Posted on 12/14/2007 5:07:40 PM PST by holymoly
I asked this question last week of the candidates for President now campaigning in Iowa, and I think that for most of the American people [pdf] the answer is clearly “no.”
In the last ten days, two states in the heart of the country have sustained mass shootings by people armed with military-style assault rifles – two attacks with assault weapons in less than a week. One shooter attacked a mall full of employees and Christmas shoppers in Omaha. The other attacked a church in Colorado.
Together, they left twelve people dead.
Yet today assault weapons remain perfectly legal to buy in gun stores and gun shows across the country, in unlimited quantities. Perhaps even more shocking, the type of bullet many assault weapons fire (7.62mm full metal jacket) can penetrate four categories of police body armor [pdf]. There is no legitimate reason the public should have this kind of access to military-style assault weapons.
It’s also frustrating that when a UPS employee raised concerns on September 13 about the “multiple boxes” of ammunition the Colorado shooter had delivered to his postal box, police officers said there was nothing illegal. No limits on the number of guns; no limits on ammunition; very minimal limits on the type of guns – no wonder we have problems.
Since the terrible shootings last week, leading newspapers are joining the call. Here is a sample of what they’re saying.
The New York Times: “Until recently, the nation did have a law designed to protect the public from assault rifles and other high-tech infantry weapons. In 1994, enough politicians felt the public’s fear to respond with a 10-year ban on assault-weapons that was not perfect but dented the free-marketeering of Rambo mayhem. Most Americans rejected the gun lobby’s absurd claim that assault rifles are “sporting” weapons. But when it came up for renewal in 2004, President Bush and Congress caved to the gun lobby and allowed the law to lapse.”
The Philadelphia Inquirer: “The troubled 19-year-old in Omaha used his stepfather’s AK-47-type assault weapon to unleash 30 rounds of gunfire on innocent victims, and then killed himself. Who needs a gun like that around the house?”
The Washington Post: “The AK-47 assault rifle that an Omaha teenager pilfered from his stepfather was among the guns outlawed under the ban on assault weapons that Congress and President Bush unwisely allowed to lapse. Why that kind of gun should be so easily available to someone as troubled as that 19-year-old is unfathomable. Eight people shopping or working at a mall died as a result.”
To protect ourselves and our police [pdf], these weapons of war should be kept out of the hands of civilians.
*droool*...
In Sweden(?) everyone has a Military automatic "assault" weapon in their closet issued them by the government"
Actually, it's Switzerland.
‘These bullets are not available to the public.”
Try google for .223 bullets, surplus.
Thanks to the present war and too many years of Liberals in congress, the supply is scarce to vanished.
But, these are pulled military bullets. The bullets are available in .223, .308, and 50 cal for the 50 cal BMG shooter.
Military brass is also available, as it military powder.
Nice pic. the guns aren’t bad either
Bugger that - I want a Mk 19 and 20 boxes of ammo.
Omaha shooter used an SKS not an AK47 of any variety.
The new SiG 556 looks interesting.
I've also heard people say, well, no-one needs a rifle or handgun like X, or that can do Y... Yeah, well, no-one really needs a stamp collection, or 3 sets of golf clubs, or a car that can go 100mph in 3rd gear... But the great thing about this country is that we are (supposedly) free to pursue our own happiness. I remember reading that somewhere...
About the only thing I agree with the gun-grabbers on is teflon coated ammunition - the kind designed specifically to defeat all kinds of body armor. No real need for that. Even if an attacker is wearing body armor, I intend to put enough rounds into them to knock them down, then go for a head shot anyway... ;-)
The only problem is an attempt to use logic to defend your position and accept their premise that there is a problem with an armed public.
IMHO, the argument is that we need those kinds of arms to defend us against people who are willing to make those false arguments to enslave a free people.
If you have to ask what it costs per round, you can’t afford one. Kind of a self limiting thing.
I would like to point out that they are (obviously) not, in fact, gun free zones as is evidenced by the body count.
I would also like to point out to them that these areas appear to be selected such that the perpetrators have the maximum opportunity to kill and injure. Not that they are necessarily cowards - they have to know it is going to end badly for them. In fact, recently, most seem to end up taking their own lives. However, they specifically go to gun free zones so as to minimize their initial risk, and maximize their time for mayhem.
If all the country was a gun free zone then we would be at risk from these criminals everywhere. Not only would it bring out the severely disturbed individuals bent on destruction and suicide, it would also "lower the bar." That is, knowing that they were even less likely to run into armed opposition, even the less profoundly disturbed individuals would feel emboldened to lash out at society.
We don't need fewer firearms, we need fewer gun free zones. Did anyone else note that the security guards at the Church in Colorado were not in fact normally armed? The woman who ultimately stopped the murderer was in fact armed with her own personal, registered and concealed-carry licensed firearm. Thank God, literally, that she was there. Another (unarmed) security guard was quoted as saying he was hiding behind a wall during the shooting.
Tell me..tell me..tell me, what is it??!!
That's right and my money is riding on the SCOTUS saying that EXACT thing. Laws will be enacted overnight limiting a person to 1 weapon (probably bolt action) of a very small caliber or better yet, a shotgun.
In Switzerland there is an auto assault rifle in every home which was one reason the Nazis decided to skip invading those guys. When one Swiss citizen was asked after the war whether he was worried about being invaded by four million Wehrmacht he replied that since there were two million Swiss he’d only have to shoot twice and then go home.
I am seeing a lot of threads here and other boards about issues of the public being better armed, it feels like a group is trying the get a feel of what the people are thinking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.