Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

GUNS: Column paints falsely benign portrait of weapon

Letter by Jim Curtis, Maple Valley on July 27, 2012 at 11:42 am with 86 Comments »
July 27, 2012 11:42 am

Re: “Obsessing over ‘assault weapons’ won’t prevent gun crimes” (Patrick O’Callahan column, 7-26).

The column downplaying public concerns about assault weapons was both misleading and outlandish. Perhaps the author has never seen firsthand the terrible damage done to a human being’s body due to the tumbling action of a small-caliber, high-velocity round like I have.

A fellow Marine and good buddy of mine in Vietnam nearly lost his right leg below the knee from a single M-16 round. And I witnessed firsthand 19 dead Viet Cong who were torn apart by this very same weapon.

So to give readers the impression that this type of small-caliber, high-velocity weapon isn’t that big a deal and quite suitable for the general public makes no sense whatsoever to me. Nor does it make sense that the author referred to an M-14 as an obsolete weapon since one of its 7.62 rounds will still easily tear the back of a person’s head off.

In my opinion the term “assault weapon” is akin to the term “killer whale,” as poth point out the true nature of these dangerous beasts.

Tags:
Leave a comment Comments → 86
  1. sandblower says:

    Thanks, Mr. Curtis.

  2. SandHills says:

    But heaven help anyone who shoots a killer whale….

    So I would suspect there are just as many fervent NRA types that view any gun control as an infringement of the 2nd Amendment as there are those who would protect “killer” whales from being exploited at Sea World.

    It’s going to take the NRA to support a ban on assault weapons before it ever gets any further than a debate point between the “prying my gun from my cold dead hands” crowd and the tree-huggers.

    So Jim, please join the NRA and get it done.

  3. MrCarleone says:

    “never seen firsthand the terrible damage done to a human being’s body due to the tumbling action of a small-caliber, high-velocity round like I have.”

    That is the whole point of the weapon Jim !

    When used on a deserving person, it is a beautiful sight !

  4. Hey Jim, a .308, .30-06 and endless other calibers can do just as much if not more damage than the so called “assault” rifles you are so focused on. An everday shotgun loaded with buckshot can do more damage than just about any small arm, should we ban them too? The ignorance about guns is overwhelmeing yet these so called experts think they know enough to make policy.

  5. Fibonacci says:

    Sonic14
    The 308 and30-06 are hinting rifles and the shotgun is a hunting weapon. Yes, they can also kill humans, but that is the ONLY purpose of the assault rifle. That old “should we ban them too ” tactic does not fly. We can kill with a car too. Something that CAN kill is different than something that is DESIGNED to kill people.

  6. You mean like the shotgun that the monster used in Aurora? The gun that did the most damage because the so called “assault” weapon jammed? My assault weapons has never killed anyone yet I find other uses for it. Try a new argument.

  7. SandHills says:

    Fib, as we see with crazy jihadists martyrs, craziness is the key issue here – take away all guns and people will find ways to kill other people – whether in headline grabbing event – or over years like Ted Bundy or Gary Ridgeway.

    I am not a dyed in the wool NRA member who will oppose any and all gun control until their last breath – but the root cause is those humans who go rogue, and until we find an answer for them any talk about gun control will fall on death ears to those who want weapons that kill efficiently for precisely that reason.

    And as I said before in another thread: dead is dead – and cars kill many times more than guns even if they were not designed for that purpose – again due to humans, albeit out of neglect, falling asleep, or drunk, instead of going off the deep end of reality.

  8. I wonder why the police have shotguns in just about every patrol car if they are just a “hunting weapon”. I guess in case they spot a pheasant on the way home.

  9. MrCarleone ,
    None are more deserving then those who would refer to the damage as a beautiful site.

    Sonic,
    Few gun control laws completely ban weapons – the laws set restrictions on who may have them and how they can be acquired.

    What purpose do you have other than Hunting, Shooting or Collecting?

  10. My main use is that I target shoot with friends and family. They are also used for protection. I know many, many individuals who have owned guns their entire adult lives (including those scary “assault” rifles (gasp!). None of them has ever been used illegally. Guns can be used for productive purposes or for evil, how they are used depends entirely on the user.

    And let’s not forget the 2nd Amendment is by far the most regulated right in the Constitution. I have no problem with background checks on new gun purchases, I have no problem with age restrictions, I have no problem with countless laws regarding the discharge of firearms. So anyone that says the NRA or NRA members want no restrictions on firearms is full of you know what. I’m just tired of the lies and tired of the ignorance being spewed by people like Piers Morgan, Bloomberg, Moore, and others. They don’t know ONE THING about firearms yet they think they have the answers to reduce gun violence.

