|From the Barrel of a Gun|
|Random Nuclear Strikes|
|Only Guns and Money|
|The View From North Central Idaho|
|Armed and Dangerous|
|Hell in a Handbasket|
|View From The Porch|
|Guns, Cars, and Tech|
|Irons in the Fire|
|Snowflakes in Hell|
|Shot in the Dark|
|The Smallest Minority|
|Sharp as a Marble|
|The Silicon Greybeard|
|3 boxes of BS|
|Of Arms and the Law|
|Bacon, Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives|
|The 1968 Gun Control Act|
|Rocketry Hobbyists versus the BATFE|
|Third Circuit rules New Jersey can continue to confiscate firearms from travelers|
|Government is just a term for things we do together|
|Protestors oppose guns for upcoming ESPN Games|
|300 days of IRS abuse|
|A technical note on content versus metadata|
|Boomershoot 2009: Media Day|
|Building a Boomershooter|
Does this woman even know what a semi-automatic firearm is? Clearly not. That crack about "there won't be much left" at the end is the clincher. That's a crack usually applied to machine guns -- fully-automatic firearms.
A quick check on the Internet revealed that on the same day a Los Angeles city employee shot two co-workers using the same type of gun that was used in the Tyler killings - a semi-automatic assault weapon.
Who needs a semi-automatic weapon?
But semi-automatic weapons?
What in the world would you kill with a semi-automatic, unless you are just purposely going hunting for other human beings?
Are you going to go out and shoot a deer with a semi-automatic?
I admit that I don't know a lot about hunting, but seems like if you use a semi-automatic there won't be much left of the very animals you're trying to take home for dinner.
Personally, I'm scared of guns. I will not go near them, whether they're pistols or rifles. I don't care. I have buried too many friends and family members who died from shooting incidents.She's scared of guns, which are nothing more than inanimate objects, inherently no more dangerous than a car (and arguably less dangerous). She doesn't know a thing about them, and won't go near them. And yet, she wants people to listen to her opinion about them?
In 1994, Congress banned automatic and semiautomatic weapons, but it seems there are more reports than ever about shootings involving assault weapons.In 1994, Congress banned the manufacture (not possession) of some semiautomatic firearms with "scary" cosmetic features. Fully-automatic firearms have been heavily regulated since 1934, not 1994, and are almost never used in crime when legally owned. The one known exception to that rule was a police officer conducting assassinations with his police-owned machine gun.
"Immediately after the 1994 law was enacted, the gun industry evaded it by making slight, cosmetic design changes to banned weapons-including those banned by name in the law-and continued to manufacture and sell these "post-ban" or "copycat" guns," as reported in a study by the Violence Policy Center.
In May 2003, a congressman from New York authored a bill to make it harder for gun manufacturers to make and sell the post-ban weapons.I hope it passes. These types of weapons need to be taken off the streets once and forever.What bill? What did it do? How would it be enforced? Did it have a chance of passage? What did the people who would be affected, law abiding gun owners and manufacturers, have to say about it? Don't know? Don't care? Then why should we listen to you?Can you even tell the banned weapons apart from the permitted ones?
Federal law states that automatic weapons can only be used by the military.Federal law states nothing of the kind.It allows fully-automatic firearms to be manufactured for law enforcement and the military, but forbids manufacture for civilian use. However, ordinary citizens can still own and use a fully-automatic weapon that predates the Hughes Amendment (1986). It gets a little expensive, I admit.
Assault weapons have no place in America or on our streets.And now we're back to talking about "assault weapons", which are semi-automatic firearms specifically neutered for civilian use, and an entirely different issue. Yet this person can't tell them apart even though she's being paid to have an opinion on the issue?
It's not exactly what our founding fathers had in mind when they said we have the right to bear arms and protect ourselves.You're right. Our founding fathers would want nothing to do with militia weapons that had been neutered for civilian use. They would insist that the real thing be made available at government expense to every male citizen between 18 and 45 years of age, just as they did in their time.