Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 12/22/2006 8:46:41 AM PST by kiriath_jearim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last
To: kiriath_jearim

Enemy.


2 posted on 12/22/2006 8:48:13 AM PST by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kiriath_jearim
Mayor Lang said he would like to see Massachusetts follow California's example and ban the AR-15. "If it's legal, it's a loophole that's got to be closed," he said.

Brilliant legal analysis.

4 posted on 12/22/2006 8:49:47 AM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kiriath_jearim
It's a killing tool. ... It's a weapon that's used to destroy an opposition army. We don't need a battlefield in the middle of our city."

What a dangerous putz. Look at the Second Amendment you swine behind

5 posted on 12/22/2006 8:49:54 AM PST by Last Laugh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kiriath_jearim
Mr. Medeiros' rifle had a range of "1,000 feet and is deadly accurate," far greater than police-issue handguns, Mayor Lang said.

Well no crap. Handgun vs ANY rifle at 1000 feet and the rifle is gonna be more accurate.

6 posted on 12/22/2006 8:51:49 AM PST by Domandred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kiriath_jearim
The AR-15 was also used by John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, the 2002 Beltway snipers.

Well, slight error here. Why is it that Liberals feel they have a right to their own set of facts? /rhet.

7 posted on 12/22/2006 8:53:26 AM PST by HiJinx (Ask me about Support for our Troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kiriath_jearim
Virtually every civilian firearm in existence is the decendant of a military weapon.
Moron!
8 posted on 12/22/2006 8:53:39 AM PST by Malone LaVeigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kiriath_jearim
Mayor Lang said he is a supporter of the Second Amendment,...

...here comes the "but"...

...but added, "Let's apply some common sense to the Second Amendment and modern technology.

In other words, "Let's 'interpret' it as we wish.

Why not a bazooka? Why not a tank?

Indeed, why not.

It doesn't make sense."

It makes perfect sense to anyone who does not believe that government "elites" should rule us "unenlightened common folk".

9 posted on 12/22/2006 8:55:36 AM PST by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kiriath_jearim

They are statists, every one of them.
Even our president signed off on CFR and agreed to sign the assault weapons ban.

Everyone says that Americans are different than Europeans, that we'll get angry and stand up to Islamic terror. I hope we hurry up and do it, because we are surely heading down the road to sheepdom.


10 posted on 12/22/2006 8:55:48 AM PST by Sam Cree (don't mix alcopops and ufo's - absolute reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kiriath_jearim

"Let's apply some common sense to the Second Amendment and modern technology. Why not a bazooka? Why not a tank? It doesn't make sense."


Absolutely right, Mr. Mayor, why not?

What he want's to legislate is the "possiblity of misuse".

Eventually people like him would apply this to printing presses and computers too.


12 posted on 12/22/2006 8:59:31 AM PST by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kiriath_jearim

--here we go again---


14 posted on 12/22/2006 9:00:35 AM PST by rellimpank (-don't believe anything the MSM states about firearms or explosives--NRA Benefactor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kiriath_jearim

The cops were outgunned. WHY? No TAC teams?...don't have the proper equipment?...no training? WHY? No money for training and equipment...in Taxachussets the lib paradise..something smells about this utterance. A PR move for sure.


16 posted on 12/22/2006 9:02:13 AM PST by sidegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kiriath_jearim

if the gun killed 2 employees and himself, how can he give a statement?


18 posted on 12/22/2006 9:06:22 AM PST by joe fonebone (Israel, taking out the world's trash since 1948.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kiriath_jearim
AR-15 ? .... whew, for a min there I thought they were going to ban my mini-14 or maybe even my AR-10.

[/sarc]

What idiots.
19 posted on 12/22/2006 9:06:34 AM PST by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kiriath_jearim

I'd like to see Massachusetts outlawed, towed out to sea, and sunk! Take New York with it!


21 posted on 12/22/2006 9:10:34 AM PST by SWAMPSNIPER ( LET ME DIE ON MY FEET IN MY SWAMP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kiriath_jearim
"Is society still willing to accept that this level of firearm is readily available?" the chief asked.

Yup. We decided that a year or so ago when the "assault weapons" ban was not renewed. Next question?

The AR-15 "has firepower that police do not have available to them, except in extraordinary circumstances," Mayor Lang said.

What, you mean extraordinary circumstances like opening up the trunk of the patrol car and taking one out? If your police force is "undergunned", that's your fault, Mayor. What do you tell their widows, that you denied them the ability to protect themselves because they couldn't be trusted with a small, civilian semi-automatic rifle?

Chief Teachman said police are not typically trained to deal with a weapon such as the AR-15.

Really Chief? Are you admitting to negligence in training your officers? Are you saying that your police officers are about as prepared to deal with a serious situation as Barney Fife, and you are as much at fault here as the Mayor?

"Let's apply some common sense to the Second Amendment and modern technology. Why not a bazooka? Why not a tank? It doesn't make sense."

Well, a bazooka is already banned as an "implement of destruction". You can buy a used tank if you have the money, but most people don't. At any rate, the gunnery on the tank would have to be disabled (de-milled) before you could use it. Unless you went through the proper channels and got ATF permission. As far as I know, that's never happened, making it a straw argument.

The AR-15 shoots the same kind of ammunition that small-game hunters use for woodchucks. It is NOT a high-powered rifle. If the mayor and the chief don't know the difference, stop by and see me some weekend when I'm not busy, I'll show you.

24 posted on 12/22/2006 9:14:06 AM PST by Kenton (All vices in moderation. I don't want to overdo any but I don't want to skip any either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kiriath_jearim
"We don't need a battlefield in the middle of our city."

We do if those in elected positions are violating the Constitution.

25 posted on 12/22/2006 9:15:35 AM PST by D.P.Roberts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kiriath_jearim
Technically speaking, every rifle, shotgun, and pistol is a military weapon. Therefore, this would be the Mayor's first step in controlling all weapons, hunting or otherwise. Will he also take the guns away from law enforcement as well? Criminals will have a field day in his town. Now that is a direct violation of the Second Amendment if I ever saw one.
26 posted on 12/22/2006 9:16:56 AM PST by Doc91678 (Doc91678)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kiriath_jearim
"I'd like our local delegation to sponsor a bill that takes that type of weapon out of civilian hands ... any type of military weapon,"

Interesting. IIRC, Miller held that it was "militia style" weapons that were protected by the Second Amendment. Be fun to see the Liberals go to court to get Miller overturned after all these years of their citing it.

27 posted on 12/22/2006 9:26:31 AM PST by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kiriath_jearim
"I don't like them," he said. "I would never buy them. But I do believe that people have a right to buy them for target shooting or collecting purposes."

The second amendment isn't about collecting, and only about target shooting in so far as it helps keep the militia "well-regulated".

Under the Supreme Court's "Miller" decision, if anything is protected by the second amendment, it's the keeping and bearing, by the people, of military type arms.

28 posted on 12/22/2006 9:27:38 AM PST by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kiriath_jearim
Mr. Medeiros' rifle had a range of "1,000 feet and is deadly accurate," far greater than police-issue handguns, Mayor Lang said. The gunman hit police vehicles that were hundreds of yards away, according to police.

The same could be said of any common deer rifle. Gonna ban them too? Call 'em sniper rifles. Such an action could have "Unintended Consequences", but give it a try anyway.

36 posted on 12/22/2006 9:34:24 AM PST by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson