So should we conclude that diesel fuel and fertilizer, which Timothy McVeigh used to kill 168 people in Oklahoma City, also have no place in civilized society? Or boxcutters, since they were the only weapon used on 9/11 to get control of three airliners and kill over 3,000 people?

 

I'll be honest here and suggest that focusing on the tool a madman uses to commit mass murder is going to solve exactly nothing, especially given that there are almost as many guns in circulation as there are people in the US, and that there's ample evidence that mass murders are still being committed in places where guns are very hard to get. A bottle of propane from a BBQ grill and a claw hammer are enough weaponry to take out a school bus full of kids in less than a minute's time. A few gallons of gasoline in the right place can turn a crowded venue into a crematorium. Mass murder can be committed with poisons, improvised explosives, structural sabotage, vehicles of all sorts, knives and other cutting instruments, clubs, bats, and chemical agents. The Norway massacre started with a fuel-fertilizer bomb much like the one McVeigh used. There was a mass knifing in a China school just last month. The shoe and underwear bombers came all too close to succeeding in bringing down airplanes with home-made PETN explosive.

 

If our assault rifles were as nefarious as the anti-gun crowd (you know, people that label them "Weapons of Mass Killings") would have us believe, there'd be mass murder committed with them regularly. But cars are FAR more often misused to fatal effect than assault rifles, especially in combination with alcohol and other drugs. Yet there's no hue and cry about banning the BMW (Big Mass-killing Weapon?) when they're misused daily to maim and kill on America's roads. This debate is not about safety, it is about gun control. And gun control is never about guns--it is about control.

 

The founding fathers ensured that private citizens had the same kind of weaponry as the King's soldiers in their time. I think there's still a compelling interest in the same sort of parity--a people that wants to remain free should not think it wise to endow their government with weapons while allowing their government to deny the same to themselves. I think it was Thomas Jefferson that said "those who turn their swords into plowshares will soon find themselves plowing for those who do not."

 

Once again, you list things that can kill, but were not designed to kill. They were designed for other use and morphed into use for killing by an insane individual.

I am all for the ownership of guns for protection of ones home and family, but not for the distribution of military weapons of war to the general civilian public.

If someone thinks that they need this kind of weapon to protect them self from a "government gone mad", it is because they are neurotic themselves.

But, for the sake of stretching the fictional imagination to the fullest, and saying that this would be a good reason for civilian citizens having military assault weapons, it is obvious that all of the military assault weapons that were available to ben Laden, were of little use when ST6 decided to remove him from this planet. So that argument is just as insane as those who tote it around.

The founding fathers ensured that private citizens had the same kind of weaponry as the King's soldiers in their time. I think there's still a compelling interest in the same sort of parity--a people that wants to remain free should not think it wise to endow their government with weapons while allowing their government to deny the same to themselves. I think it was Thomas Jefferson that said "those who turn their swords into plowshares will soon find themselves plowing for those who do not."

 

This is not true at all. Private citizens could not freely use canons or other weapons designed for mass killing. Only pistols and muskets were available to them.

Military assault weapons and large capacity magazines are designed to kill people fast and efficiently.

 

Wrong.

 

Marines... SEALs... Special Forces... they are trained to kill people fast and efficiently.

 

A Police Officer is trained to use Deadly Force if the need arises... NOT to kill "fast and efficiently".

 

Huge difference between the two... yet both use the same variant of weapons such as the M-16.

 

They have no other purpose and they are very good at what they do.

 

This is quite a cockamamie assumption. It shows how little you know about the lawful use of firearms regarding the millions of so-called "military assault weapons" that are currently in the U.S.

 

Wouldn't mind you providing me with a definition of what is a "military assault weapon".

I just deleted a post that tried to take this over the top. Let's keep it civil and without personal attacks. Next one that posts a "you suck" post is gone. Permanently.

How many people changed their opinion on this issue after reading this far? Exactly, not one!

 

well that's because we don't have any master debaters here.

 

 

I don't think you want your next door neighbor having a nuke in their garage.

 

of course not.

 

 

but if i had access to one, . . . ..

Frankly I think this is a much more effective letter.

