Posted on 12/14/2007 5:07:40 PM PST by holymoly
I asked this question last week of the candidates for President now campaigning in Iowa, and I think that for most of the American people [pdf] the answer is clearly “no.”
In the last ten days, two states in the heart of the country have sustained mass shootings by people armed with military-style assault rifles – two attacks with assault weapons in less than a week. One shooter attacked a mall full of employees and Christmas shoppers in Omaha. The other attacked a church in Colorado.
Together, they left twelve people dead.
Yet today assault weapons remain perfectly legal to buy in gun stores and gun shows across the country, in unlimited quantities. Perhaps even more shocking, the type of bullet many assault weapons fire (7.62mm full metal jacket) can penetrate four categories of police body armor [pdf]. There is no legitimate reason the public should have this kind of access to military-style assault weapons.
It’s also frustrating that when a UPS employee raised concerns on September 13 about the “multiple boxes” of ammunition the Colorado shooter had delivered to his postal box, police officers said there was nothing illegal. No limits on the number of guns; no limits on ammunition; very minimal limits on the type of guns – no wonder we have problems.
Since the terrible shootings last week, leading newspapers are joining the call. Here is a sample of what they’re saying.
The New York Times: “Until recently, the nation did have a law designed to protect the public from assault rifles and other high-tech infantry weapons. In 1994, enough politicians felt the public’s fear to respond with a 10-year ban on assault-weapons that was not perfect but dented the free-marketeering of Rambo mayhem. Most Americans rejected the gun lobby’s absurd claim that assault rifles are “sporting” weapons. But when it came up for renewal in 2004, President Bush and Congress caved to the gun lobby and allowed the law to lapse.”
The Philadelphia Inquirer: “The troubled 19-year-old in Omaha used his stepfather’s AK-47-type assault weapon to unleash 30 rounds of gunfire on innocent victims, and then killed himself. Who needs a gun like that around the house?”
The Washington Post: “The AK-47 assault rifle that an Omaha teenager pilfered from his stepfather was among the guns outlawed under the ban on assault weapons that Congress and President Bush unwisely allowed to lapse. Why that kind of gun should be so easily available to someone as troubled as that 19-year-old is unfathomable. Eight people shopping or working at a mall died as a result.”
To protect ourselves and our police [pdf], these weapons of war should be kept out of the hands of civilians.
Spooky bump.....
“Helmke attended Yale at the same time that former President Bill Clinton and Senator Hillary Clinton [sic] and was an acquaintance of each.” Per Wikipedia.
Yet again these newspapers ask the wrong questions. You don’t need an AK-47 to go hunting or to protect your house. But you do need one to protect yourself from your government. When people CAN own AK-47s and the like, the government will be nice and pacified. When that right is taken away we will see more Ruby Ridges and Wacos.
The government that fears that its people could get ticked off and decide to violently overthrow the government (perhaps with heads on pikes) is a government that is going to tread lightly. A government that doesn’t fear that can do anything it wants.
This question has a simple answer; which is based upon the very reason that We The People have been endowed by God with the individual Right To keep and Bear Arms.
The Public should have ready access to the use of the same level and quality of Firearms that the various Agencies of the Federal and State Governments have potential contingencies and intent for use against said individual members of the Public.
You must be mistaken. That cant be right. The killer took a gun in the mall and murdered 8 people. Everyone knows murderers will not violate gun free zone laws, otherwise those gun laws would be pointless dribble.
I was in Nam, (not a grunt) what are the Stoner 63 & MK 23?
Loved shooting the M203, over-under!!
What’s the range on that rifle? If you are within four miles of town you could hole about forty buildings with one shot if you miss the gopher.
The concept is known as a balance of power.
You stole my thunder, and are correct but left some thing out...the Constitution says that we have the right to keep and bear arms...it does not say however, how many or what type of arms...the purpose of which was in the event the “guvmint” needed an attitude adjustment
Now there's a name I haven't heard in a while...
Makes me think of Hellarys back side...((((full body twitch))))
I think it’s about 2000 meters. I don’t actually live close to town but I could sure trash a couple of my neighbor’s houses all right...if I got the elevation juuuuust right... ;-)
What is interesting is when the Brady Campaign was still doing business as Hangun Control Inc.(1981), they put out a statement that they had no interest in controling long guns, only handguns.
At that time you could get new full auto registered firearms, imported AK-47s and a whole slew of semi-auto military style rifles not abailable today.
Check out Wikipedia under Stoner.
You have my nomination for the most informative homepage of any current or past FReeper.........Nice job!
I’ve bookkmarked it for future references...........
Ah, and therein lies the answer. We obviously need the use of the same caliber of weapon that our "guvmint" plans to use against us. The Right would otherwise be meaningless...
Wonder if I could get a fully loaded Abrams ???
Sure would clear the traffic outta the way...= )
Oooooh - dot's nice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.