We think: Assault-weapons ban one way to fight back against violent crime

[one...two...tree 2,762]

yea because drug cartel people are gonna raid your houses.. as if you were in their interests..

please.. be more real about it.. yea I need a fukcin smg just in case the drug dealers raid my house.. same dumb argument as after 9/11 'we have buildings in our town dem terrorists would like to blow, like our walmart'

Hermano, I'm going all out and protecting my home and family with a small nuclear bomb. The first illegal alien, drug pushing, Mexican that steps into my house and BLAM! He won't know what hit 'em.

[almaty 19]

spot on brother pedro....some of the people here..live in a world of make believed fear and bias

[pedroh 21]

I mean, agree, those cartels are dangerous, heck I was born where those cartels started at first (in the northwest).. I know what they can do.... but seriously, that stupid paranoia is no argument for assault weapons, if there's a right to carry weapons that's great, but doesn't mean you have to carry a BFG (unless you have other man issues to compensate for)...

Drug cartels are not gonna be like 'oh, look at that dude, he looks like a punk, let's raid his house with our ak-47's just for kicks'.. if you're not a target, really, there's a slight close to zero chance you'll ever have a problem with them.. but oh wel, american paranoia is as classic as apple pie-- oh, and Booyah's paranoia, he tops them all--

Edited March 24, 2009 by pedroh

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Who needs an assault rifle?

1) Hunters? - This "sport" is already largely asinine. As an avid hiker I walk up within 50 feet of deer on a regular basis and could easily shoot them with my Glock if I were so inclined and easily amused. With hunting (specifically deer hunting) being akin to shooting cows in a field wouldn't it take the "sport" out of it to use such a weapon?

2) Concerned homeowners? - Your shotguns and handguns aren't enough? Untrained and frightened homeowners shooting guns at intruders in a potentially crowded neighborhood setting is already scary enough. Now you want something that can propel a single bullet through a body then through a wall then outside and down the street? There is no reason to have this much power for such close range use, especially when the nature of the weapon allows the ammunition to travel a great distance, whether it hits the initial target or not.

Also, has anyone noticed that homes (especially here in Athens) tend to get broken into quite frequently? If you have an AR-15 etc. laying around in your house then all of the sudden the thug down the street has it. I understand that the thug could steal your shotgun as well, but the damage that can be done with an assault rifle in the wrong hands is far greater.

Just because you interpret the constitution to give you a right doesn't mean that you should discount and avoid any further thought on the topic and take it to its absolute extreme. Rational beings weigh the pros and cons of an idea before making a decision. If you sit down and really think about this what are the pros and how important are they in light of the cons?

http://onlineathens.com/stories/030309/let_400322300.shtml

Edited March 24, 2009 by Mister Fancypants

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

yea because drug cartel people are gonna raid your houses.. as if you were in their interests..

please.. be more real about it.. yea I need a fukcin smg just in case the drug dealers raid my house.. same dumb argument as after 9/11 'we have buildings in our town dem terrorists would like to blow, like our walmart'

so now we've graduated from talking about assault rifles to smg's. neat! what's next, large caliber machine guns?

Who needs an assault rifle?

1) Hunters? - This "sport" is already largely asinine. As an avid hiker I walk up within 50 feet of deer on a regular basis and could easily shoot them with my Glock if I were so inclined and easily amused. With hunting (specifically deer hunting) being akin to shooting cows in a field wouldn't it take the "sport" out of it to use such a weapon?

2) Concerned homeowners? - Your shotguns and handguns aren't enough? Untrained and frightened homeowners shooting guns at intruders in a potentially crowded neighborhood setting is already scary enough. Now you want something that can propel a single bullet through a body then through a wall then outside and down the street? There is no reason to have this much power for such close range use, especially when the nature of the weapon allows the ammunition to travel a great distance, whether it hits the initial target or not.

Also, has anyone noticed that homes (especially here in Athens) tend to get broken into quite frequently? If you have an AR-15 etc. laying around in your house then all of the sudden the thug down the street has it. I understand that the thug could steal your shotgun as well, but the damage that can be done with an assault rifle in the wrong hands is far greater.

