Yes Dave, it's time to raise the issue again

[Gordon Gray]

and that is what happened in Aurora, CO.

First off, my comments are not meant for responsible gun owners and those who support the rights endowed by the Second Amendment of our Constitution.

Some brief background.

The 1994 Assault Weapons Act was passed to prohibit the purchase of the type of assault weapon (Remington 870 AR 15) used by Mr. Hughes last Friday. The bill had a ten year sunset clause.

In 2000, GWB pledged to renew the ban. He reneged. Pressure, I assume by the NRA and it's minions, resulted in the non-extension of this ban.

Had this law been extended, it would have "legally" prohibited Mr. Hughes from purchasing this weapon.

The current Colorado Governor recently said, or certainly implied, that this individual could have obtained something else (name your weapon) that would have resulted in a similar carnage.

An extremely astute Congress person from Texas stated that if someone in the theater was "carrying", the loss of life and injuries thereof, could have been reduced.

Apparently, the AR 15 ( a "citizens" version of the military's AR16) malfunctioned. Working properly, this rifle could have shot 50 to 60 rounds per minute, thus killing / injuring more people.

So, again feeling helpless, like many Americans today, and trying to understand why these types of events keep occurring, why don't responsible people ask our "brain dead" elected's to reinstate the 1994 law?

Within any reasonable context, why should this Country allow the purchase of these type weapons that are clearly designed to kill people?

Why is it OK for any citizen to purchase 6,000 rounds of ammunition in a two month period (through the internet) and be totally ignored?

And finally, why are responsible supporters of the Second Amendment not reacting to another senseless killing of individuals?

All rational, reasonable responses are appreciated.

With all due respect,

GG

PS: And yes, why is it that the NRA has this Country's politicians by the balls?

 

[twich54]

First off, my comments are not meant for responsible gun owners and those who support the rights endowed by the Second Amendment of our Constitution.

trouble is Gordon, outside of the victims of crime, we tend to be the ones that suffer..........anyways.....my thoughts.....

The 1994 Assault Weapons Act was passed to prohibit the purchase of the type of assault weapon (Remington 870 AR 15)

This sentence quoted above is but one example of what concerns me, in that the 'assault' weapon is not a Rem 870 AR-15, what you actually have here are two different guns. The Remington 870 is a pump shotgun and the AR-15 is the 'assault' weapon. The reason I mention this is that there is a large segment of the population (including many of the half-witts we have in DC) that don't know that. Uneducated (with respect to firearms) / miss informed politicians and lawmakers do concern me with regards to this.

An extremely astute Congress person from Texas stated that if someone in the theater was "carrying", the loss of life and injuries thereof, could have been reduced.

possibly......maybe yes...maybe no, from what I've heard of the incident it would have taken an extemely well trained indiviual to react accordingly

why don't responsible people ask our "brain dead" elected's to reinstate the 1994 law?

I suspect that will happen

Within any reasonable context, why should this Country allow the purchase of these type weapons that are clearly designed to kill people?

yes the AR-15 and variants thereof were adopted from military cousins....BUT there are numerous sporting venues that abound for that class of weapon and in some states where legal, the aftermarket, Les Baer for example, have offerings of customized models that compete with many a bolt action rifle for accuracy which is needed for serious Varmint hunting. For the record though I don't own one for there isn't one out there that will match the accuracy of my custom .243 ackley

And finally, why are responsible supporters of the Second Amendment not reacting to another senseless killing of individuals?

Gordon, I am reacting, trust me, I am concerned and I do wonder where this leading us. For me personaly, tighter purchasing guidelines won't bother me but I still don't trust Wash, DC

Remember this, as tragic as this latest incident is it pales in comparrison to irresponsible cell phone / texting use on the highways.

 

[amey01]

I say this without any implication to my own views:

The US constitutional right to bear arms is an aberration in the developed/western world. Very few (no?) other countries have a gun culture like it.

North Korea is similar to the US in that regard. In that company, the USA stands out like a sore thumb.

Switzerland would be about as close as a western country gets and they themselves are an aberration in Europe.

My views: I strongly wish our gun laws were significantly more relaxed.

So I'm not necessarily against all parts of USA gun laws - just pointing out the fact.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Dave,

I trust you know that this thread is not directed at you or other responsible gun owners.

Regarding the assault weapon in question, I simply repeated the information shown on the photo and broadcast on the news.

Thank you for caring.

Best,

Gordon

 

[SteveInNC]

Dave,

I trust you know that this thread is not directed at you or other responsible gun owners.

Regarding the assault weapon in question, I simply repeated the information shown on the photo and broadcast on the news.

Thank you for caring.

Best,

Gordon

Unfortunately, the news invariably gets it wrong when discussing gun types, sometimes to forward a political agenda, but often with the intention of scare-mongering and/or selling news aka advertising space. It's roughly equivalent to calling a Prius a pickup truck because they both have four wheels and transport things.

