The new horizon of gun control, Part 3. “Military style weapons”

posted at 8:51 am on December 20, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

In the first two entries of this four part series – A Violent Society and The Black Hole of Mental Health – we examined the first pair of the three part “reasonable discussion” currently being offered by those seeking new and immediate gun control laws. They involve the nuanced, oh so helpful sounding approach to curtailing mass shootings such as we witnessed last week in Newtown, Connecticut. The third leg of this particular stool will be the heaviest lift for those still concerned with their civil liberties, so I advise you to fasten your seat-belts before we proceed. Some truths can be hard to speak during such dark times, but their veracity is not diminished one bit. Today we will discuss the argument being put forth by these concerned citizens wherein they assure us that they love the Second Amendment… they don’t want to deter your right to go hunting… they simply don’t see why you should legally be entitled to “Military Style Weapons.”

But first, another brief update on the evolving media circus surrounding this rapidly building tsunami. If you don’t think that you’ll be facing the sympathy card on this front, do not be deceived. Just look who the Democrats are lining up to make their case.

During an emotional news conference announcing their new focus on gun control, House Democrats put forth several members personally affected by gun violence, including Rep. Ron Barber (D-Ariz.), who took a seat in Congress after being shot and wounded alongside former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) in Jan. 2011; Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), whose husband was killed and son severely wounded in the December 1993 shooting on a Long Island Railroad commuter train; Rep. James Langevin (D-R.I.), who has had to use a wheelchair since age 16 after being wounded in an accidental shooting; and Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), whose 29-year old son was killed in a 2009 shooting.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) would like us to simply skip the entire. bothersome legislative process and have you just turn in your guns now. For a bit of a palate cleanser, you’ll want to check out Joel Engel, who touches on some of the topics we’ll cover today.

Let’s press on to the final argument which we shall hear in the days, weeks and months to come. They’re only trying to eliminate…

Military Style Weapons

This is an argument which is already being picked up not only in every media outlet, but by normally reliable conservative voices. It breaks down into a neat, repeatable refrain in three parts which can be parroted as follows:

1.We aren’t trying to stop anybody from hunting! We support your right to hunt!
2. And besides, we’re not talking about coming and taking your guns. We just don’t want them sold any more.
3. All we’re saying is that we don’t want these military style weapons around. They’re only good for killing people!

Taking these in order, it is first important for our conservative thought leaders to loudly enunciate one very important point about the hunting angle. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. So when you hear this, you need to shut it down immediately. First off, the Bill of Rights says nothing about hunting. It talks about the possible need for a militia, which has since been affirmed as an individual right by the Supreme Court, particularly since anyone might – in the darkest of possible times – be once again called upon to stand up for the survival of the nation. This is a subject which I have been lax on in the past, as several readers have pointed out on occasion. My only point by way of defense is that hunters and sportsman’s associations have long been such a natural fit with second amendment supporters, and beneficiaries of the work by the NRA and like minded groups. Hunting shouldn’t even be a government issue. It remains a mystery to me why any of us need to pay a fee and obtain a license to hunt, fish or trap on “the King’s land” to feed and clothe our families. (But that pet peeve of mine shall remain a discussion for another day.) This is not a hunting issue.

These same, soft spoken voices will, as I noted, also assure you that nobody is coming to take your guns. Perish the thought! They simply want to restrict the methods of obtaining them. limit access in increasing fashions and essentially stop the selling of whichever types of weapons and accessories they deem unacceptable in the future. This, to me, rings as hollow as Republicans who argue for reforms to Social Security and Medicare, but begin the discussion by saying, “Of course, we’re not going to touch YOURS.” That’s a dishonest approach, though it may be politically expedient.

But were I a liberal falling into such a category, I would immediately be wondering… what happens to my children and grandchildren? Second Amendment proponents should demand the same answer. Even if you have your guns today, what about the day when you take your son or daughter out to purchase their first firearms? The long game here is simple: we may not be able to get rid of all the guns today, but if we stop their sale, eventually all of the weapons will drop out of the system. This isn’t a fight for what you have today, but rather a stand against what happens to future generations.

The final point is, as I warned earlier, the hard one. It will be argued at the same time as they show the mourners standing over the tiny caskets of the mass shooting victims and the tearful mourners. How could you – or anyone – be such a monster as to want a weapon which is essentially only fit for killing people at a time like this? I will risk the sin of self aggrandizement here by quoting… me, from an article I published shortly after the Colorado shooting this summer. Why would you demand the right to own a gun primarily suited to killing human beings?

There may yet come a day when you will have no choice.

I know.. I know.. heresy. But I submit the following premise to you. America was founded by and remains populated by people who, in many cases, realized that an armed population might be vital to our survival. There are three basic scenarios which are likely on the minds of many people, presented here in (hopefully) descending order of likelihood.

1. Some people have concerns that, in a very unstable world, things might eventually go completely pear shaped and the social fabric could be in danger of collapse. Nobody wants this and I’m not saying it’s even likely, but if that is one concern of yours, you’re going to have to be ready to defend yourself, your family and your property. And not against deer.

