assault weapon ban again

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Clayton, no offense but you missed as well. You are certain that it is NOT guns, so you then make an assumption about what the problem actually is. Others who are against guns in general, are using these events as excuses to claim that the problem IS caused by guns.

A better way to approach this would be to look at the individuals who are committing these acts, and ask "why?" I've said this so many times that my fingers are getting worn out, but eventually some of you will read it: most of these acts are perpetrated by people who are mentally ill. Not a problem with society - a problem with the perpetrator's brain.

Society as a whole does not want to deal with such problems, as they are unpleasant and costly, so in that respect it IS a problem with society. So if we aren't willing to spend more on mental illness, that really leaves us with few other choices than better security (more guns in the right hands) and gun control (fewer guns in the wrong hands). Seriously, with no increase in mental illness funding, what other solutions would your propose?

No offense taken Scott, I appreciate the response.

I also agree with you about more funding to help the mentally ill. But, not every act of gun violence is perpetrated by a mentally ill person. More acts of gun violence happen by gang members (who own guns that were bought on the black market) than by mentally ill people. This is what I mean about them exploiting "certain" tragedies over others, to push an agenda.

Chicago alone in 2012 reached 500 gun related deaths, most gang/drug related. But, instead of logical steps in fixing "the drug problem", the failed war on drugs continues and people keep getting killed by people who shouldn't own guns (isn't this a tragedy?) and don't own them legally. Yet, they sensationalize the instances that a mentally ill person uses a gun to commit a tragedy and then blame it on THE GUN; and exploit it to take away people's right to bear arms.

And the hypocrites who are calling for the new "war on guns" all use guns to protect themselves one way or another, either by CCP's or armed security. So, it's ok for them but not for the common law abiding citizen I guess.

I'm just afraid that when adressing the mental health issue, their solution will be to lock people up rather than try to help the person. I notice there's not much talk about what type of medications the shooter may or may not have been on- the focus is on guns.

The bottom line for me is if they take this right away (the right to bear arms) than we may as well kiss all of our rights away. The United Nations of America.

Sincerely, Clayton

[esd10]

i totally agree with you clayton and what this country will turn into if we leave all firearms to police and military we might as well turn into a socialist economy or a police state. it makes me so very sad to think about those parents who lost there children to these maniacs. like i said befor i'm a father of a 2 almost 3 year old about to start preschool and dont know what i would do if this happened to me but i would not blame the tool used to commit these horrible acts i would blame the person.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by esd10

i would not blame the tool used to commit these horrible acts i would blame the person.

Exactly! You have to put yourself in the shoes of the victim's families. When they were told of the tragic news, do you think they asked, "What kind of weapon was used?" "What caliber?" Or do you think they asked, "What would make a person do something like this?" Answer is pretty obvious.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by esd10

i totally agree with you clayton and what this country will turn into if we leave all firearms to police and military we might as well turn into a socialist economy or a police state. it makes me so very sad to think about those parents who lost there children to these maniacs. like i said befor i'm a father of a 2 almost 3 year old about to start preschool and dont know what i would do if this happened to me but i would not blame the tool used to commit these horrible acts i would blame the person.

First off, thank you for your service to our country.

I have to say I tend to look at the worst case scenario, so sometimes what I say may sound extreme. But, I read alot of history and true crime books. It is a bit alarming to me that we are over 16 trillion dollars in debt (that, to me is a mind boggling amount of money !!!!) and the issue of gun restriction/confiscation comes up. This is where reading history books kind of freaks me out

On the brighter side, our police and military take an oath to defend the Constitution, and when push comes to shove I like to think that they wouldn't obey unconstitutional orders. After all, they are just like us,,, citizens of the United States of America. I've talked with many active military and they've all seemed very grounded to me. I always make sure to thank them for their service. A big thanks to all active military and all vets for fighting for our freedoms !!!!

Sincerely, Clayton

[teetwoohsix]

Here is a perfect example of the media pushing an agenda. Ben Shapiro did an excellent job of stating the facts to Piers Morgan regarding the right to bear arms. It was clear to me that everytime Mr. Shapiro was telling truthful facts and making too much sense, Mr. Morgan would rudely interupt him, cut him off, and try to divert the discussion. Kudos to Mr. Shapiro for speaking the truth. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHIQtxLCgrM

Sincerely, Clayton

[esd10]

the ban will fail in the senate what from what i have read and heard and i believe the president is abusing his power and this needs to stop.

[cubsfan-budman]

The President is not abusing his power any more than Geo. H.W. Bush was when he used his executive authority to liberate Kuwait. The President has the ability to make certain decisions without Congress' permission. It makes my blood boil to hear so many conservatives scream bloody murder about these types of things. Obama is a Constitutional scholar. I have a strong feeling that he knows when he's within his rights to do something based on the Constitution.