Just because you interpret the constitution to give you a right doesn't mean that you should discount and avoid any further thought on the topic and take it to its absolute extreme. Rational beings weigh the pros and cons of an idea before making a decision. If you sit down and really think about this what are the pros and how important are they in light of the cons?

http://onlineathens.com/stories/030309/let_400322300.shtml

because everyone who owns a gun has no common sense, right?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Who needs an assault rifle?

1) Hunters? - This "sport" is already largely asinine. As an avid hiker I walk up within 50 feet of deer on a regular basis and could easily shoot them with my Glock if I were so inclined and easily amused. With hunting (specifically deer hunting) being akin to shooting cows in a field wouldn't it take the "sport" out of it to use such a weapon?

2) Concerned homeowners? - Your shotguns and handguns aren't enough? Untrained and frightened homeowners shooting guns at intruders in a potentially crowded neighborhood setting is already scary enough. Now you want something that can propel a single bullet through a body then through a wall then outside and down the street? There is no reason to have this much power for such close range use, especially when the nature of the weapon allows the ammunition to travel a great distance, whether it hits the initial target or not.

Also, has anyone noticed that homes (especially here in Athens) tend to get broken into quite frequently? If you have an AR-15 etc. laying around in your house then all of the sudden the thug down the street has it. I understand that the thug could steal your shotgun as well, but the damage that can be done with an assault rifle in the wrong hands is far greater.

Just because you interpret the constitution to give you a right doesn't mean that you should discount and avoid any further thought on the topic and take it to its absolute extreme. Rational beings weigh the pros and cons of an idea before making a decision. If you sit down and really think about this what are the pros and how important are they in light of the cons?

http://onlineathens.com/stories/030309/let_400322300.shtml

because everyone who owns a gun has no common sense, right?

You're projecting. Read it again.

[pedroh 21]

well charles, what is a real argument, not paranoia, to own an assault weapon?? I mean, if you wanna protect your house, isn't just a regular gun enough??

[john & jean 37]

HEY CHARLES,

YOU SHOULD SEE MY NEW M60, GOT IT AT THE LOCAL WAL MART!

[fozzie 41]

Quite expectedly, gun zealots are on the defensive following the recent shooting rampages in Alabama and Germany.

"The enemies of Liberty will use anything as an excuse to rape our civil rights," read a recent blog post by a gun activist.

Please, spare us the righteous indignation.

Most sensible people understand the difference between the legitimate, constitutional right to bear arms and the rat-a-tat chaos inflicted by assault weapons.

If people want to protect their homes they don't need an assault weapon.

It's time to get new ones off the streets by reinstating the assault-weapons ban that expired in 2004.

President Barack Obama has the political juice to make it happen, and it's on his list of things to do. He's said so on the campaign trial.

Go for it, sir.

Advancements in technology have enabled people to arm themselves beyond reasonable means. Coupled with the elimination of the assault-weapons ban, the prospect of more violence is alarming.

Getting these guns off the streets would make them safer. Why else would so many police chiefs and sheriffs, people not generally associated with wobbly-kneed liberals, agree?

In Alabama, 11 people — including the shooter — died after a barrage of bullets from a Bushmaster AR-15-style assault rifle and an SKS assault rifle. The shooter reportedly fired an excess of 200 rounds during the assault. He used high-capacity magazines taped together so when one was spent, it would be easier to reload.

Gun enthusiasts will argue that in some instances, all it takes is a couple of cosmetic features to make a gun fit the definition of an assault weapon. After all, a garden-variety hunting rifle works the same way as the most sinister-looking assault rifle — one shot per trigger pull.

But assault rifles mimic the design of military weapons that are meant to kill people, not deer, and sometimes feature such charming options as muzzle flash suppressors and bayonet mounts.

Banning assault weapons will help protect us in other ways: It's expected to help slow the flow of guns going across the Mexican border, which has been a hot spot for violence in recent months.

Mexican government officials are pointing accusatory fingers at the U.S. because of the availability of such guns from this country.

As in Mexico and its drug cartels, assault weapons seem to become guns of choice in the drug subculture.