2. There has been a constant undercurrent of worry that the United States might still, some day, be invaded by a foreign power using a land invasion rather than a nuclear attack. And if such invaders overwhelmed the troops and the National Guard, there would still be an armed force of tens of millions of Americans to deal with. More than a few people wiser than me have opined over the years that this is a large reason nobody has tried to invade us.

3. The last, worst, and – I hope – most unlikely scenario is one which persons as “radical” as Thomas Jefferson fretted over. And that is the possibility that a vastly swollen and powerful central government could forget and abandon the promises made to the people and violate the fundamental rights promised to them. The Founders came from a land and a time when that was hardly science fiction. And while I see no indication that such a thing is imminent today, an armed populace remains a constant reminder to those in Washington that, should they ever dare go so far as to employ the military to suppress their citizens and break those promises… You only rule by the consent of the governed. We outnumber you vastly. And we are armed. This isn’t a threat. It’s a reminder.

No, there is no reasonable person who wakes up in the morning hoping for the chance to kill another human being. But in times of war, ultimate disaster, chaos or – God forbid – the betrayal of those in power, killing another human being may, sadly, be part of the only path to survival.

Yes, that’s a hard argument to make during the horrible times shortly after an event like Newtown. But it’s an argument which, in my never very humble opinion, passes the test of time and serves as an important reminder. And before smiling faces with tear reddened eyes come during our darkest hours to pilfer your rights you may need to stand up and hold these ideas in mind, though the popular tide shall identify you as the monster who doesn’t care about the victims.

This is precisely the moment which many gun grabbing enthusiasts have been waiting for. A horrible tragedy has seized the emotional heartstrings of the nation and plucked them loudly. A recent election has delivered not only a Senate slightly enlarged with liberal activists, but a formerly cowed President now unfettered by fear of another turn before the electoral wheel. Previously reliable defenders of Second Amendment rights are making the rounds on every network, suddenly willing to compromise – just this once on a few egregious points – and give ground to those who dream of a gun free society. It’s going to be an enormous headwind to fight, and even I wonder if there will be enough people to man the ramparts on this one. But have no doubt… the fight has been brought to us and it will roll out in a matter of days, not years. We have compromised. We always compromise. But if sales of a list of weapons which even includes semi-automatic handguns are about to be curtailed, (even as sales skyrocket) a line in the sand needs to be drawn.

Tomorrow we’ll conclude this series with a discussion of what you can expect as the rest of this tale plays out, as well as what we might do. Until then, sleep well. You’re going to need the rest.

Related:
The new horizon of gun control, Part 1. A Violent Society
The new horizon of gun control, Part 2. The black hole of mental health
MSNBC host Chuck Todd on gun rights: “That’s a different America”
Slippery Slopes are Sometimes Real.
The missing link on gun control

Catch up with me on Twitter if you’d care to continue the discussion.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

“Military style weapons” and “assault weapons”. Ambiguous terms that can mean whatever anyone wants them to mean.

GarandFan on December 20, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Generally-speaking… its whatever is covered in black plastic and looks scary… /s

dominigan on December 20, 2012 at 1:19 PM

dominigan on December 20, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Start your list of bad words. Some are medications, go figure.

Limerick on December 20, 2012 at 1:19 PM

In The People’s Republic of Kaliforina, an “assault weapon” also includes a .50 cal BOLT ACTION rifle, weighing 37 pounds and just short of 6 FEET LONG.

GarandFan on December 20, 2012 at 1:13 PM

If these nuts had their way, Paladin wouldn’t even be able to carry his Derringer behind his belt buckle. Same with the Rifleman. Those were the days…..

TxAnn56 on December 20, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Like many here I’m not a hunter. Haven’t wanted to in over 30 years. My modest collection has one purpose, to keep the family alive. Last I checked none of the grandkids, kids, or assorted other family members has killed themselves or each other with them.

Limerick on December 20, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Start your list of bad words. Some are medications, go figure.

Limerick on December 20, 2012 at 1:19 PM

No. I didn’t list any medications. I did quote sections of the 2nd Amendment, the US Constitution, and the Ohio Constitution. Maybe those are outlawed documents now…

dominigan on December 20, 2012 at 1:25 PM

dominigan on December 20, 2012 at 1:25 PM

One had to be a key word. Rev**ution being one of the OMG he said that words.

Limerick on December 20, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Reposted but still no luck. No message, nothing.

dominigan on December 20, 2012 at 1:30 PM

I’ll try posting it in parts and see what fails…

dominigan on December 20, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Also people, don’t forget to point out in these conversations…

The 2nd Amendment states…

Bill of Rights, 2nd 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.

Ever notice something? “Militia” is not defined within the Constitution. That’s because the Constitution leaves it up to the states to define what constitutes a militia.

dominigan on December 20, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Since I live in Ohio, I refer to the Ohio Constitution. Section 9.01 of the Ohio Constitution defines the Ohio militia as…

Ohio Constitution, section 9.01: “All citizens, residents of this state, being seventeen years of age, and under the age of sixty-seven years, shall be subject to enrollment in the militia and the performance of military duty, in such manner, not incompatible with the Constitution and laws of the United States, as may be prescribed by law.”

