DISQUS

Anonymous · 11 months ago

Bank of Hollwood Shoootout< />< />But all illegall modified for full auto fire...

TOTWTYTR · 11 months ago

you create a black market, increase crimes of violence, and in general cause more of what you are trying to stop. < />< />Cities like Washington, DC, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles that more or less prohibit their citizens from having fire arms for self defense also have high rates of crime and murder. That is not coincidental, it's cause and effect.

Mule Breath... · 11 months ago

As TOTWTYTR states, prohibition exacerbates the problem. Honest people obey laws while criminals, by definition, do not. Disarming or limiting available arms for the public will result in more targets for criminals. To control crime we must control criminals. LAPD eventually did that in the North Hollywood incident you cite. Both of the perpetrators, Phillips and Matasareanu, had extensive rap sheets, and would not have been deterred by restrictive gun laws. < />< />SIDEBAR: A few months after the incident, Matasareanu's family sued the LAPD for violation of his civil rights.< />< />MB< />http://muledungandash.blogspot.com/

Anonymous · 11 months ago

I'm not a particular gun nut, but I'm married to a cop and have three kids who love to shoot, so I do have respect for the gun toters out there. It seems to me that the registered, legal gun owners are not the problem. Here in Texas a fair amount of people have concealed carry licenses and they are never a problem. It is the twitchy, cracked out, criminals who are the problem when it comes to fire arms. So I don't support tighter legislation when it comes to legal gun owners. What I do support are tougher penalties for people who use guns in commission of a crime. And for any parents of kids who use guns in commission of a crime. Janet in Texas

Anonymous · 11 months ago

Mt Carmel Massacre? < />Yearning For Zion Raid? < />Me Lai?< />< />Oh, you wanted Civilian Crimes... < />St Valentines Day Massacre.

Lani · 11 months ago

I'm not a huge gun fan. I grew up in an intercity neighborhood in Philadelphia where gun fire was a common background noise to every day life. That said, I am SO tired of the gun "control" movement. Legal guns are RARELY used in crimes. The guns that are out on the streets aren't legal and THAT is what we need to fix. Putting further restraints on what average people can own is a waste of time. We have a system in place that works pretty well as far as I can tell. < />< />Even though for personal reasons I do not wish to own a gun, I am not afraid that my landlord on the same property as me is a registered gun owner. Quite the contrary. Its nice to know if brick hits the fan he'll be behind me with that shotgun. (I live in southern California on a city that borders Los Angeles). Good to know if another riot breaks out it won't just be the rioters who could be armed.

Murphy · 11 months ago

Support your right to keep and arm bears.

workinwifdakids · 11 months ago

That would be a good argument, if the 2nd Amendment were about defending your family.< />< />It's not.

Anthony · 11 months ago

A fully automatic 30 round rifle is necessary if you are unfortunate enough to live somewhere that has a high gang population and they commit home invasions for the hell of it. The areas do exist, I live in one of those areas.< />< />I would rather have the option and never have to use it, than to not have the option when I do need it.

DocV · 11 months ago

It's not about defending my family. It's about protecting "We the People" from an oppressive government!

Ambulance Driver · 11 months ago

< />< />Your score: Google Fu: 8.5< />< />Relevancy: 2.0

Joeymom · 11 months ago

I don't believe in owning guns. < />< />But I will fight to the death for your right to do so.

C. S. P. Schofield · 11 months ago

The thing about the gun grabbers that annoys me is their prattle about the Constitution being a 'Living Document', by which they mean that they have the right to redefine what it means in light of their momentary concept of political expedience. < />< />The Founders included a mechanism for amendment. If you aren't prepared to go to the trouble of getting an amendment passed, you really need to sit down and shut up. The idea that my idiot neighbor - who can't back out of his driveway without putting a wheel in the ditch - has a right to own a military grade rifle makes me uncomfortable. But not nearly as uncomfortable as the notion that a political elite in Washington has the authority to ignore the clear intentions of the founders to protect the rights of the common citizen to own and carry military grade weapons.< />< />Until the Gun Control movement is ready to try to pass an amendment, I'm not even ready to talk about the effectiveness of Gun Control laws. The integrity of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is mare important than the smaller issues of Gun Control. If the political elite aren't ready to play by the rules, to hell with them and the horse they rode in on.

woodlawnmedic · 11 months ago

AD, heres my take on it. i personally dont believe anyone needs an assault rifle for self defense. give me a 12 gauge anyday. the problem is that once they outlaw one gun, the rest wont be far behind. sometimes i dont think common sense prevails on either side. but thats just me.