A couple of other points I'd like to chip in:

1. An AR-15 or AK-47 or whatever type of assault rifle you might own is BY FAR the worst implement you could choose with which to defend your home in case of a home invasion/robbery. Even soft point assault rounds will go right through all the drywall in your house, posing a risk to others inside your house as well as innocent bystanders next door (or several doors down). Your are much better off defending yourself with a pistol (frankly a revolver, as they don't jam) or with a shotgun. Neither of those 2 options are going to be taken away from anyone.

So, in a defense situation, what use are assault rifles? A lot of folks have heard about store owners using assault rifles to defend their property versus looters in places like post-Katrina New Orleans or during the Rodney King riots in California. You know what's better than defending your stuff versus looters in this type of situation? GOING AWAY. Its just stuff. If you'd rather take a human life than buy insurance for your stuff, YOU might be the one with the mental health issues.

If a person breaks into your home or place of business with intent to harm you, then by all means defend yourself with deadly force. My suggestion is to use a shotgun or pistol to do so, but currently that's up to you.

Finally, "assault weapon" is not nearly as nebulous of a term as many might imagine. It has very little to do with "selective fire" as was stated above. In my experience there are 3 types of military-style rifles that are available to the general public.

1. Sniper-type rifles (many calibers up to and including .50 cal rifles)
2. Battle-type rifles (typically .308 and 30.06, examples include HK G3, FN FAL and FN SCAR heavy)
3. Assault-type rifles (typically .223 or 5.56mm (AR-15) or 7.62x39 (AK-47))

Interesting trivia: 7.62 is the "common denominator" when judging the type of rifle that you're looking at...a "battle rifle" will shoot 7.62x51 (which is the military designation of .308 Winchester) or 7.62x54(r) which is reasonably common because its the round that goes with the Russian Mosin-Nagant rifle, which is so numerous because of their use in WW2.

The original assault round was for the German "Sturmgewehr" when they noticed that most of their engagements were occurring at relatively close quarters, so the extra powder in their 7.62x51 rounds was unnecessary. If the chopped the round down to 7.62x39 their soldiers could retain their effectiveness AND carry more ammo (or be less encumbered by the same number of rounds).

So assault weapons are literally the type of weapons built around these type of rounds. That is: a "battle rifle" caliber chopped down in length for easy carry.

The .223/5.56 nato is a modern take on the WW2-era 7.62x39 concept.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by cubsfan-budman

You know what's better than defending your stuff versus looters in this type of situation? GOING AWAY. Its just stuff.

Funny, funny stuff. Tell you what, I'm coming by your house at 10:00 tonight to rob you. Since you know I'm coming, just GO AWAY! Leave! It's just stuff, right?

You know I am not serious but, if I was, something tells me you wouldn't heed your own advice and just "go away". You would be there to defend your property.

Originally Posted by cubsfan-budman

If you'd rather take a human life than buy insurance for your stuff, YOU might be the one with the mental health issues.

Why does it have to be a choice? Personally, I choose both, I HAVE insurance, but if somebody breaks into my house, I will certainly take their life.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

I'm just afraid that when adressing the mental health issue, their solution will be to lock people up rather than try to help the person.

...

Sincerely, Clayton

Amazingly, there are currently 'deals' in place where a diagnosed schizophrenic who committed a mass murder, was remitted to a psychiatric facility with the provision that if he was ever 'cured', he would go immediately to prison. Amazing that in 2012 (at the time) the court system is still referring to 'curing' schizophrenics. The point is that the public wants vengeance much more than they want to deal with reality.

Oh, forgot to mention - a schizophrenic at Western States in Washington was recently deemed 'cured' and sent to prison. So, tell me - who are the crazy people?

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Amazingly, there are currently 'deals' in place where a diagnosed schizophrenic who committed a mass murder, was remitted to a psychiatric facility with the provision that if he was ever 'cured', he would go immediately to prison. Amazing that in 2012 (at the time) the court system is still referring to 'curing' schizophrenics. The point is that the public wants vengeance much more than they want to deal with reality.

Oh, forgot to mention - a schizophrenic at Western States in Washington was recently deemed 'cured' and sent to prison. So, tell me - who are the crazy people?

Modern day Salem witch trials.

They know the person is mentally ill, send him/her to a mental health facility for an "observation", give them who knows what kind of drugs/medication, and then say "he/she understands the charges against him/her", and now they are fit to stand trial. Yeah, that's it. Poof, no longer mentally ill.....

My Grandmother (RIP) was actually treated for depression back in the 50's with "electric shock therapy", I couldn't believe what I was hearing when I found this out. It made me sick.

Sincerely, Clayton