_{I have to say I just love the 1776ers on this issue. Let me give you a point of view from someone who's job it was to KILL people for a living for the US government. **apparently the return key doesn't work in replies so sorry about the 1 paragraph post.** In any case how about we put all those folks in the gun factory with all the guns and ammo they want. Even give then an entire battalion on M1 tanks to go with it. In less then 5 minutes I could take them all out by myself with NO gun...just a radio. Let me know how your AR15 does against my F22s and every other beyond the horizon weapon in MY arsenal. Here's the point: If our government chooses to take us out....it CAN easily. This is not Honduras folks. These guns used in the latest mass murders were purchased LEGALLY and got in the wrong hands. Now second: The second amendment does give us the right to bear arms, but as a 'well regulated' militia (that's the legal name for the National Guard, btw)....so in effect you DO own automatic weapons, tanks, planes, etc.. No where does it say you can use these weapons on the streets of our country. If you want to protect your property, hunt, target practice....fine...but you don't have the right to a 100 round mag on the streets. Third: as far as why not ban cars, etc.....you have to have a license for those...40% of guns sales require NONE. I'm not going to get into the rest ridiculous NRA, the republic will rise again arguments which are completely devoid of ANY science or FACTS, but get some common sense folks. That's my 2 cents.}

Wrong.

 

Marines... SEALs... Special Forces... they are trained to kill people fast and efficiently.

 

A Police Officer is trained to use Deadly Force if the need arises... NOT to kill "fast and efficiently".

 

Huge difference between the two... yet both use the same variant of weapons such as the M-16.

 

 

 

This is quite a cockamamie assumption. It shows how little you know about the lawful use of firearms regarding the millions of so-called "military assault weapons" that are currently in the U.S.

 

Wouldn't mind you providing me with a definition of what is a "military assault weapon".

 

Our military is there to protect the safety and security of our nation. The police are there to protect our individual safety and security. They are the ones sworn to protect and defend our Constitution. As a free nation, we entrust them with the use of these assault weapons to efficiently carry out their duties and protect themselves in the highly dangerous environments that they work in every day.

The difference between military and police is only found in the type of dangerous environments they work in. Their tools may be similar, when the situation calls.

Obviously, the local police do not use the fully weaponed FA/18, and it would not fit into the work that they do.

 

You can Google "Assault Weapons", same as I can. In this case, I will help:

 

"Any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option

of the user."

No one is talking about repealing the second amendment, but you have to remember at the time it was written we were talking about Muskets. With the weapon systems we have today, I think there needs to be some clarification on what arms the second amendment actually protects. Arms today can mean anything from a knife to a nuclear bomb. So where do you draw the line? I don't think you want your next door neighbor having a nuke in their garage. So there has to be some clarification here. I think though to do this is going to take an amendment to the constitution not to abolish the right but to further clarify the type of arms it was intended to protect. Where that line is is up for debate!!

 

A line has already been drawn. Automatic weapons are illegal in almost all states along with a variety of other weapons (yes, including nukes). The debate in the country is over whether or not the line should be redrawn. But when it comes down to it, the big question is: Does it make a difference in the murder rate? Guns have all the sudden been demonized as the root of all evil when they aren't even the weapon used in most murders. If we lived in a world where the sky was blue everyday and wolves cuddled with rabbits and nobody was ever sad or angry, sure gun control would probably have a positive impact. But that's not our world unfortunately and I think the most ineffective thing we could possibly distract ourselves with is gun control.

All this debate about our Constitution is pointless. Obama is just going to decree new laws by executive order. Constitution be damned.

"Any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user."

 

Well thanks for proving my point Robert... the Sandy Hook murders were NOT committed with a weapon fitting your "Assault Weapon" definition.

 

<br />Arms today can mean anything from a knife to a nuclear bomb. So where do you draw the line?

 

Tom we go thru this every time there is some insanity that occurs going back to the '34 Firearms Act. It has been defined and redefined over and over. Like the stupid '94 Weapons Ban. So I can't buy a Colt AR-15 new from a gun store. So what. I don't care for the birdcage flash suppressor and bayonet lug anyway. So let's get a Bushmaster instead. No lug and uses an AK-74 style muzzle brake.