Orlando Police Chief Val Demings understands the danger locally. She has no quarrel with true sporting-gun enthusiasts or those who want to protect their homes.

But Ms. Demings has serious concerns over criminals and other dangerous characters having such easy access to assault weapons, as if arming themselves for Armageddon. That's what it looks like on some of our nation's streets today. She sees it. Most of those who argue so passionately to protect assault weapons do not.

In Orange County alone, deputies have seized 321 AK-47s, AR-15s and other high-powered weapons between 2003 and 2007. And of the 42 murders in Orlando last year, five involved assault weapons, including the triple-murder at The Palms Apartments.

We understand that banning the sale of new assault weapons isn't a cure for violent crime. Having a more effective way of tracing guns that are sold by their original owner is equally important.

But reinstating the ban on assault weapons is a good place to start.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinio...0,4845042.story

The second amendment was put in the constitution to protect the rights of the citizens to resist a tyrannical government by force if necessary. Today, the weapons that would best serve this purpose are assault weapons-- your ordinary handguns, .22's etc. are not up to the task. Small arma are useful for personal protection, but this is not what the framers intended by the right to bear arms-they intended for the populace to be able to overthrow the government if it got too big for it's britches. The only weapons up to the task are precisely those the government wants to ban.

Criminals who want to get these weapons will get them whether legal or not-- thus, a ban would only remove rights guaranteed the lawful population of this country to the benefit of criminals and (potential) tyrants.

The second amendment was written how long ago? Would you abide by laws written 5oo years ago that have absolutely no context today? no. Are you going to organize a maltia to overthrow our tyrannical government? What planet are you on?

Societies change and the laws change with them. You do not live in Sudan (no offense to any sudanese) and feel a need to overthrow your government with force, you campaign and vote and do not elect them in this country. Its called a democracy.

[natty bumppo 297]

yea because drug cartel people are gonna raid your houses.. as if you were in their interests..

please.. be more real about it.. yea I need a fukcin smg just in case the drug dealers raid my house.. same dumb argument as after 9/11 'we have buildings in our town dem terrorists would like to blow, like our walmart'

Hermano, I'm going all out and protecting my home and family with a small nuclear bomb. The first illegal alien, drug pushing, Mexican that steps into my house and BLAM! He won't know what hit 'em.

If blowing yourself up gets you off ... guess you won't be around much longer either

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

Who needs an assault rifle?

1) Hunters? - This "sport" is already largely asinine. As an avid hiker I walk up within 50 feet of deer on a regular basis and could easily shoot them with my Glock if I were so inclined and easily amused. With hunting (specifically deer hunting) being akin to shooting cows in a field wouldn't it take the "sport" out of it to use such a weapon?

2) Concerned homeowners? - Your shotguns and handguns aren't enough? Untrained and frightened homeowners shooting guns at intruders in a potentially crowded neighborhood setting is already scary enough. Now you want something that can propel a single bullet through a body then through a wall then outside and down the street? There is no reason to have this much power for such close range use, especially when the nature of the weapon allows the ammunition to travel a great distance, whether it hits the initial target or not.

Also, has anyone noticed that homes (especially here in Athens) tend to get broken into quite frequently? If you have an AR-15 etc. laying around in your house then all of the sudden the thug down the street has it. I understand that the thug could steal your shotgun as well, but the damage that can be done with an assault rifle in the wrong hands is far greater.

Just because you interpret the constitution to give you a right doesn't mean that you should discount and avoid any further thought on the topic and take it to its absolute extreme. Rational beings weigh the pros and cons of an idea before making a decision. If you sit down and really think about this what are the pros and how important are they in light of the cons?

http://onlineathens.com/stories/030309/let_400322300.shtml

because everyone who owns a gun has no common sense, right?

You're projecting. Read it again.

kinda like you can't buy a clue that an ar-15 isn't an assault rifle?