RunawayJim · 11 months ago

Anthony,< />< />Please show proof of random home invasions by gangs? 95% of the time, gangs are going after each other, not random people on the street or in their homes. If you avoid the gang, they avoid you. After all, they don't want to draw any unneeded attention to themselves.< />< />30 round automatic weapons are not necessary for protection, unless, of course, you're in an opposing gang.< />< />Oh, and TOTWTYTR... check crime stats for NYC. You'll find many more cities that have worse violent crime issues than NYC, many smaller cities, many cities that don't have such strict gun laws. NYC is actually one of the safest cities in the country. Do some research before you post.

the pistolero · 11 months ago

. And even if it were, who the hell are you or anyone else to lecture anybody on what they need? I'd think they can determine that on their own as free people.

OrangeNeckInNY · 11 months ago

If the Constitution is a living document, subject to change and interpretation depending on which way the wind blows, why then are politicians required to swear an oath to defend it, if doing so wasn't to protect it in all its original form and glory?

RunawayJim · 11 months ago

Yes, as OrangeNeck said, it is a living document. If it weren't, the Supreme Court wouldn't have to determine the constitutionality of various laws.< />< />Has the Supreme Court said that laws banning fully automatic assault weapons are unconstitutional? So far, they haven't. Guess they don't violate the constitution.

Dawn · 11 months ago

AD - I won't oppose your desire to own guns. I don't oppose my own family's desire. < />< />However, I still don't understand why gun owners shouldn't be licensed and insured, like people who own/drive cars. Granted, more people own the deadly weapon known as an automobile. Good drivers have taken driver's ed and are licensed. Why not gun owners? Make it mandatory for the owner-to-be to take a gun safety course and test and own insurance in case of damage or injury, just like a car. < />< />Owning and using a gun should be a privilege, not a right (in my mind), just like a car.

Anonymous · 11 months ago

Dawn,< /> As you pointed out, driving a vehicle is a privilege not a right.< />< />Rights are ,by thier very nature, not licensed.< />< />However, if that was to pass, and I was to be a licensed gun owner,(in say Alaska, or Texas) that would mean I would be able to own one in any state. Just like I can drive my vehicle in any state regardless of which state issued my license.< />< />I also would be able to drive any vehicle out there,(some states still do not require separate licenses for various classes of vehicles).Does this mean that the states laws concerning firearms would not apply if I was visiting?< />< />I also do not require anything from the state to own or operate a vehicle on my property. Does this mean I wouldn't require a firearms license if I only use it on my property? Naturally I would have to insure by some means that the projectiles do NOT leave my property, but until one does, I would be legal.< />< />Just a few things to think about.< />< />Dennis (the librarian Shusher)

boomvark · 11 months ago

sure got the same enemies.

