.

  • mammonista

    The writer is absolutely spot on…

    As an avid hunter and owner (former) of a Mini-14 and several semi-automatic handguns and many more revolvers, shotguns, and long guns. Let’s do the sensible thing and BAN ALL SEMI-AUTOMATIC FIREARMS REGARDLESS OF CALIBER OR CONFIGURATION. You can’t/don’t use them in hunting and as a self defense weapon they’re not much better than their non-self-loading counterparts.

    There is no constitutional guarantee for the right to own one any more than there is a constitutional guarantee to the right to own a flame thrower, rocket launcher, or nuclear weapon.
    The slippery slope argument is a ridiculous excuse for manufacturers and their lackies at the NRA (which I used to be a member of but quit over their absurd resistance to legislation aimed at regulating Teflon coated bullets for civilian use) to continue to sell these weapons to an increasingly unstable populace.
    And if you’re soooooooo scared of the government taking over than move somewhere else and start your own.

  • keithe

    I live in Chicago, which should answer your question. I don’t think teachers often are chosen on merit which is why I made the “shocking, isn’t it” aside. My aside was threadjacking. As for students getting the guns, I’ll just rely on my courthouse analogy – I haven’t heard any stories about people taking guns from court security officers (and I am a lawyer in Cook County, the largest integrated court system in the US). So I’m pretty sure that the benefits would far outweigh the risks. Arming teachers is a different story, I’ve known some teachers that were smaller than their students and lacked the disposition to handle or use firearms. Better to get a retired cop who wants to help at the school.

  • keithe

    I have heard some complaints about the “message” we send to kids about having an armed guard at schools – my 12 year old is beside herself about this tragedy and I think she and a lot of others like her would feel comforted knowing that there was someone present who could potentially respond if a similar situation happened at her school.

  • PowerToThePeople

    Agreed. Would rather have an “unwanted message” then dead kids. Screw the so called message, protect the kids.

  • http://www.TerriersOfTheRight.blogspot.com Flagstaff

    It is being said by many today (Rush, Levin), but it always needs to be made specific. The people who claim that gun control will prevent the next Sandy Hook are not primarily trying to prevent the next Sandy Hook. They are trying to place more restrictions on gun ownership and gun-carrying. They are in fact USING Sandy Hook as a lever to try to get their way.

    Obama’s words, “This is the time to stop politics and get something done (paraphrased)” are code for “I don’t care what the electorate says or what the Constitution says, it should be ignored so I can place more restrictions on gun owners.”

    A REAL discussion of ways to prevent the next Sandy Hook might include some legal adjustments, but it would also include the possibility of LOOSENING gun restrictions and eliminating “gun free zones.” The problem is far more than one of gun ownership, and any law that could have significantly prevented Lanza from accessing those guns would also be unduly restrictive on evey body else.

    These incidents simply allow the application of the Alinsky principle, “never let a(n apparent) crisis go unused.”

  • mike57

    A very well reasoned post. I hope that those who favor gun restrictions don’t learn how to reason as well, and seek a ban on semi automatic rifles and shotguns, or on automatic pistols, but stick to meaningless rhetoric, as you so well demonstrated. I was also impressed by the Hello Kitty AR-15. :)

  • soldiercynic

    Actually, you are mistaken, the Hello Kitty rifle, while adorable, has a bayonet lug and flash suppressor; these with the detachable magazine would have doomed this rifle under the craptasitic 1994 law. Similarly, the funky ass AR-15 with the stock coming from the grip would have been illegal as the bayonet lug and flash suppressor are still present. That’s why many of the makers dropped the bayonet lug during the ban years. I’m still waiting on the statistics for the number of folks ever killed–in peace time–by a bayonet attached to a rifle.

  • eltuba

    No ones going to win this round by coming out on top on the auto vs semi-auto argument. For now, everything is going to be emotional and high strung on both sides.

    I don’t think that right now at this time the 2nd amendment absolutist’s are in a position of very much strength as far as public relations with the general population.
    Until some old lady saves a busload of nuns from a gang of amphetamine crazed bikers with her trusty AR-15, gun advocates are going to have to get used to being on the defensive for the next few months at least.

  • edintexas

    At first I thought you might be confused, writing that Streiff was “…spot on…” and then posting a comment which was the exact opposite of the content of Streiff’s column. But on reflection, it is obvious that you are simply a troll making a highly dubious claim to prior NRA membership and multiple firearms ownership.

  • samuelshuang

    I know this is slightly off topic, but after so many mass shootings in America why hasn’t the government tried to use a safety protocol much like the ones used in German schools : which is to announce that ‘Mrs. Koma’ is coming and have everyone lock the doors. Incase you were wondering Koma is Amok backwards.

