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.
Its 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 theyre 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 publics 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 lobbys 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 stepfathers 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.
And, parked in your driveway, it would keep the neighbors quiet! ;-)
Hell yes! That would be nice. But unfortunately we can't, so the question is a dishonest one meant to take advantage of public stupidity and the stupidity of some presidential candidates (whose answer to the question is a good indication of what they know about anything at all.
In Sweden(?) everyone has a Military automatic "assault" weapon in their closet issued them by the government. Yet you don't see anyone getting shot up with them. Proof that guns don't kill people, criminals kill people, and the criminals in that country aren't issued that military assault rifle.
The guns used in these latest shootings were not "military assault rifles", so again the author is dishonest and misleading his readers. He again misleads his readership by suggesting these special "military assault rifles" shoot special bullets that are available to the public which can penetrate bullet proof vests. Again, if this dishonest person had any intention of being truthful he would have researched this at least a wee little bit, and found out that the bullets used by the Millitary are full metal jacketed bullets in accordance with UN rules of war. The reasoning behind this is so the bullet causes less damage to internal organs because it does not expand, "mushroom" like a regular hunting bullet, therefore increasing the chances the enemy combatant will survive being shot. He will be out of action, hurt, perhaps (hopefully) be sidelined for the duration of the conflict, but live on to tell stories about it.
These bullets are not available to the public.
Yep, good post #1. You should see the looks I get from leftists and other hoplophobes when I explain that an assault rifle is not a “high power” rifle. It is better described as a “mid power” rifle designed more for close quarter battle.
jw
Don’t look like he need a Viagra, huh?
We had lower crime rates when you could order anti tank weapons, anti aircraft weapons, and ammunition through the mail, than you had after the 1968 gun law preventing most citizens from obtaining them easily was passed.
The Brady bunch lies, and because of the complicity and ignorance of the drive-by media, they get away with it.
That's quite a compliment. Thanks.
Now, if I could only get the MSM to visit it, and educate themselves... Lol.
I've shot hundreds of those things over the past 15 years, but they just keep popping up. They must have a direct tunnel from China or somewhere.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
Full Metal Jacket? Ball? Military issue?
Unless they've changed the law just recently, you can buy as much as you want. Check Cheaperthandirt.com, look up SS109 5.56mm ammo. Look up 7.62mm NATO.
If you care enough to send the best, you can buy .50 cal. BMG armor-piercing incendiary rounds. They're quite festive, but don't tell the Brady bunch.
In his final years my father would kill squirrels with a pellet gun from the window of his retirement asylum.
The rifle made no noise, but blew the little rodents to pieces.
My Lord, how the blue-haired ladies hated him for it.
I can hear him laughing still...
I don’t care what kind of weapon is employed, it won’t kill anybody deader than my shotgun will. Or, for that matter, my knife.
A few years ago, a civilian employee killed a half dozen people and wounded several more with a six (6) shot Colt snub nose revolver. Nuts to these anti-gun maggots. Arm the entire populace. No entry to public venues nor access to air travel unless you are armed. End of lunatic masacres.
There was a time that democrats weren't all totally rabid about gun ownership.
In fact, many of them held beliefs and exhibited behavior that seems almost sane compared to the gang of idiotic socialist gun weenies passing for democrats today.
Hubert Humphrey former Senator, Vice President and 1968 Democrat presidential nominee:
"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used, and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced.
But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
(from "Know Your Lawmakers", Guns Magazine, Page 4, Feb. 1960)
Sigmund Freud, a perennial democrat favorite because of his views on open sexuality, had this to say about the kind of gun weenies that surround us today.:
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
("General Introduction to Psychoanalysis," S. Freud)
Those things still cooking off grenades during sustained full-auto fire?
That'll just ruin a day at the range...
Ron Paul says yes
Yes, especially along the U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada as well as along both ocean coasts!
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.