Oldfart · 11 months ago

Where to begin? With some ill-perceived "need" to own a battle rifle or the equally foolish idea that the Constitution is a living document that needs to be "interpreted" so we serfs can better understand our places in society?< />< />Okay, in that order then. < />< />Yes we do "NEED" 30-round magazines on our battle rifles. Not because it's a right, though that is sufficient, but because eventually, whether it's imminent or not, we (that's you and me and our kids and grandkids) will be placed in armed opposition to the government du jour. < />< />History is full of examples of populations that have risen up and forcibly overthrown their government. It'll happen here too... it's just a matter of time. Some say that we're so much more advanced than people were in those days that we'll find ways to get around all that bloodshed, but that's not really true. Alexander the Great had the same emotions, wants. desires and faults that each of us has. The only real difference between his world and ours is a few thousand years of technological advances. If we could pluck him from the head of his army and turn him loose here he's do just fine after he overcame the language differential and learned hou to clean his rifle. Individual people change while humanity as a whole never does.< />< />When that time comes and our kids have to take up arms to protect their families from whatever despot is in power at the time they cannot be limited to single-shot shotguns and/or 5-round fixed magazine rifles. They'll need the same stuff the guys on the other side have; M-4s, AK47s, RPGs, hand grenades, etc. < />< />Judge Alex Kozinsky of the Ninth Circuit Court says it better than I ever will; “The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once”.< />< />As far as interpreting the Constitution goes... it's in plain English, not Sanskrit or ancient Greek. Ever notice that the only people who want it "interpreted" are the same ones who want to change it? Our past few governments have given only the barest lip-service to it and I doubt this one will be much different. I say, if they're not going to use it they should just leave it alone for the next generation to discover.< />< />Registration and licensing. Ah, yes, that'll solve everything, won't it? I'm sure all those Bloods and Crips will rush right down to the police station to register their stolen guns.< />< />NOT!!< />< />The interesting thing about this issue is that they (the bad guys) are completely within their rights (as defined by the Bill of Rights) in *NOT* registering their guns, even if all us law-abiding citizens are required to do so. You see, if they have been convicted of a felony in the past, they're forbidden to have one now and - by registering such a weapon - they would be incriminating themselves in violation of the fourth amendment. That was an opinion held in a court of law here in the U.S.< />< />Back in '39 the German army took a hike through Belgium and France. In those days citizens were permitted to keep guns at home if they were registered with the local police. Of course there were a few guys who violated the law and kept unregistered guns at home. When the bullets stopped flying the local commandant of the occupying army took the registration lists and began picking up those legally registered guns.< />< />After a few months of having an iron boot-heel on their faces, the people wanted to fight back,,, except they had no guns.< />< />Enter those bad guys who never registered their guns. All of a sudden they weren't such bad guys anymore. All of a sudden they were heros! With their meager supply of pistols they were able to liberate a rifle with ammo and than a Schmeisser and a few grenades until finally they had a well armed resistance group.< />< />I'm not trying to say that the Second World War was won because of few guns hoarded by a cheap smuggler. I'm trying to tell you that a bunch of subjects suddenly became citizens.< />< />Which do you want to be?

Phoebe · 11 months ago

Ahh AD did u post this just to get your kids fighting?? LOL But this is fun to read!

Anonymous · 11 months ago

For all those folks that labor under the misguided thoughts that we should "treat guns like cars", I refer you to the following helpful article:< />< />http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/TreatingGunsLikeCars.htm< />< />Once you get thru that and STILL have that warped mindset, then you may utilize your favorite search engine and type: "treat guns like cars" (including the quotes) - you will get quite an education that way...

Jon · 11 months ago

I've found that guns usually scare criminals and bureaucrats. That's a good thing.

the pistolero · 11 months ago

< />Just for grins, how're you gon' do that? With harshly worded letters? Those'll only go so far, y'know.

Anonymous · 11 months ago

1. Re: 30 rds: Against a military assault (foreign or domestic), you absolutely could need a 30 round rifle to defend your family.< />< />2. Re: Flintlock Musket... which happened to be the very best one-person firearm, military or otherwise, available. That's the standard the 2A enshrined.< />< />3. The whole military/assault rifle complaint is goofy for any number of reasons, but I'd love to see the WWI and WWII kill numbers for the Springfields, Lee-Enfields, Mosin-Nagants and Mausers. I have a sneaking suspicion that the 5-10 round bolt-action rifle is the deadliest one-person gun in history.

Rogue Medic · 10 months ago

has nothing to do with it, or they should have come up with some sort of needs testing.

Ted · 10 months ago

What always gets me about Second Amendment discussions is the way everybody concentrates on the "right to keep and bear arms" bit. Very little attention is ever paid to the part about a "well-regulated militia". Seems like my local shooting range ought to offer some classes on basic tactics, set up some rallying points, and hold regular drills so that we're ready when whoever invades, because let's face it: the weapon is less important than the wielder.< />< />Could it be that the real patriots are the paintball nuts and the Society for Creative Anachronism?

Curt Sampson · 10 months ago

Well, I'm certainly in favour of some sort of weapons control, though I'm open to discussion as to where to draw the line.< />< />One thing I'm not clear on is why people get so upset by control over handguns and rifles and so on, but I see very little protest over the complete banning, amongst civilians, of other weapons. Should civilians be allowed to own hand grenades? M61 Vulcans? Missiles? Tactical nuclear weapons? I suspect we all draw the line somewhere, though I could be wrong.< />< />I'm not trying to be extreme here, but to gain some understanding. Give me your thoughts on this.