  • keithe

    That’s one. Balanced against however many incidents were deterred by the presence of armed security in courts around the country. I cannot imagine what would happen in the Daley Center or the federal courts if there weren’t armed guards.

  • keithe

    Its not a question of self defense, its a question of who we would entrust to protect the kids – some school teacher with minimal training or a professional.

  • http://rightdetour.blogspot.com rightdetour

    As one reading this thread to become educated about firearms as I consider a purchase, I would prefer to be referred to an uneducated novice rather than one of the uneducated masses. Thx.

  • 1stRichard

    Looking down the path of trying to define an assault weapon in most conversations will eventually lead to a rock, do we want to ban rocks next? You should examine a long and extensive history here. Because of a ban on assault weapons, most Martial Arts weapons are farm implements that became more deadly then to so-called assault weapons. It really is a futile argument arguing about these inanimate objects only as history has shown. Thus, the argument must focus on the action part, the assault and not the weapon. For further reference on most of the current leftist assault weapon conversations watch the movie – the gods must be crazy, pay close attention to the assault weapon he is trying to get rid of.

  • cheesycon

    this is a point we need to make with some subtleness, because the lefty response will be “OK that just proves the old law wasn’t strong enough, we need even more restrictive ones”

    we need to point out that no gun control law can account for a man’s intent.

  • Jon “Occam” Blue-Collar

    You are absolutely right, i do not use my semi-auto 9mm for hunting. I purchased the weapon for one purpose, to kill, maim or otherwise deter those of the criminal element of our society who’s actions and intent are to endanger my family, person and home. Should such a criminal find themselves endangering my family or my life, my intent is in fact to kill them, as their actions grant their intent is to kill me. You cannot bash me over the head with the good-gun bad-gun rhetoric.
    I hope I will never have to use the weapon, the same as I hope my family will never be endangered.. Having said that, it is a far more survivable situation to have a semi-auto weapon and never need it, than to need one and not have it.

    You are free to disarm yourself against the criminals of our society, i doubt they will object to your notions civility.

  • http://www.bigcontrarian.com Jack

    I think part, if not perhaps, all, of our problems following tragedies like Newton, often comes from the rhetorical mistake of looking only at the specific circumstances of each one, and asking, “How could we have stopped this?”

    The answer to that question is usually laced with problems without single law solutions. Every massacre is just difference enough that no approach seems appropriate.

    But overall, the data shows relatively convincingly that these types of tragedies are becoming more common. Despite gun laws. Despite public health initiatives. Despite media critiques and v-chips, and rating systems.

    It appears we have a specifically toxic blend of cultural issues (media, violence, desensitization) and the freedoms which make these things possible.

    Perhaps it’d be more helpful to look at these events and ask “How can we minimize their damage, if not their occurrence?”

  • davesinsanantonio

    Actually, all gun control laws can account for a man’s intent! Obummer intends to take away all our guns (and then all our other freedoms), and that is why he and his cronies, and the lap dog press, are all pushing for more of them!

  • davesinsanantonio

    You and I know that, but the media doesn’t care about being accurate. They will use terms however they want to try to advance their agenda. And, it is the media that sways the public which will back the calls for more control and give the politicians the cover they want to push their agenda as well. I think what people are saying is we should not use terms that help the media mislead people–even if they are accurate to you and me.

  • davesinsanantonio

    The point is you are preaching to the choir, and the people who will clamor for the ban of such guns aren’t even inside the chapel! Insisting on terms that the media and politicians will use for their nefarious purposes is counter-productive!

  • davesinsanantonio

    The term may be correct, but insisting on its continued usage is political suicide. Good luck with that!

  • davesinsanantonio

    If if horrifies progressives, that is just one more argument for it!

  • davesinsanantonio

    The purpose of the law was not to ban the bayonet, but to ban the rifle to which a bayonet or silencer could be attached. It is like banning hood ornaments. The purpose would be to get people to stop driving cars, but not make it look like that was its purpose.

  • arthurjake

    I am just happy they want to get rid of scary things like bayonet studs. With all the bayonet attacks lately I will sleep more soundly at night knowing that manufacturers will no longer be allowed to put them on weapons.

  • arthurjake

    Stay on your congressman. Tell all your friend’s to do the same thing. He is going to make a push for legislation before this congress lets out. He will run out of momentum in the House not only with republicans but with democrats in pro gun areas after the initial shock of the tragedy wears off.