Thus, I am automatically a member of the militia available to be called up in defense of our state or country. To defend my state or country, I need the right tools to do so.

dominigan on December 20, 2012 at 1:31 PM

This is where you point out the failings of Congress to perform their Constitutional duty. Because under Article I Section 8 Clause 16, it states…

US Constitution, Article I Section 8 Clause 16: “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

In the Constitution, it tasks Congress with the purpose of arming American militia (citizens) with firearms, and providing them with the necessary training to use them.

dominigan on December 20, 2012 at 1:31 PM

dominigan on December 20, 2012 at 1:30 PM

If cleared it will show up at the time you sent it, not the time cleared, so whatever points you made will be lost in the back pages. Only the few who read all 300 posts in sequence will see it.

Limerick on December 20, 2012 at 1:31 PM

I wonder if that would have made a difference in the school shooting if every teacher and administrator had been trained in firearm usage, and had the option to conceal carry in order to defend their charges… Hmmm…

To Chuck Schumer, who authored an opinion in the Washington Post: Maybe the reason the killer was so successful was because you neglected your Constitutional duties as a sitting member of Congress!

dominigan on December 20, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Ok, that’s weird. It all posted when I submitted it in parts. Maybe it didn’t like so many links… oh well…

dominigan on December 20, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Have a wonderful Thursday! I’m off to slay some barbarians with a legion of sweaty Romans.

Limerick on December 20, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Leftists, with Obama leading them, are vultures feeding on carrion.

Schadenfreude on December 20, 2012 at 1:36 PM

But hey – keep militarizing everything in your country into a shithole instead of tackling the actual issues.

Dave Rywall on December 20, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Isn’t is ironic that the HOMICIDE RATE IS AT THE LOWEST IT HAS BEEN SINCE THE 1960s and 49 states now have CCW laws enabling citizens to carry the means to protect themselves (soon all 50 will given Illinois’ law has been held unconstitutional by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals) and, yet, the Assault Weapons Ban a/k/a The Prohibition On Certain Guns With Cosmetic Changes That Make Them Look Skeery And Are Painted Skeery (And Racist!) Black Act EXPIRED EIGHT YEARS AGO?

Remember the “holocaust” that Dianne Feinstein predicted would occur if the AWB was allowed to happen?

Me neither.

Resist We Much on December 20, 2012 at 1:39 PM

You will forgive me if I don’t listen to control freaks who 1) refuse to appoint a director of ATF for Obama’s entire first term, 2) haven’t effectively dealt with violence in Obama’s hometown Chicago, which has 20+ shooting victims a weekend on many occasions, 3) deliberately gave thousands of weapons to Mexican drug cartel members, who used them to murder hundreds of our neighbors, 4) helped arm known al-Qaeda jihadis in Libya who had American blood on their hands from Iraq and Afghanistan, 5) backs armed revolt in Syria led by known jihadis, and on and on.

Christien on December 20, 2012 at 1:41 PM

This, to me, rings as hollow as Republicans who argue for reforms to Social Security and Medicare, but begin the discussion by saying, “Of course, we’re not going to touch YOURS.” That’s a dishonest approach, though it may be politically expedient.

You’re an idiot Jazz. That’s not even remotely the same thing and a gross misrepresentation – routinely peddled by liberal democrats and their mouthpieces. The revision to make social security and medicare liquid again was to shift OVER TIME the rates and eligibility, to reduce the pool and expense to drop it back into a cashflow positive basis. That shift was to be staggered by age of the recipients, with the eldest being kept in the status quo – no change – because they would have zero time to adjust financially to any changes. With subsequent age brackets getting adjusted incrementally, to allow each age bracket sufficient time to adjust to make up the loss. Winding up with the youngest making the biggest correction with decades of compound interest ahead of them.

Now I don’t know whether you were even aware of that, or if you are just lazy or flip about it. Or just plain dishonest.

This meandering scattershot multi-part garbage pile you call an essay series is poorly done. You’re all over the map, with big holes in it – which as you note, you are being heavily berated for. It’s more like you’re researching a book chapter by chapter and letting us edit your copy. It’s crap.
And even worse if it’s intentional and you’re just throwing all the pieces out there, intending to bring them all together at the end. That’s NOT how a multi-part essay is done. Each part needs to stand alone.
You need to go read every essay Bill Whittle has ever written. He does it right. Well crafted narratives / subsections that all feed into a whole / key theme.
What is your point? What is your goal? What is your intent? How are you intending to move your audience, in what direction? These are the elements that make an effective essay.
Likewise the works of VDH or Richard Fernandez? / Belmont Club, where history is directly connected to events of the present, as both parable, outline and foreshadowing. A excellent synergy of past, present and future.
Your work is like reading a sloppy Peggy Noonan, telling us what we already know about where we are right now, where we just were, and nothing about where we are heading or should be heading. There’s no imperative, no call to action. Where’s the hook / beef?
Or like a Bill Keane / Family Circus cartoon, where the kids take a dashed-line meandering path all over the landscape on the way to some mundane chore / conclusion. Boring as hell.
Tighten it up, build the arcs, have a point. For f’s sake.

rayra on December 20, 2012 at 1:42 PM

It’s my contention that if this young man would have had the knowledge of the school staff being armed and skilled at using their weapons, he never would have attempted the attack.

