[Lori675]

Its insane to let people have AK 47's. What in the world is the purpose for that? Some nut is going to get hold of one and there will be some crazy shooting like Columbine.

[hadaclueonce]

I want one because it is my right to have one.

[NRA1995]

Had you been one of those Korean shopowners in LA during the riots, you'd certainly be happy to own one.

[NRA1995]

Go back and read crime statistics.....AK47's are NOT the weapon of choice.

[RogueIsland]

Its insane to let people have AK 47's. What in the world is the purpose for that? Some nut is going to get hold of one and there will be some crazy shooting like Columbine.

Prepare to don asbestos underwear. You might wish to do some research before posting on the topic. (To start with, research Columbine and come back when you've determined what firearm most students were killed with).

[smug]

I own 3 Ak47's and Ted Kennedy's car still has killed more people.

[Poohbah]

Its insane to let people have AK 47's. What in the world is the purpose for that? Some nut is going to get hold of one and there will be some crazy shooting like Columbine.

It's insane to let people have Chevy Suburbans. What in the world is the purpose for that? Some nut is going to get ahold of one and there will be some crazy mass run-over incident like Lizzie Grubman.

[uncbob]

Its insane to let people have AK 47's.

Are you a lib troll It has been pointed out OVER and OVER that AK47s ARE NOT what is being UNBANNED A real AK47 can be used as a machine gun THESE ARE NOT MACHINE GUNS

You are either obtuse or a liberal troll since this has been pointed out many times on this site

[DreadCthulhu]

Real Ak-47's are extremely hard to get legally here in most of the Union, and are illegal in number of states, like California. But that didn't stop those wackos in bullet-resistant vest a couple years back from shooting up the place in LA. Fortunatly, the police were able to get "Assault Weapons" (a.k.a. scary-looking semi-auto rifles) from the local gunstore when they could shoot though the criminal's vest with their handguns & shotguns.

Any attempt to ban guns of any sort will be as about as effective as attempts to ban drugs, assuming those guns are useful. I.E any thirteen year old will be able to go out on the street and buy a handgun (which most crimes are committed with) anyways.

And besides, an armed populance is made of of citizens. An unarmed populace are but subjects of the state.

[oyez]

If someone is deranged enough to start a killing spree, AW bab or not they will find something just as or more deadly than an AK.

[longtermmemmory]

newsflash AK47 were never part of the AWB. Machine gunes have a different regulation.


duh.

[longtermmemmory]

ops were you just being sarcastic? and just forgot the (/sarcasm)?

[gunnygail]

BTW,

Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than ANY of my guns.

[RadioAstronomer]

Its insane to let people have AK 47's.

I could buy one (semi auto version) after the AWB, just with removed certain cosmetic attachments. The AWB was a farce from the beginning. Since large capacity magazines were easily available, the new cosmetic changes did NOTHING to affect the weapons capability. (Who uses fixed bayonetes in a holdup anyway?)

[VoiceOfBruck]

Its insane to let people have AK 47's. What in the world is the purpose for that? Some nut is going to get hold of one and there will be some crazy shooting like Columbine.

I would respectfully submit that your comments indicate that you don't understand what an AK47 is. Rather than having me try to explain it based on what I assume you're thinking it is/does, could you please elaborate on why you think it's insane and/or without purpose?

[Joe Brower]

Lori675,

You couldn't be more wrong. Actually, military-pattern weapons are ideal for hunting in a climate like the one we have here in Florida, where their durability alone keeps them working when fancier firearms have seized up from rust. I hunt hog here with a Romanian SAR-1. Works great.

You might also want to ask the Korean shopkeepers in Los Angles in April, 1992 about how "insane" it was to have huge mobs rioting and burning down whole neighborhoods, and when they called the police, all they were told was "You're on your own". At that point, so-called "assault weapons" was the only thing that kept them alive and their businesses intact. I know. I was there.

But there is a moral issue here that you are missing entirely. But advocating the complete ban of a type of private property because one bad person out of a nation over a quarter billion souls might do something bad is to be allowing criminals to dictate what rights are to be allowed to the law-abiding. Is this what you desire? If so, why are you not demanding the banning of cars, since they are so often used in crime?

[ArrogantBustard]

Lori, dear, try thinking. I know it's hard, but let's work on the timeline here...

In what year did a democRat congress pass, and democRat president bill clinton sign the ugly gun ban?

In what year did drug-crazed killers eric harris and dylan klebold violate about two dozen gun laws, in addition to committing several acts of murder at Columbine High School?

Why do you think anti-gun laws have any effect on the behaviour of drug-crazed killers (or even cold sober killers)?

[Dan from Michigan]

Its insane to let people have AK 47's. What in the world is the purpose for that? Some nut is going to get hold of one and there will be some crazy shooting like Columbine.