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

well charles, what is a real argument, not paranoia, to own an assault weapon?? I mean, if you wanna protect your house, isn't just a regular gun enough??

i don't know of anyone who would use an assault weapon to protect their house.

some like to have an assault weapon for just the fun of shooting it at the range. but i know, that don't fit into many's idea of fun. and it's obviously in the best interest (allegedly) to take those assault weapons away from people who enjoy rock and roll.

i've asked before how many licensed automatic weapons have been used by the registered owners in a crime, still no takers yet. want to take a crack at it?

[natty bumppo 297]

yea because drug cartel people are gonna raid your houses.. as if you were in their interests..

please.. be more real about it.. yea I need a fukcin smg just in case the drug dealers raid my house.. same dumb argument as after 9/11 'we have buildings in our town dem terrorists would like to blow, like our walmart'

so now we've graduated from talking about assault rifles to smg's. neat! what's next, large caliber machine guns?

Who needs an assault rifle?

1) Hunters? - This "sport" is already largely asinine. As an avid hiker I walk up within 50 feet of deer on a regular basis and could easily shoot them with my Glock if I were so inclined and easily amused. With hunting (specifically deer hunting) being akin to shooting cows in a field wouldn't it take the "sport" out of it to use such a weapon?

because everyone who owns a gun has no common sense, right?

guess somebody spends a lot of time in populated areas ... for deer co-mingling with people ... cause these deer apparently are accustomed to people and have no fear of man.

Edited March 24, 2009 by Natty Bumppo

[fozzie 41]

well charles, what is a real argument, not paranoia, to own an assault weapon?? I mean, if you wanna protect your house, isn't just a regular gun enough??

i don't know of anyone who would use an assault weapon to protect their house.

some like to have an assault weapon for just the fun of shooting it at the range. but i know, that don't fit into many's idea of fun. and it's obviously in the best interest (allegedly) to take those assault weapons away from people who enjoy rock and roll.

i've asked before how many licensed automatic weapons have been used by the registered owners in a crime, still no takers yet. want to take a crack at it?

But surely the mere availablility of those weapons means criminals can get them. You don't hear about these kind of incidents in england because they are banned and that much harder to get for criminals. They have to make a serious effort to find and procure them and 99.9% wouldn't see the point.

I accept the 'fun' element of firing these things - great let the firing range keep the guns and you can only fire them there.

On the one we have arguments that it's just damn fun to fire them and on the other we have the right to form a militia. Those that use the constitution as a reason are just not confident of their argument that they just like blowing sh*t up!!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Who needs an assault rifle?

1) Hunters? - This "sport" is already largely asinine. As an avid hiker I walk up within 50 feet of deer on a regular basis and could easily shoot them with my Glock if I were so inclined and easily amused. With hunting (specifically deer hunting) being akin to shooting cows in a field wouldn't it take the "sport" out of it to use such a weapon?

2) Concerned homeowners? - Your shotguns and handguns aren't enough? Untrained and frightened homeowners shooting guns at intruders in a potentially crowded neighborhood setting is already scary enough. Now you want something that can propel a single bullet through a body then through a wall then outside and down the street? There is no reason to have this much power for such close range use, especially when the nature of the weapon allows the ammunition to travel a great distance, whether it hits the initial target or not.

Also, has anyone noticed that homes (especially here in Athens) tend to get broken into quite frequently? If you have an AR-15 etc. laying around in your house then all of the sudden the thug down the street has it. I understand that the thug could steal your shotgun as well, but the damage that can be done with an assault rifle in the wrong hands is far greater.

Just because you interpret the constitution to give you a right doesn't mean that you should discount and avoid any further thought on the topic and take it to its absolute extreme. Rational beings weigh the pros and cons of an idea before making a decision. If you sit down and really think about this what are the pros and how important are they in light of the cons?

http://onlineathens.com/stories/030309/let_400322300.shtml

because everyone who owns a gun has no common sense, right?

You're projecting. Read it again.

kinda like you can't buy a clue that an ar-15 isn't an assault rifle?

Oh come on, Charles. You're getting tripped up over literal definitions of what is or isn't. The point of a ban on assault weapons is to remove from the street, guns that were designed for combat. It's really not as difficult as you make it sound. Your points are simply parroting what the gun lobby says.