Reply With Quote
So why would you want an AK-47 in the first place?
If it's so ty, there's no reason to be against its regulation.
http://www.examiner.com/x-2581-St-Lo...ssault-weapons
This being the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner, I have so far looked only at what is going on right at the local level. Starting now, though, I am going to expand the focus. Gun rights in St. Louis are, after all, seriously impacted by state and federal gun laws. This is not to say that I will abandon local gun rights issues--as they come up, I'll discuss them, but to focus on local events exclusively would be to ignore many of the most pressing gun rights issues facing St. Louisans and others.
One type of proposed federal law that incessantly comes up for discussion is a new federal ban on so-called "assault weapons." The last such ban, of course, expired in 2004, after which, suddenly . . . such firearms continued to be used in only a tiny percentage of violent crimes. That little detail hasn't deterred the gun prohibitionists, though, who constantly comb the news waiting for the next killing in which such firearms are used, in order to have something to point to in order to make their case.
This time, it's Miami that has provided fodder for the citizen disarmament advocates, with a shooting involving an "AK-47" (I suspect that it was a semi-automatic copy of an AK-47, rather than a real, fully automatic one--real AK-47s have been, and continue to be, regulated under laws much more restrictive than the AWB).
Miami police issued a plea for information Saturday after at least one person with an assault rifle opened fire on a crowd of people on a streetcorner Friday night, killing two teens and wounding seven other people.
Certainly a horrible and tragic event, but I would argue that such violence is more an indication of the amount of work that needs to be done in repairing the badly frayed social fabric of this country, than it is an effective argument for restricting peaceable citizens' access to certain popular firearms, in a doomed attempt to keep those firearms out of the hands of criminals.
That, however, is exactly how some would use this incident.
"These are weapons of war, and they don't belong on the streets of Miami or any other street in America," Mayor Manuel Diaz said.
Like Mayor Slay, Mayor Diaz is a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and the fallacy of that group's claim that they're only interested in stopping illegal guns is exposed by the number of now legal guns they would like to make illegal (the AR-15, for example, generally considered an "assault weapon" by the prohibitionists, is now the biggest selling centerfire rifle in the U.S.).
In their drive to ban so-called "assault weapons," the mayors have powerful allies in the federal government, including a president and vice president who have made no secret of their wish to do so.
They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.
Vice President Biden, by the way, was one of the original sponsors of the now expired ban. Eric Holder, whom President Obama has chosen, pending Senate confirmation, as the Attorney General, has stated that he believes the Supreme Court's er decision poses no obstacle to such a ban.
And I had mentioned, I think, closing the gun show loophole, the banning of cop-killer bullets and I would also think that making the assault weapons ban permanaent wold be someting that would be permitted under er, and I also think would be good for my law enforcement perspective.
President Obama seems already to have abandoned even the pretense of honoring his campaign promises to "respect the Second Amendment," and we can expect the agenda of smotheringly restrictive gun laws to get underway in earnest any time now.
Are you ready for it?
-----------------
As a gun owner, I have to say this is just baffling to me. With a 30.06 at a distance of 2000 yards I would be able to take down 10-15 people even if they all had a "deadly assault rifle" before they were anywhere near me. Not to mention that I would MUCH rather be shot with an AK-47 at 300+ meters than ANY hunting rifle. But I guess that's not for people who know absolutely nothing about guns to argue about.
So why would you want an AK-47 in the first place?
If it's so ty, there's no reason to be against its regulation.
Duh, to protect ourselves. I carry an AK with me to the grocery store and I've never been robbed.
Man has had an infatuation with weapons and killing people since we discovered rocks and sticks.
Anyone that has taken a government class knows that the Second Amendment is vague and up for debate. Those that take it literally either haven't read it or ignore the context that it's used in.
have you heard the recent supreme court ruling?
Does it matter why someone would want a replica AK-47? Your lack of understanding does not give you the right to deny others there personal choices, does it?
I also would not want an AK-47 for any practical reason. There are other weapons I would choose first.
Stand back from the more extreme examples and ask yourself if you want the government trampling on our cons ution.
Liberals love to redefine words over time. At the time of our cons ution, 'militia' did not mean any organized group of men. It meant any able bodied man that can be called into service. To take away any rights to bear arms is a clear violation of the first amendment.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
so militia meant any "able-bodied man?"
A well regulated "able-bodied man" being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Where was all your outrage while Bush was ting on the cons ution the last eight years?
I say, if people want to buy a tank, let them. Though I guess I could be persuaded to make licenses mandatory for those who want weapons of mass destruction...
Um, yes.
So you must be for the legalization of marijuana, cocaine, crystal meth, etc.Your lack of understanding does not give you the right to deny others there personal choices, does it?
Like yer mind!I also would not want an AK-47 for any practical reason. There are other weapons I would choose first.
I wonder what any of the founders would say if we told them every citizen would be allowed to have a weapon that fires off 700 rounds a minute.Stand back from the more extreme examples and ask yourself if you want the government trampling on our cons ution.
Conservatives love to ignore definitions they don't agree with.Liberals love to redefine words over time.
Maybe you should look at the context of the...At the time of our cons ution, 'militia' did not mean any organized group of men. It meant any able bodied man that can be called into service.
second amendment.To take away any rights to bear arms is a clear violation of the first amendment.
Shasta you have to get a federal permit and have a background check by the feds in order to have any full auto weapon and it has been that way since the Chicago Gangster days.
They are now trying to outlaw guns that "look mean" because they are the easiest marks...
Not because they're more dangerous than others
Since you are such an expert on the cons ution, tell us where it says anything about bearing arms in the FIRST amendment.
The decision was 5-4. Therefore it's debatable. Ever hear of separate but equal?
Do what you want to do. If you want to never touch a gun and rely on the safety of this great nation, do so.
There are billions of guns in the world. They will always be around. It's all good.
Where does it say a 'reasonable right to bear arms' We flat out have that right! You are talking about the fourth amendment, right?Where was all your outrage while Bush was ting on the cons ution the last eight years?
I say what the Bush administration did was perfectly reasonable!The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Why can't people at least acknowledge this is a possible correct interpretation?
Hahah... typical. The person using the gun causes the danger factor.
Ask military who they are more afraid of. Are they more afraid of untrained militants with AK's or a mercenary sniper.
No... the decision was 5-4 therefore it's law.
Separate but equal was law as well. Agree to disagree.
I'll stop now. No use arguing with gun toting gangster wannabes that want to carry AK's.
Ask a crowd at a mall who they're more afraid of. A guy with a sniper rifle or a guy with an assault weapon.
No they're not more dangerous. Real assault rifles are already regulated. It really is about guns that look mean. Here's a good video, at the 6:00 mark a perfectly acceptable hunting rifle becomes a scary assault rifle with a few cosmetic changes.
Great safety? What's safe about psychos with guns?
You have an idiot that has a bad day that owns a gun and he goes to a mall and starts shooting people and turns the gun on his self.
You have an idiot has a bad day that doesn't have a gun he goes in the bathroom and slits his own throat. I'll take the latter.
Sorry, it's not your safety I'm worried about. It's mine.
From the way it sounds, guns are what... some kind of personal statement? You get a gun to look cool or mean?
Or takes his car and drives through a crowd of people... Or sets an office building on fire...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
