Jump to content
This article contains a factual inaccuracy. It continues the false notion of a "gun show loophole." There is no such thing as a gun show loophole. Background checks are required for a firearms purchases at gun shows, when you make your purchase from an FFL dealer. Background checks are not conducted when one private individual sells a firearm to another private individual. The legislation to close the so called loophole, merely seeks to ban private person to person transactions, which means my father would no longer be able to give me one of his guns.
Or maybe the Gwinnett Daily Post solicited the opinion of the Chairwowan of the County Commission on the report of a major company relocating to the county.
“Assault Weapon” is not a gun term. It’s a political term.
The problem is the term "assault rifle." If you look up what assault is, it's anything that promotes a sense of apprehension in a potential victim - which includes a raised fist. As such, just about ANYTHING can be an "assault weapon:" rocks, baseball bats, knives, guns, fists, feet.... Legally, any threat with a potential weapon is assault. A threat with a weapon that can cause great bodily harm is assault with a deadly weapon. USING the weapon is BATTERY - not assault.
A weapon designed to be used by police or military in a tactical situation - forced entry and search of a suspected stash house, for instance - is a TACTICAL weapon, not an assault weapon. But the media and the morons in Congress won't use the term "tactical weapon" because THAT term defines a useful purpose for the weapon. And that purpose is just as useful if a homeowner wants a tactical weapon to protect their home from a potentially dangerous criminal engaged in unauthorized entry as it is for a police officer defending himself against a potentially dangerous criminal in an arrest.
If the person's reason for having the firearm is not tactical, then it's not a tactical weapon. Purpose dictates the term to be used. So if a rancher wants an AR-style rifle for controlling vermin on his ranch, it's a hunting rifle - not a tactical rifle. (With large ranches in my part of the world, the rifle of choice is often the "mini 14" - which everyone around here calls a "ranch gun" because of its popularity for controlling vermin on ranches.) If a person wants the rifle to shoot recreationally on a range, it's a "sporting rifle," and those with a modern form are referred to as "modern sporting rifles." The AR15 is a typical modern sporting rifle, and because it's use is not intended for actions against people when obtained for this purpose, it's called a "rifle," "gun," or "firearm" - not a "weapon" as the term "weapon" implies use against people. Similarly, if a gun is used for competition, it's called a "competition rifle," not a "weapon." A match-grade AR15 is a modern competition rifle.
Additionally, I would like to point out that gun violence has declined as the rate of gun ownership and the number of concealed carry holders has continued to increase. During the last "assault weapons" ban there were on average, over 700 murders a year with the "assault weapons" subject to the ban. In 2011 that numbers was around 350, despite there not being a ban. The reality is your proposals for restricting certain types of weapons, will not do anything to curtail gun violence. We already have laws on the books that prohibit criminals from possessing firearms and from using weapons in the commission of crimes.
One last statistic for you, enforcement and prosecution of federal gun laws is down over 40% during the Obama administration as compared to the Bush administration. Enforce the current laws.
That is fine if neither your wife nor the principal have a desire to carry, as a firm supporter of the 2nd amendment, I firmly believe in someone's right not to carry a firearm, but I think if any of the other teachers, who already have carry permits, desire to carry while they teach they should be allowed to. You had 3 brave teachers that rushed the Sandy Hook shooter. What if those teachers had been armed? Perhaps they could have been more effective in stopping the shooter. If your wife or the principal opt not to carry that is their prerogative, but do they should not force their views on to others by fighting against allowing law abiding citizens, including fellow teachers the opportunity to carry.
Did she have to get through the whole o-line to sack the quarterback?
Translation, thank you Obama for driving up the regulatory cost on our power companies. Are you all ready to pay more for electricity? I have to hand it to Obama, he did say he was going to bankrupt the coal industry, and it looks like that is one promise he is poised to keep.
Which is why my firearm armed and loaded with black talon rounds. But liberals like you would rather have those bullets, that law abiding citizens could use to protect themselves, outlawed.
Ahh...but you failed to respond to my reply on your last comment. I actually explain in there how the 2nd Amendment was original intended for private citizens to have access to the same type of weapons as the government.
Hey Jan. The gun that was used in both Aurora and Newton, a .223 caliber rifle, would not be legal deer hunting rifles. Why? Because they are not powerful enough. Second let us not forget the primary reason for the 2nd Amendment. It is to provide a last resort mechanism for the people to protect themselves against government tyranny. James Madison in the Federalist Paper no. 46 explained that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to allow for the defense of the people, by the people and for them to be able to form a militia should the need to forcefully remove an oppressive government arise. He was clearly talking about military style rifles, which today would include firearms like .223 rifles. Additionally, the so called gun show loop hole is a crock. "Closing the gun show loophole" means passing a law that forbids the sale of any firearm by an individual to another individual. Meaning my dad could not sell me a firearm legally, because he does not have an FFL. In regards to your suggestion to ban "large capacity clips", 2 points of contention. First what is to stop a criminal like this shooter from simply utilizing 3- 10 round magazines versus a 30-round magazine. A proficient shooter can change magazines in under 3 seconds. At best with 2 magazine changes you have bought the victims and responding police an extra 6 seconds. Let us look at some facts shall we. Since WWII every mass shooting incident, with more than 3 victims, as occurred in gun free zones, with the exception of 1. When police officers have to respond to mass shooting calls, the average number of victims is 18.25. When a law abiding citizen with a firearm is the first to respond the average number of victims is 2.2. And you sited Australia, but let's also talk about the UK and Japan. Both have seen major spikes in violent crime rate since passing firearms laws. Japan has had such a major spike that now less than 50% of all violent crimes are currently being prosecuted. And why does nobody ever point out the gun violence in Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela, all countries with very strict gun laws, all countries with very high crime rates.
Yes, let's blame the business owner and not the criminals. That just makes so much sense. It is the same with the Newtown shooting. We blame guns instead of the criminals. Start placing the blame where the blame is due.
Last login: Monday, July 22, 2013