 

What you see is over and over are laws heaped upon (law abiding) citizens creating less to very restrictive access (in some cases prohibitive - for those who abide by "the law") and the cost of certain weapons dramatically rising.

 

Why not anyone hammering away at this "military assault weapons" issue... go out and see how "easy" it is to purchase e.g. an AR-15. If you find one... be sure to have a pretty decent credit limit on your CC.

 

_{I have to say I just love the 1776ers on this issue. Let me give you a point of view from someone who's job it was to KILL people for a living for the US government. **apparently the return key doesn't work in replies so sorry about the 1 paragraph post.** In any case how about we put all those folks in the gun factory with all the guns and ammo they want. Even give then an entire battalion on M1 tanks to go with it. In less then 5 minutes I could take them all out by myself with NO gun...just a radio. Let me know how your AR15 does against my F22s and every other beyond the horizon weapon in MY arsenal. Here's the point: If our government chooses to take us out....it CAN easily. This is not Honduras folks. These guns used in the latest mass murders were purchased LEGALLY and got in the wrong hands. Now second: The second amendment does give us the right to bear arms, but as a 'well regulated' militia (that's the legal name for the National Guard, btw)....so in effect you DO own automatic weapons, tanks, planes, etc.. No where does it say you can use these weapons on the streets of our country. If you want to protect your property, hunt, target practice....fine...but you don't have the right to a 100 round mag on the streets. Third: as far as why not ban cars, etc.....you have to have a license for those...40% of guns sales require NONE. I'm not going to get into the rest ridiculous NRA, the republic will rise again arguments which are completely devoid of ANY science or FACTS, but get some common sense folks. That's my 2 cents.}

 

Wow Jeff!! Great post! Very well said. I hope that you don't mind me copying this to my computer so I can remember it.

These "Government Gone Mad" argument is absolutely neurotic and the very reason that the thought of assault weapons in the hands of the general public is so scary and insane.

Wow Jeff!! Great post! Very well said. I hope that you don't mind me copying this to my computer so I can remember it.

These "Government Gone Mad" argument is absolutely neurotic and the very reason that the thought of assault weapons in the hands of the general public is so scary and insane.

Sure :-)

Well thanks for proving my point Robert... the Sandy Hook murders were NOT committed with a weapon fitting your "Assault Weapon" definition.

 

 

 

Tom we go thru this every time there is some insanity that occurs going back to the '34 Firearms Act. It has been defined and redefined over and over. Like the stupid '94 Weapons Ban. So I can't buy a Colt AR-15 new from a gun store. So what. I don't care for the birdcage flash suppressor and bayonet lug anyway. So let's get a Bushmaster instead. No lug and uses an AK-74 style muzzle brake.

 

What you see is over and over are laws heaped upon (law abiding) citizens creating less to very restrictive access (in some cases prohibitive - for those who abide by "the law") and the cost of certain weapons dramatically rising.

 

Why not anyone hammering away at this "military assault weapons" issue... go out and see how "easy" it is to purchase e.g. an AR-15. If you find one... be sure to have a pretty decent credit limit on your CC.

 

You need to do your homework. From what I understand, he also had high capacity magazines.

 

Weapons used by Adam Lanza, 20, alleged shooter in Sandy Hook elementary school rampage.

 

Read more: http://www.nydailyne...1#ixzz2IChmzQdB

 

The fact that they can also be easily purchased illegally, doesn't justify them being sold legally

I have yet to see an even decent argument for the legal distribution of assault weapons, to the civilian public.

Why don't you just say "They will have to peel my assault weapon out of my cold dead hands!" That argument would be as good as any that I've seen here.

These "Government Gone Mad" argument is absolutely neurotic

 

Oh yes sure they are.

 

Two words: Arab Spring.

 

You need to do your homework.

 

I have been... for the last 35 years or so... And I don't depend on the NYDN for my lessons.

 

Good luck finding a Bushmaster for a grand.

 

Edit: just saw the "fires 5 bullets a second" what a joke... except it is not a joke... and people use this drivel to "educate" themselves.

 

You need to do your homework.

 

Aha... just figured out what you meant by this...

 

As I said in my above statement, "Well thanks for proving my point Robert... the Sandy Hook murders were NOT committed with a weapon fitting your "Assault Weapon" definition."