For example, the original AR15 was designed as a "selective-fire" military weapon - a true "assault weapon". "selective-fire" means that the weapon can be switched to fire multiple rounds with a single trigger-pull, or a single round with a single trigger-pull. ArmaLite sold the design to Colt circa 1959 who reissued it to the military renamed as the M16.

Colt trademarked and sells the modern AR15 as a civilian "semi-automatic" rifle, which means that it will fire one bullet (only) with each trigger-pull. The gas expansion from that bullet being fired cycles the mechanism to load another round. This is common to a large percentage of pistols and shotguns manufactured today. The "1911" 45-calibre pistol used this same design starting in 1911, thus the name, so this is not modern technology per se... The AR15 "looks" like the M16 assault weapon as carried in all of those Vietnam War movies, so it evokes a visceral reaction.

The Remington 870 is a pump shotgun capable of holding five shells in typical configuration. It's available in 12-gauge (largest size) down to .410 bore (smallest size). I own a 12-gauge Express model that I bought at WalMart decades ago for about $250 as I recall. You physically rack the slide to load another shell. Its fancier cousin, the 1100, is a semi-auto shotgun that as above cycles a new shell into the chamber when you fire the current round. Both can hold four shells in the magazine and a fifth in the chamber. For hunting rules, typically a dowel blocks two magazine spots, limiting the gun to three total rounds.

I can't seem to find the model, but reports indicate he had one or two Glock .40 handguns (likely a Glock model 22). As above, these are semi-automatic weapons - it fires once for each trigger-pull and chambers another round. Of note, the Glock 22 holds 15 rounds in its magazine, so in some ways, its more dangerous than the shotgun, and is easier to reload via a magazine that slides into the bottom of the grip.

6000 rounds of ammo is fairly high, but not outrageous. Often people buy in quantity for a price break; in other instances, they may actually shoot a significant number of rounds. A friend of mine is a competitive skeet shooter and can easily shoot 400 shotgun shells in a weekend. A single "round" of skeet requires shooting 25 shells. He shoots multiple rounds, and typically multiple gauges too.

 

[Rich]

The trouble with this is not the type of gun per se, but the ability to use high-capacity magazines with it. In this case, a hundred round drum! Had his gun not jammed, the death toll would have been a lot higher. There is little reasonable justification for allowing such capacities to be available, even for a semi-auto gun. Ban everything but a ten round cartridge and let these guys at least have to reload every so often. I don't think that is an unreasonable limitation on anyone's right to bear arms. Hell, I want to buy a nuclear weapon, but they won't let me. I can't buy an Abrams Tank either. Our right to bear arms is subject to reasonable limitations. I think a limitation on magazine size is reasonable.

 

[twich54]

Rich, point well taken, I agree.

 

[Rich]

Having said all that . . . I got a chance to shoot an AR-15 a few months ago. It is a fun target rifle, but extremely powerful (ok, not as powerful as most hunting rifles, but still . . .). We were shooting at a dense hardwood log, about eight to ten inches in diameter, and probably weighing over fifty pounds, from a distance of about 15 to 20 yards. The bullet went clean through, leaving an impressive exit hole. Now, imagine that kind of firepower with a hundred round drum magazine in a crowded theater!

 

[spectral]

The second amendment is outdated; it was drafted when state protection was scant or non-existent; times have changed, it should be abolished and all guns withdrawn from everyone's hands. There is nothing responsible about gun ownership - guns are meant to kill, and there is nothing responsible about killing anyone, even in self-defense. If all weapons were withdrawn, there would be exceptionally less need for such self-defense. This gun withdrawal was very successful in Europe after the second world war, but it will never happen in the U.S. because it is not implementable given current social conditions, and no one in Washington has the guts to do anything about it. Therefore, the only thing I can personally do is make sure my kids won't attend college in states with weak anti-gun laws.

Peter

 

[sandpip]

The second amendment is outdated; it was drafted when state protection was scant or non-existent; times have changed.

BINGO!

Funny how you never read "responsible armed citizen saves day" in the news!

And I like to hunt, but I've never had to use an automatic weapon against a fleeing deer or bird. I would be more than happy to rent a single weapon out of a controlled place to use for hunting, and return it when done to be locked up in a secure place. Wouldn't solve the problem, but would certainly make it WAY harder to assemble an arsenal of weapons to use for a mass killing spree.

 

[Kevin]

There is nothing responsible about gun ownership - guns are meant to kill, and there is nothing responsible about killing anyone, even in self-defense. If all weapons were withdrawn, there would be exceptionally less need for such self-defense.

I disagress strongly with you on that. If someone breaks into my home, and rarely does someone break into homes with good intentions, then a gun in my hand is much better than a policeman on the phone.

 

[Kevin]

I agree about limiting the capacity of magazines. However, anyone who spends a bit of time practicing can change clips fairly quickly. But it would make it that much harder, especially in a real life situation where perhaps the perp is being shot back at or is being chased.