  • celador2

    I saw a headline off Fox news about Obama’s appointing a Task force on guns. This iis NOT what we need or want. Such a task force has the appearance of indepth examination, is full of often bipartisan statesmen and women and has its mind made up before it starts. It can be a dud or deadly.

    In other words partisan Feinstein, Nadler and a few turncoats, Manchin and Warner are not all we have to deal with. Whomever Obama appoints to that task force will get national attention.

    Such a task force formation indicates a crisis much as that Simpson- Bowles task force did in study on debt and budgets etc. Obama allowed them to meet and report but did not embrace the outcome. But he gave the appeaance of doing something. Obama wants gun control action and knows a partisan bill will not pass.Hence a task force cover

    The safety and self regulation of the people of this republic are not in a crisis in need of more firiiearms restrictions.

    DO NOT GIVE AWAY A RIGHT

  • ihateliberals

    You have to realize that to a Liberal every gun is an assualt weapon. Thier goal is to bit by bit take away all guns so that only the military has them. I’ll bet the Syrians wish they hadn’t had gun contorl before Asyd took ovder? The president willno politicize this incident to try to get Congress to accept the UN gun contorl and abandon the 2nd amendment.

  • ihateliberals

    Now that is Spot on. This guy was a plant. Just like a lepoard can’t change his spots. Does being a “Former NRA member” give any validity to what he says. Ask anyone that lives in a country that has had its goverment run over them like Syria for example. i’ll bet they don’t advocate for gun controll.

  • ihateliberals

    All Automatics can be semi-atuomatic but not all semi-automatics vsan be automatic without being modified.

  • blh557

    Did anyone notice the report yesterday that the “assault weapon” he “used” was actually recovered from the front seat of his car?

  • blh557

    Your use of the “teflon-coated” bullets reference belies your ill-conceived post. It falls into the same category as “dum-dum” bullets being equated with hollow points. No one wants to shoot “teflon” coated bullets because of the residue it leaves in barrels. The idea that a “teflon” coated bullet was somehow more able to penetrate body armor, etc, than other designs was perpetrated by the crazies at the Brady Bunch.

    There are coatings that reduce friction in the barrel and they are used just for that reason. They aren’t any more lethal or able to penetrated body armor more effectively. The fact is that any modern hunting round will penetrate most body armor. There are some exceptions.

    Moot point and uncovered liar.

    Go back to the Daily Kos.

  • davesinsanantonio

    So, you want to punish the victim???? That’s just stupid!!!! Do you advocate putting abortion doctors in prison???? Do you advocate putting the doctor that administers the lethal injection in prison???? Why should I be sent to prison because someone wanted to kill me and I prevented him from doing that????

    After I wound the perp, he could still shoot and kill me. So, would you still insist that my estate be fined &5000 so that my children suffer even more???? What if I wound him and he dies from his wounds–do I pay the fine AND go to jail??? Or, do they refund the fine into my prison commissary account????

    I think you let your premise overrule you thinking parts.

  • celador2

    Biden is in charge or involved now. We know where they will go with this disarming the republic. Massive plans at national level.
    Hitler had man many supporters who admired his party and government. So did Stalin and Mao for what it is worth.
    We must defend the republic’s core struture and protect the right to bear arms so that no Hitler or Stalin ever rear their ugly heads..

  • anonymouscitizen

    It was reported on Friday the day of the shooting that rifle was found in the car, it was on Sunday the store changed to it was in the school with him and the left wonders why some people don’t trust the news media.

  • 3skorn3

    I loaded my guns on Saturday night and left them sitting out in various parts of my house and went to bed. This morning,Wednesday, I walked through my house and all the guns were still loaded and still sitting where I left them. There aren’t any dead bodies inside or outside either. It isn’t the gun. Anything can be used to kill by the person intent on committing murder.

  • ArthurJake

    You said it yourself in your argument. The numbers of mass shootings on soft targets has gone up. What makes them soft? Most of the time they are gun free zones. In all but one recent case(the one involving Congresswoman Gifford) of the type of mass shootings described that more two people died in was in firearm free zones. So called safe havens. In the recent Oregon mall shooting only two people died because a CCW holder drew down on the murderer. It forced the murderer to flee before killing himself.

    When my father went to school it was the norm for high school students to have firearms in there vehicles for hunting before and after school. Now a squirt gun can get you in trouble in most schools. Guns are obviously not the issue.

  • commonsenseobserver

    The only solution is to be tough on crime and mental illness. Restricting Second Amendment rights is a poor substitute.