But if he had anyway, he would have been stopped before he got to the classrooms.

listens2glenn on December 20, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Yes. Lanza, like Cho, Harris, Klebold and the rest were mental nutcases, but they had enough of their wits about them to know that they would face absolutely no resistance in these schools.

labrat on December 20, 2012 at 1:45 PM

In the Constitution, it tasks Congress with the purpose of arming American militia (citizens) with firearms, and providing them with the necessary training to use them.

dominigan on December 20, 2012 at 1:31 PM

CLinton attempted to shut down the office of the DIrector of Civilian Marksmanship (DCM) in 1996 and order the destruction of all the military surplus rifles they were selling / issuing.
Newt’s Congress forced Bubba to abandon that plan with an amendment to a military spending bill, the compromise was charting a private organization with special privilege (the ODCMP) and bestowing upon it those remaining stocks of govt rifles and ammunition. And capping / blocking future transfer of more modern government weapons – which now pour into our police departments instead under Homeland Security grants, such that WE’RE funding the creation of the burgeoning paramilitary police state – in exchange for the government getting out of arming its citizens.

rayra on December 20, 2012 at 1:51 PM

dominigan on December 20, 2012 at 1:32 PM

No more than 2 links per comment, else it will go to spam moderation.

JeffWeimer on December 20, 2012 at 1:51 PM

No more than 2 links per comment, else it will go to spam moderation.

JeffWeimer on December 20, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Ahhh… thanks! Didn’t know that! I was trying to provide easy reference links so that others could verify the document sections I was referencing.

dominigan on December 20, 2012 at 1:54 PM

rayra on December 20, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Thank you! I didn’t know any of that information. It seems like Congress is dead set on giving away their power to support a dictator-style government. Sickening…

dominigan on December 20, 2012 at 1:56 PM

“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”

– Gandhi, “Gandhi: An Autobiography”, p 446

Gandhi: What a militaristic, right-wing, fringy, Tea Partying loon!

Resist We Much on December 20, 2012 at 1:59 PM

I guess none of these libs have ever heard of 3 Gun Competitions.

I really hate these guys.

Iblis on December 20, 2012 at 2:11 PM

listens2glenn on December 20, 2012 at 10:40 AM

.
Yes. Lanza, like Cho, Harris, Klebold and the rest were mental nutcases, but they had enough of their wits about them to know that they would face absolutely no resistance in these schools.

labrat on December 20, 2012 at 1:45 PM

.
They were (from everything I’ve heard) motivated by emotions that were corrupted.
Corrupt emotions, and higher than average intelligence is a bad combination.

listens2glenn on December 20, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Somewhat related:

Watch live hearings from House Foreign Affairs Committee on the Benghazi clusterfark. Follow this link and click on the yellow bar to launch player.

hillbillyjim on December 20, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Once, when my son & I were at the shooting range with his Marlin LR .22 rifle, we saw a guy with an impressive looking AR type rifle. You know, the type that politicians are wailing about, calling them “assault rifles” and seeking to ban them.

The guy took a long time to set up for use and then, when he shot the first round, we looked at each other and kind of laughed. It was rifled for a .22 round. Hearing that little “pop” from such a “scary” looking gun was comical.

My son’s rifle is much more powerful. The AR-type rifles are CARBINES with short barrels. The LR barrel is notably longer and thus, the round travels MUCH faster making it more powerful than that AR. If the screaming memes get their way, AR’s will be banned and my son’s LR would still be legal.

So tell, me….what is achieved? NOTHING.

See these rifles in the link below? These AR-15 (so-called assault rifles) simply LOOK “scary” and are “military-type” in appearance. THESE ELEMENTS ARE COSMETIC.

My son’s LR .22 is more lethal, accurate, faster and powerful. It has a trigger lock, the ammo is secure and he shoots safely and by the rules or not at all.

Ban the carbines and the nut jobs will just end up using the more deadly, (but legal!) LR rifles!

http://www.impactguns.com/22-caliber-ar15-rifle.aspx

Opposite Day on December 20, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Why is it assumed that a woman who reportedly once warned a babysitter never to turn her back on the miserable child killing weasel left her guns lying around the house?

Does anyone know a gun collector who leaves their collection lying around the house even if they don’t have a son who can’t be safely left unattended during restroom breaks? They keep their guns locked up against thieves and to keep them away from children.

For all we know she had guns for protection BECAUSE of him. In which case they were certainly not where he could easily get to them. It is more likely than not that he had to kill her first because she kept them locked up in her room and would have never let him get to them while she was alive.

I wonder why all the curiosity about her son’s trips to the barber but no reporting on her gun-safe.

Lily on December 20, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Why is it assumed that a woman who reportedly once warned a babysitter never to turn her back on the miserable child killing weasel left her guns lying around the house?