There are a few curious questions that come to my mind when these situation occur. As these situations appear to be occuring more frequently over the years, is the problem really with gun control or something broader? In other words, are there that many more people wanting to commit mass shootings because of the easier access to guns and ammunition, or are other slacking social values at play? Why address one but not the other? Why do these guys almost always seem to be white? If we were to, theoretically, get rid of all guns in private hands. What do these obviously sick individuals then do? Do they sit at home, disturbed as they are, and figure they would like to kill some people but since they can't get a gun they just drop the idea? Or do they go to plan B? Timothy McVeigh didn't need to fire a single round of ammunition to kill more than 100 innocent adults and children. Just some things to ponder.

 

[twich54]

The second amendment is outdated; it was drafted when state protection was scant or non-existent; times have changed, it should be abolished and all guns withdrawn from everyone's hands.

utter nonesense....but in your case be thankfull the first amendment is still in place !

There is nothing responsible about gun ownership - guns are meant to kill

another clueless response........guns are 'capable' of being a weapon used to kill, it's the human behind the trigger. There are plenty of other lawfull uses for guns.

This gun withdrawal was very successful in Europe after the second world war, but it will never happen in the U.S.

I sure as hell hope not

Therefore, the only thing I can personally do is make sure my kids won't attend college in states with weak anti-gun laws.

Thank the Lord, we don't want them here anyways ! send them to Illinois, strongest handgun laws in the country.....btw how's Chgo doing these days with it's crime / murder rate ?

 

[spectral]

Some forum moderator you are! Good to know who you are.

 

[twich54]

Timothy McVeigh didn't need to fire a single round of ammunition to kill more than 100 innocent adults and children. Just some things to ponder.

How true Kevin, myself I see the **** poor prosecution as a big part of the problem, I wonder how long it will take to conclude the current low life in Colorado.....and will he get a sentence that us tax payers will continue to pay for ?

 

[Kevin]

Some forum moderator you are! Good to know who you are.

Being a moderator doesn't get rid of his freedom of speech, or is the first admendment outdated as well?

 

[twich54]

Some forum moderator you are! Good to know who you are.

actually young man those that do know me....know who I am !

my reponse to you was just that......a response to your post !

 

[Gordon Gray]

Reasonable and rational please. Constructive would be good also

The last thing I want to do is rehash ideologies. We've been there, done that.

Thank you.

GG

 

[spectral]

actually young man those that do know me....know who I am !

my reponse to you was just that......a response to your post !

You made it personal ("utter nonsense"). No one else did. If you can't offer a responsible answer to one's opinion, I think I pretty much know how responsible you can be with the subject under review here... young man.

 

[Rich]

You made it personal ("utter nonsense"). No one else did. If you can't offer a responsible answer to one's opinion, I think I pretty much know how responsible you can be with the subject under review here... young man.

Calling a response "utter nonsense" is not making it personal. It is responding directly to the comment made with an opinion of the value of that comment. Just because Dave is a moderator doesn't mean he can't express his opinion on a comment.

Ultimately, I would agree that the 2nd amendment has been interpreted way beyond its original intent, and the purpose for such a broad reading of it is way outdated given current firearm technology and social needs. So I don't personally agree with Dave that the gist of your comment was utter nonsense, but I do agree that the black and white way you present your argument is. The world is not black and white. It doesn't have to be all guns or no guns. There is a happy medium that can be reached with reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms, without prohibiting everyone from owning a firearm.

Your statement that "there is nothing responsible about owning guns" is both ill-informed and factually incorrect. There are plenty of needs for owning firearms that have nothing to do with killing people and are perfectly responsible and reasonable reasons to own a firearm. In rural areas, people use firearms to protect themselves from wildlife (I have shot more than a few rattlesnakes on my own property with my shotgun to protect myself and my family, as a for instance). Lots of people still put food on their table by hunting on their own land or on land they lease. Hundreds of thousands of people across this country enjoy engaging in target shooting, skeet shooting, and the like, as well as hunting. I myself, have gotten a lot of enjoyment from the hobby of Cowboy Action Shooting, which involves shooting at targets, and in which gun safety is taught and practiced as an essential part of the hobby.

Plenty of people are alive today because they were able to successfully defend themselves against armed intruders. If you want to allow your family to be killed, raped, or whatever by an armed intruder, that is certainly your business. But to call other people irresponsible because they choose to defend themselves with deadly force is ridiculous. If someone breaks into my house, I will shoot them dead because: a) I care about myself and my family a lot more than I do some thug that is showing complete disregard for our rights to life and liberty in our own home, and b) they have given up their right to safety as soon as they made the decision to break into my house with ill intentions.

And do you honestly believe that: "If all weapons were withdrawn, there would be exceptionally less need for such self-defense"? That is also a ridiculous statement. The federal government has been trying to stop the flow of illegal drugs into this country for forty years and spent billions of dollars on the effort. Yet there are more illegal drugs coming into the country today than ever before. The people that don't do them don't have them. But anyone who wants to do them has easy access. There is a lot of truth to the saying "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."