  • banjojack1956

    Just a short FYI: March 1996, Dunblane Scotland,where handguns had been banned for lo these many moons….. gunman breaks into school, kills 16 small children and a teacher, commits suicide.
    Nov. 2006 Germany, where it is nearly impossible to own a handgun… gunman breaks into school, wounds 4 students and a janitor, commits suicide.
    April 2002 Germany….gunman kills 13 teachers, 2students, 1 police officer and commits suicide.
    Nov 2007 Finland, where handguns are illegal…. gunman enters school, kills 8, commits suicide.
    Sep.2008, Finland, where handguns are illegal…. gunman enters school, kills 9 students and 1 teacher, commits suicide.
    Hey Europe! How’s that gun ban stuff workin’for ya?

  • 4free

    Show me where Obama clearly stated he wants to disarm this
    nation. Over the top rhetoric adds nothing to the serious
    discussion on how to prevent future Newtowns.

  • 4free

    Dave, You need to get a grip on reality.

  • streiff

    he didn’t say what you say he said. Read the post again. And unless you intend to threadjack, this discussion is about the assault weapon ban not “prevent[ing] future Newtowns.”

  • sliverlining

    What about the “cooling off period” demanded of gun owners/buyers? How about the same before an emotional set of stupid, ineffectual kneejerk laws are passed to soothe “the people” while also furthering the ends of some not-so-nice hypocrites?

  • Seedyrom

    They never actually banned assault rifles, they jacked up regulatory fees and the media pretended there was a ban. People were lied too and others who knew bought such guns just the same. I think the fee was $300, I’d have to look it up but assault rifle sales continued as did extended clips.

  • streiff

    existing extended magazines were grandfathered, the prohibition was on manufacture and importation after the ban. It was never illegal to sell them. So prior to the ban, lots were imported.

  • sarah417

    I raised six children. Empty nester now. They all became devout Christians and good citizens of their community. Forty years I kept an assault rifle and several collectible handguns. They all learned to shoot and have weapons in their own homes. No one shot me or got shot. We should all support the NRA.

  • sarah417

    Obama and our government are hypocrites. Our government has been running guns since who knows when. Gun running to Mexico, the entire middle east to overthrow the dictators. Helping the drug cartels is a big business and if they didn’t support these cartels do you know how many government agencies would close. Support the NRA

  • ontime

    The left and their use of fear is how they manipulate the ill informed, those who willingly and blindly look for someone that will tell them which causes they should get riled up over and that is a recipie made for socialism and the next step communism.
    There is a reason for that last part, the PRC a killing machine if ever there were, is now denouncing our gun rights and I know the left absolutely abhors the Constitution and those silly amendments and you know the Bill of Rights just PO’s them to no end. We borrow 47 cents on every dollar we spend, keeeeerhrist, we are never going to be able to payit back if we don’t get rid of the progressive income tax, back to the 2nd amendment. The communist hope we never do.
    Dianne thinks she will resurect her silly weapons law, that more useless, expensive, damaging laws will be heaped upon those wishing for the right of self defense. Now the self endowed blow hards we elect, our employees, are willing that WTP pay for their security, just like we pay for a two tier med plans, their tax paid cadillac plan and our ecpensive cost over run taxation plan instituted by fraud and deciet behind closed doors by leftist and scoundrels.
    How about WTP demanding that a weaning begin for the tax paid government swells, such as elected and appointed officials pay for their own security and then move on to other perks, then maybe ask for them to employ term limits, after all they are WTP’s employees.
    The government is asking that they retain their right to arms, and that WTP be disarmed, this tells us that we have a government that has gone awry and is now dangerous and hungry…..the proof is here and now.

  • bassethound

    I remember years ago having a conversation with an old friend who said she didn’t think “everybody and his dog” should have an assault rifle. When I asked her what an “assault rifle” was, the only two criteria she could come up with was that they “could mow down whole neighborhoods” and that they “looked scary”. I then proceeded to point out that my husband could make some slight cosmetic modifications to one of his deer rifles (that would not change the speed or accuracy of the gun) that would make it an “assault rifle”.

    She had no response.

  • bassethound

    YES…YES…YES

    I read it. This was a heartwrenching narrative about how difficult it is to commit someone even when they show signs of having the motivation and capacity to harm themselves and others. It’s what we got when we deinstitutionalized the mentally ill and then had no community based alternatives. It’s also what we get when we refuse to admit that some people NEED to be supervised for a lifetime.

  • swordofzorro

    Do the public officials who seek to deprive their constituents of guns feel safe enough to travel without armed security guards? They want to be safe but don’t feel that those who voted them into office have the same right?

  • http://www.TerriersOfTheRight.blogspot.com Flagstaff

    “When seconds count, the police are minutes away.”