For all we know she had guns for protection BECAUSE of him.

Lily on December 20, 2012 at 2:33 PM

She took him shooting with her at the range many times.

It doesn’t seem wise to train someone to use a gun who you are afraid to turn your back on.

sharrukin on December 20, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Gandhi: What a militaristic, right-wing, fringy, Tea Partying loon!

Resist We Much on December 20, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Well, we all know what kind of violent, gun-happy, conservative Gandhi was….

dentarthurdent on December 20, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Opposite Day on December 20, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Actully the consensus I’ve seen/heard (regarding the physics involved) is that for a .22 LR round, a 16 inch barrel is the ideal length – longer than that and the bullet slows down due to friction. Muzzle velocity is a matter of bullet mass, propellant (gunpowder), and barrel length (really – barrel length to diameter ratio) combined. So if your son’s Marlin has a barrel longer than 16 inches, and you’re using the exact same .22 round as the other guy, your son’s round may actually have the slower muzzle velocity – if the scary looking .22 “assault rifle” actually has a 16 inch barrel. Also, if the bullet velocity is too high (greater than the speed of sound), accuracy may suffer as a result of flight instability (depending on bullet mass and shape) – why a subsonic bullet may be more accurate.

dentarthurdent on December 20, 2012 at 3:02 PM

They were (from everything I’ve heard) motivated by emotions that were corrupted.
Corrupt emotions, and higher than average intelligence is a bad combination.

listens2glenn on December 20, 2012 at 2:19 PM

…and spiritually void.

labrat on December 20, 2012 at 3:06 PM

dominigan on December 20, 2012 at 1:31 PM

I am presently slugging my way throgh the majorities decision in Heller. Interesting stuff in there about militias and how the founders felt they should be managed.
You may want to take a peek as well.
Starts on page 22 and addresses Art I, sec. 8 with the various clauses.
DoC took a very strict view of that. The court did not.

Jabberwock on December 20, 2012 at 3:17 PM

She took him shooting with her at the range many times.

It doesn’t seem wise to train someone to use a gun who you are afraid to turn your back on.

sharrukin on December 20, 2012 at 2:42 PM

I agree. That doesn’t make sense. Which is why, given the confused and sometimes inaccurate reporting we have had on this story, I wonder why people are assuming that the guns were lying in easy access to any kook, including the one who lived there.

We have taken our kids to the range for shooting practice. And they all had to take a gun safety course but we still keep our guns secured. And none of my kids are deranged, or dangerous, or scary. It’s just something you do with guns, or dangerous medications, or cleaning products (if you have very small children). Our guns are still secured even though our kids are grown and gone. That’s what people do with them because they are valuable and also dangerous in the wrong hands.

It just surprises me that no one in the media seems the little bit curious as to how the guns were secured, they just assume they were not.

Lily on December 20, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Bill Whittle, What We Believe, Part 5: Gun Rights

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kRAw3VWVyD8

rayra on December 20, 2012 at 3:21 PM

I wonder why people are assuming that the guns were lying in easy access to any kook, including the one who lived there.

Lily on December 20, 2012 at 3:17 PM

They may not have been. Since she was apparently sleeping when he shot her, he may very have found the keys to the gun locks and got out the first gun and killed her while she slept. Or, she had a gun on her night stand for self defense, and he snuck in and used it on her while she was asleep. Major point,as you said, we really don’t know what really happened.

dentarthurdent on December 20, 2012 at 3:23 PM

btw, that whittle video is over two years old and he was talking about arming teachers.

rayra on December 20, 2012 at 3:26 PM

I agree. That doesn’t make sense. Which is why, given the confused and sometimes inaccurate reporting we have had on this story, I wonder why people are assuming that the guns were lying in easy access to any kook, including the one who lived there.

It just surprises me that no one in the media seems the little bit curious as to how the guns were secured, they just assume they were not.

Lily on December 20, 2012 at 3:17 PM

True, but given her behavior regarding her son I wouldn’t assume she was using common sense. He may have had his own key, or just as likely known where her key was.

We don’t know enough as yet, but clearly she was making some very odd decisions.

sharrukin on December 20, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Speaking of hunting, I’m seriously thinking of taking my AR hunting next year. With the Eotech, Geissele trigger and 60gr Partitions it’s a fine little hunting machine at distances up to about 150 yards. I prefer a heavier caliber, but being able to pull out a picture of a nice buck and tell libs that I need my AR for hunting would be worth it. Maybe I’ll pick up a 6.8 upper when the fuss blows over —if the fuss blows over. Th libs are so full of themselves after the election, they are seriously overreaching.

claudius on December 20, 2012 at 3:33 PM

It talks about the possible need for a militia, which has since been affirmed as an individual right by the Supreme Court, particularly since anyone might – in the darkest of possible times – be once again called upon to stand up for the survival of the nation.

That is why citizens should have access to grenades, flamethrowers, landmines, RPG’s, bazookas, APC’s, attack drones and tanks.

It is what the constitution meant for us to have.