Relax, turn off the TV, think, and learn.

Even with the ban, I could have legally gotten a TRUE AK-47 if it was manufactured before 1986 and if I was in a state that allows Class III. It costs me about $200 to get the stamp and I go through the paperwork, but that's about it I believe. What I'm referring to is the full auto type - which many uninformed think this ban covers. It doesn't, only semi-auto - which probably 2/3 of all firearms are. One pull of the trigger per fire.

The ugly (or "scary looking") gun ban(I refuse to use the term assault weapon) doesn't effect the power or any of these firearms. The only significant effect is the ten round magazine limit - a few seconds for a reload - so it's a pain mostly for the second table in bowling pin shoots - a shooting competition.

After the ugly gun ban took effect, what the gun manufactures did was alter the designs of these ugly guns. Post ban designed AR-15's (M-16 design) for example. As for Columbine - this ban sure didn't stop the 1998 shooting there now, did it.

In power, I believe the AK-47 fires the .308 - a mid power cartridge. The AR-15 fires a .223. Many hunting rounds are more powerful than them. 12 gage shotguns for one. The most dangerous "nut" is the one with a 12 gage loaded with slugs or the hunting rifle.

What in the world is the purpose for that?
Lastly to respond to that.
1. Amendment II US Constitution. Article 1, Section 6 Michigan Constitution. They supersede all
2. It's none of big government's business what firearm I own. I'm not a criminal and shouldn't be treated like one.
3. The .308 is a good hunting round.
4. Shooting competitions.
5. There's no threat to anyone if I own one. Ted Kennedy has killed more people with his car than I have with any of my guns.

[hadaclueonce]

bet your underarms are smoking after that post

[DMZFrank]

I am not entirely sure that the assault weapons ban has NO relationship to military usefulness. Even semi automatic weapons with a high magazine capacity are militarily useful. (Such as the M1 Carbine, SKS) As an infantry squad leader in Vietnam, I regularly admonished my grunts to hold off on full auto fire in certain circumstances to control ammo expenditure and maintain long-term fire superiority until we could get resupply. I think it is precisely this military utility that makes unconstitutional, tyrannical, authoritarian types so nervous as they contemplate these weapons in civilian hands.

What the hell does this FOOL think that the citizen militia mentioned in the second amendment gears supposed to use? Spit Balls!!!


Gun grabbers are increasingly trying to separate the right to keep and bear arms from its constitutional underpinnings. To everyone but liberals and gun grabbers the word militia implies a body organized for military use. The Supreme Court Miller decision of 1939 held that the militia was 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

To begin with, only the national government was represented at the trial. With nobody arguing to the contrary, the court followed standard court procedure and assumed that the law was constitutional until proven otherwise. If both sides were present, the outcome may have been much different.

However, since only one party showed up, the case will stand in the court records as is. As to the militia, Mr. Justice McReynolds related the beliefs of the Founding Fathers when commenting historically about the Second Amendment. He stated that, ". . .The common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.

It is clear that the firearms that are most suited for modern-day militia use are those semi automatic military pattern weapons that the yellow press calls "assault weapons". Since nations such as the Swiss trust their citizenry with true selective fire assault rifles, it seems to me that this country ought to be at least able to trust its law-abiding citizenry with the semi automatic version.

Self-defense is a vital corollary benefit of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But its primary constitutional reason for being is for service in the well-regulated militia which is necessary to the security of a free state. WE must be prepared to maintain that security against even our own forces that are responding to the orders of a tyrannical government, and the only viable way to counter a standing army's qualitative advantage is with a huge quantitative one. Don't let the gun grabbers and their politician allies separate us from the constitutional reason for the right to keep and bear arms. Miltary pattern weapons are precisly the weapons that should be MOST constitutionally protected. Even defenders of the right often neglect the constitutional aspect of it, and concentrate on their near non-existent use in crime.

Gun grabbers love to haul out their straw man argument of tanks, howitzers, bazookas, flame throwers, satchel charges, whenever we defenders of the constitution reference the type of modern day INDIVIDUAL military small arm protected by Amendment #2.

[Hardastarboard]

Think of a crowded room full of unarmed people. I could lay waste to several of them with a 2,000 year old Roman sword before they could stop me. The wounds are much larger, and a sword never runs out of ammunition. Such a weapon can be easily formed from an old truck leaf spring that you can find in a junkyard.

There are three main reasons that guns are used by modern military forces - 1) They use chemical energy for propulsion of the damaging projectile, rather than human muscle energy - 2) They have the advantage of range of use that a human muscle powered weapon like a sword can never match - 3) Guns require less time to teach a soldier to use than a human powered weapon.