Pablo Honey on December 20, 2012 at 3:52 PM

That is why citizens should have access to grenades, flamethrowers, landmines, RPG’s, bazookas, APC’s, attack drones and tanks.

It is what the constitution meant for us to have.

Pablo Honey on December 20, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Are you suggesting I shouldn’t?

CurtZHP on December 20, 2012 at 4:02 PM

That is why citizens should have access to grenades, flamethrowers, landmines, RPG’s, bazookas, APC’s, attack drones and tanks.

It is what the constitution meant for us to have.

Pablo Honey on December 20, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Sounds good to me. I actually know people who have some of those things.
BTW – did you know that someone with the right skills and basic machine shop equipment can make many of those items?
Machining and manufacturing aren’t exactly black magic skills known by only a few select people. One example – making a flamethrower simply requires a fuel tank, a pressurized air tank, some hoses, trigger, and a nozzle. I’ve seen one built and demonstrated at a shooting range.

“big shots try to hold it back, fools try to wish it away”, Rush

dentarthurdent on December 20, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Pablo Honey on December 20, 2012 at 3:52 PM

BTW – did you know that someone with the right skills and basic machine shop equipment can make many of those items?
Machining and manufacturing aren’t exactly black magic skills known by only a few select people.
dentarthurdent on December 20, 2012 at 4:05 PM

And did you know that many machinists / gunsmiths with access to a decent machine shop can modify a lot of different guns into full auto, as well as create a full auto machine gun from scratch?
You libs seem to think only a small group of people in big factories have any idea how make things. Believe it or not, there are actually many parts of the real world (vs libtard utopia) where people still have knowledge of metallurgy and manufacturing that the human race has developed over the last several thousand years.

“big shots try to hold it back, fools try to wish it away”, Rush

dentarthurdent on December 20, 2012 at 4:16 PM

That is why citizens should have access to grenades, flamethrowers, landmines, RPG’s, bazookas, APC’s, attack drones and tanks.

It is what the constitution meant for us to have.

Pablo Honey on December 20, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Hey, did you know the Soviet Constitution doesn’t mention the right of the people to own and bear arms?

Maybe they just forgot to put it in.

darwin on December 20, 2012 at 4:17 PM

You libs seem to think only a small group of people in big factories have any idea how make things.

dentarthurdent on December 20, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Libs think all guns are full auto with 6000 round magazines.

darwin on December 20, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Military weapons are NOT SOLD TO THE PUBLIC DAMNIT! Stop saying that! The AR15 is NOT A MILITARY WEAPON!

TX-96 on December 20, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Libs think all guns are full auto with 6000 round magazines.

darwin on December 20, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Where can I get one of those? Mine don’t quite meet those specs.

dentarthurdent on December 20, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Military weapons are NOT SOLD TO THE PUBLIC DAMNIT! Stop saying that! The AR15 is NOT A MILITARY WEAPON!

TX-96 on December 20, 2012 at 4:22 PM

True its not – but I’m with the others who have commented that the 2nd Amendment actually is all about citizens having military weapons – to be used to defend the Constitution as a citizen militia. If we are all expected to be the militia for the defense of this country and our rights, how can you expect us to go to war (successfully) without military weapons?

dentarthurdent on December 20, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Why would you demand the right to own a gun primarily suited to killing human beings?

..because I have a right to self defense! Why the HELL do you think HANDGUNS are so popular? My RIFLE is a firearm in common use by NON-MILIARY personnel. It’s not a military weapon and is not used by the military. The m16 is a military weapon because it is a MACHINE-GUN.

My AR15 has NOT not EVER killed anyone. However, if I have two people come into my home that wants to KILL ME, do you in your world believe I should be -restricted- to a single shot shotgun to defend myself? OH WAIT BAD GUY, LET ME RE-LOAD MY DOUBLE BARREL SHOTGUN!! Because it makes more SENSE for me to only think about using my shotgun to defend myself, because my black-gun scares you? Thats YOUR world, not mine. Don’t be ridiculous Mr. Shaw!

The SUPREME COURT just freaking’ said in 2008 that the government can not ban ARMS IN COMMON USE. READ the ruling!

TX-96 on December 20, 2012 at 4:34 PM

The left would love it if someday private citizens had only handguns that they had to cock for each shot, and their brown shirts and military had semi-auto and automatic weapons. Then when we protested the president suspending the constitution and taking a third term we’d be outgunned. When we got upset about the 75% tax rate on all working Americans to support those who WON’T work, they could push us out of the protest area with their assault rifles. Every attempt to speak could be suppressed, with their superior firepower.

They know now if they say “shut up” and we say “make us” that they can’t. But if better armed, they could make us.

I’ve heard Glenn Beck have a problem with Mao saying “True power comes at the end of a gun.” But it’s true. The big reason we have any semblance of freedom in this country is that we are armed. Don’t try to stop our speech, tax us without representation or overstep. The left is trying, but they know that there is a line they are approaching that they can’t cross without disarming us first.

PastorJon on December 20, 2012 at 4:39 PM

True its not – but I’m with the others who have commented that the 2nd Amendment actually is all about citizens having military weapons – to be used to defend the Constitution as a citizen militia. If we are all expected to be the militia for the defense of this country and our rights, how can you expect us to go to war (successfully) without military weapons?

dentarthurdent on December 20, 2012 at 4:32 PM

I agree with you here -however- actually have NO problem with the NFA regulating machineguns. However I disagree that there should be a ban on registering NEW ones that has been in place since 1986, cauing M16s to be $15,000. I believe we have a right to possess those, too. As the supreme court said, SOME reasonable restrictions are OK. In my view, thats reasonable to make machineguns NFA. However they went further said said MILITARY ARMS Are not protected under the 2nd amendment, even though I disagree with this conclusion.

My semi-auto rifle which functions no differently than any-other-semi-auto rifle that is NOT an AR15 and -SCAREY BLACK COLOR- is not a military rifle, is not a machinegun and is not unusual or dangerous. It’s also a common-use firearm, which is defined as ARMS by the supreme court. A BAN on this firearm would be unconstitutional, not only according to the ruling in DC vs Heller, but also on a literal read, as it was indented by the 2nd amendment.

TX-96 on December 20, 2012 at 4:40 PM

That is why citizens should have access to grenades, flamethrowers, landmines, RPG’s, bazookas, APC’s, attack drones and tanks.

It is what the constitution meant for us to have.

Pablo Honey on December 20, 2012 at 3:52 PM

It is indeed.

Dunedainn on December 20, 2012 at 4:42 PM

wow you clowns are still arguing over firepower

Dave Rywall on December 20, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Wow…you’ve still got your head up your butt.

Do you sleep like that – or do you stick it back in for breakfast?

FOAD, drywall.

Solaratov on December 20, 2012 at 4:44 PM

All we’re saying is that we don’t want these military style weapons around. They’re only good for killing people

!

This is the kind of stuff from libtards that I find really funny – and scary.
Do any of these libtards even understand the history of guns? I’m guessing they don’t know (or care) that guns were in fact invented as military weapons – i.e. to kill people. They were not used for hunting until much later, once the cost of owning and using one came down to a reasonable level – i.e. lower cost and/or easier to learn/use and/or more accurate than a bow & arrow.

dentarthurdent on December 20, 2012 at 4:52 PM

…my re-reading of the above shows that MR SHAW Was not promoting the ridiculous theory of banning guns that are FOR KILLING. I Do apologize for not fully understanding he was quoting someone else :)

…..as far as HUNTING GOES

…NOWHERE, when our constitution was created, and the amendments were drafted does it say ANY-DAMN-THING about HUNTING. This, is a complete asinine crap sandwich drafted by antigun socialists who want to disarm everyone.

The damn 2nd amendment was created to defend yourself, period. If you don’t like that, move to Mexico, move to The United Kingdom ( oh wait you mean the peoples asses we kicked because they wanted to impose a disarmed society and promote slavery? Yeah those people! ) or everywhere else that you don’t have a right of self defense if thats the world you want to live in. Thats your choice. However, we have a right to defend our self, including our children with FIREARMS, especially the ones that are GOOD at defending us, which include guns that are BLACK, hold a bunch of ammo and will not fail.

TX-96 on December 20, 2012 at 4:53 PM

However, we have a right to defend our self, including our children with FIREARMS, especially the ones that are GOOD at defending us, which include guns that are BLACK, hold a bunch of ammo and will not fail.

TX-96 on December 20, 2012 at 4:53 PM

But if it makes people feel better, some of these guns also come in a really cute pink camo color so you don’t scare anyone with them as you defend yourself. And the right purse will hold all the clips and magazines you need.

More friendly, just as deadly.

Lily on December 20, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Where can I get one of those? Mine don’t quite meet those specs.

dentarthurdent on December 20, 2012 at 4:28 PM

According to libs you can get those anywhere, especially at gun shows where they don’t do background checks.

darwin on December 20, 2012 at 5:17 PM

According to libs you can get those anywhere, especially at gun shows where they don’t do background checks.

darwin on December 20, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Darn – they must have sold out of them at the last show I went to – which was apparently also awefully strict since they were doing background checks on gun purchasers….

dentarthurdent on December 20, 2012 at 5:47 PM

The mother was also negligent in the storage of her firearms.

Without access to her guns, would this have happened?

You don’t know that. The msm has avoided saying anything about how or where the guns were stored. Why do you think she stored them improperly?

Someone already posted that he tried to get a gun but was denied.

So, you’re saying that the existing law worked? Then, why is there a need for more of the same?

He lacked the financial means to get an illegal firearm from Joey on the street corner.

How do you know that? Fact is – you don’t. He may have had plenty of money…or none at all. YOU don’t know.

If Mommy Lanza had her head out of her ass, this massacre wouldn’t have happened.

Typical ‘liberal’/leftist…blame the victim first. You’re a piece of filth, drywall.

Dave Rywall on December 20, 2012 at 11:11 AM

You and those like you are filth, drywall. And you deserve the treatment your masters will inflict upon you, you toadying lickspittle.

You should FOAD…and take your pals with you.

Solaratov on December 20, 2012 at 6:15 PM

According to libs you can get those anywhere, especially at gun shows where they don’t do background checks.

darwin on December 20, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Darn – they must have sold out of them at the last show I went to – which was apparently also awefully strict since they were doing background checks on gun purchasers….

dentarthurdent on December 20, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Well, did you go to a gun show in “flyover country” (wherever that is*)?

According to the libtards infesting these threads, the federal gun laws are much more lax in flyover country; and you can buy anything you want – even if you’re from out of state.

*(I’ve looked, and can’t find “flyover country” on any maps. Not even on Google Maps. Maybe the libtards are pulling our legs about that.)

Solaratov on December 20, 2012 at 6:25 PM

What do we need Military style weapons for?

The American Spring.

If Syria, Egypt, and Yemen can have one, Free Americans should be able to as well.

Bulletchaser on December 20, 2012 at 6:32 PM

Well, did you go to a gun show in “flyover country” (wherever that is*)?

According to the libtards infesting these threads, the federal gun laws are much more lax in flyover country; and you can buy anything you want – even if you’re from out of state.

*(I’ve looked, and can’t find “flyover country” on any maps. Not even on Google Maps. Maybe the libtards are pulling our legs about that.)

Solaratov on December 20, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Try Virginia. According to sesquipedalian gang members from New York go to Virginia to get guns because no one checks anything and they’re sold at roadside stands along country roads. Since I live in VA I was pretty surprsied to hear that. I immediately went driving down country roads looking for roadside gun stands to stock up on automatic weapons and thousand round mags. No luck yet.

darwin on December 20, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Kinda makes you wonder just how serious the regime is about a slew of new laws that go too far and get a lot of people mad…………..

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-reid-slam-brakes-on-gun-control/article/2516406#.UNNggm_AfY9

Solaratov on December 20, 2012 at 7:21 PM

darwin on December 20, 2012 at 7:01 PM

I know. I used to live in Va. – and I never could find those roadside stands, either.

Maybe they were seasonal things…like okra and string beans. ;-)

Solaratov on December 20, 2012 at 7:23 PM

So, if I paint my AR pink it will not be an assault weapon? I think that I am secure enough to run with that…

rgranger on December 20, 2012 at 9:31 PM

There’s another issue here. When the National Firearms Act was passed in 1934, one of the explicit reasons for effectively banning (or levying heavy taxes on) machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns and suppressors was that the Second Amendment was supposed to entitle citizens to weapons that would be used in a militia. What they were really controlling were gangster weapons that became popular as a result of prohibition, but they couldn’t admit the unintended consequences.

When the NFA was challenged in the United States v. Miller, the lower court overturned the restrictions as unconstitutional. The case was appealed and was eventually taken up by the Supreme Court. The problem was, Miller had been murdered and nobody bothered to show up to argue against the government in this case. The government prosecutor gave blatantly false testimony in its argument — all of these classes of weapons had indeed been used during World War I — and nobody was there to argue otherwise. The court found:

“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense”

So, in other words the government argued in 1939 that certain weapons shouldn’t be freely available to citizens because they WEREN’T military equipment. Now our government is making the opposite argument, that certain weapons should be banned because they ARE military equipment (or because they resemble military weapons, cosmetically).

Does anyone else sense a slippery slope? If we can’t own military-ish weapons, and we can’t own non-military-ish weapons, what kind of weapons are we supposed to be able to own?

davethe10r on December 20, 2012 at 10:05 PM

HI!…I’m always a shithole instead of tackling the actual issues.

Dave Rywall on December 20, 2012 at 10:10 AM

…yeah…I thought I read that right!

KOOLAID2 on December 20, 2012 at 10:27 PM

Crazy people are what is dangerous.

We need to control them.

They misuse the tools.

Spanking inanimate objects in response is nonsense.

Collar the psychos and no weapon will be apocalyptically abused.

profitsbeard on December 21, 2012 at 4:02 AM

Well, did you go to a gun show in “flyover country” (wherever that is*)?

According to the libtards infesting these threads, the federal gun laws are much more lax in flyover country; and you can buy anything you want – even if you’re from out of state.

*(I’ve looked, and can’t find “flyover country” on any maps. Not even on Google Maps. Maybe the libtards are pulling our legs about that.)

Solaratov on December 20, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Yup – very red Colorado Springs.
I think flyover country is comprised mainly of states 51 – 58 – but some of the red areas out here are probably part of it.
Of course the flyover states may have gotten renumbered since Hawaii moved to Asia.

dentarthurdent on December 21, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Solaratov on December 20, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Yup – very red Colorado Springs.
I think flyover country is comprised mainly of states 51 – 58 – but some of the red areas out here are probably part of it.
Of course the flyover states may have gotten renumbered since Hawaii moved to Asia.

dentarthurdent on December 21, 2012 at 10:01 AM

However, given how many time Obumble came to Colorado this year for campaign stops (to the blue areas anyway), we probably aren’t flyover country any more.

dentarthurdent on December 21, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3