  11. chris3dog says:

    Sonic14,

    NRA……..12

    AURORA…..00

  12. chris3dog….sick human being

  13. Sonic,
    The reason I am a former NRA life member is that the organization got away from its original purpose of promoting hunting and shooting and more into ultra-conservative gun rights, self-defense, and protection issues where their motto is NoRulesAllowed.

    For me, the final straw was the election of the traitor Ollie North to the board of directors.

    PS: Macho Red Colorado could not muster a single armed citizen response where as wishy liberal Seattle came up with a chair thrower.

  14. aislander says:

    The NRA became political as a result of the attacks on gun rights. Read some history.

    So…xring…defending oneself and one’s family is not a legitimate action? Are you saying we don’t have the right to protect ourselves? Please clarify.

    BTW: You can’t definitively call someone a traitor just because you disagree with him if that person has not been convicted of the crime of treason.

  15. You mean no armed citizen entered the “gun free zone” theater in Colorado? Yeah, the law abiding citizens tend not to break the law, criminals on the other hand….

    I don’t agree with every position the NRA holds. I’m well aware of the fact that there are times they hype/exaggerate things. The UN small arms treaty being one of them. (just for the record I’m against the treaty but some of the claims about it being thrown around are a bit over the top). However I still agree with the fundamental principle of the 2nd Amendment and by in large the NRA does a good job of fighting those with differing agendas.

  16. mcgintey says:

    I too was disapponted in Patrick O’Callahan’s column. He minimized the issue.

  17. Jim Curtis is making a valid point. I too am a Viet Nam War combat veteran who witnessed the destruction caused by assault rifles. An AK-47, M-16 and Ar-15 are not weapons suitable for home defense, hunting and even certain military applications. Consider the consequences of missing your intended target, presumably a home intruder, and hitting a neighbor as the round passes through your walls and hits a neighbor two houses down the street. Hunters I know do not use assault rifles for hunting due to the destruction caused to the meat of the prey. These are not even good weapons for military sniping. They are not suitable for competitive target shooting unless you are shooting against other misguided individuals. I am willing to bet those of you above you are ardent supporters of assault weapons never used them against a fellow human being and never saw the consequences of someone shot by these weapons. Use a weapon to a kill an intruder that will not kill your neighbor too! Consider the fact your neighbor may have one too!

  18. sumyungboi says:

    letter writer: ” the author referred to an M-14 as an obsolete weapon since one of its 7.62 rounds will still easily tear the back of a person’s head off.”

    So can a model 1891 Mosin Nagant, just as accurate, too, but it is nevertheless obsolete. The M-14 is suitable for sniper duty these days only because the .308 round is still a NATO standard .30 caliber and used extensively in the M-60 and other true machine guns.

    In any case, O’Callahan was talking about his mini-14, an outstanding sporter, not an actual M-14, which is illegal in most states anyway, due to its selective full auto fire.

  19. sumyungboi says:

    A321196: “An AK-47, M-16 and Ar-15 are not weapons suitable for home defense, hunting and even certain military applications.”

    M-16 = AR-15, and it is the rifle of choice for serious varmint hunters.

    AK-47 is the rifle in most “SHTF” bags. All the canned goods, bottled water, and toilet paper is pretty useless unless you can protect it.

  20. “never seen firsthand the terrible damage done to a human being’s body due to the tumbling action of a small-caliber, high-velocity round like I have.”

    I can tell you the round from an M-16 doesn’t “tumble”… that’s rumor and propaganda as old as the weapon itself.

  21. Aislander,
    The so called attacks were about as valid as the attacks on the integrity of the ballot box by illegal alien voters.

    We all have the right to use reasonable force in self-defense, what the NRA stands for pushed that right to the extreme and remove adjudication from the courts and give it to the individual.

    Sort of like a license to shoot first and question later.

    I call North a traitor because he:
    obeyed an illegal order,
    sold military supplies and equipment to our enemies (Iran),
    used the proceeds to buy and imported illegal drugs.
    used the proceeds from the drug deals to support an insurrection whose goal was to overthrow a legitimacy elected government.

    Sonic,
    First, show me that the theater was a posted gun free zone as required by Colorado Law.

    Second, in my experience many permit holders view restrictions as suggesting, not as rules.

    A32,
    I found that a M-16 could add 20 or more points to a person’s qualification. (In my case it added 27 points).

    Sumy,
    The M-60 machine gun is now obsolete has been replaced with the M-240 guns.

    The M-14 is primarly issued to Engineers and EOD units to snipe at mines and other explosive devices.

    The M-14, in Nato 7.62 mm, is available to civilians as the M1A1.

    The main differences between the Military M-14 and the Civilian M-1A1 is the A1 trigger mechanism is not easily converted to full auto, and the A1 will not accept an M-14 trigger mechanism.

    (Because the M-14 was designed and built to be easily converted from semi to full auto modes, Congress slipped a proviso into the original autohization bill that the M-14 could not be released to the civilian market as the semi-auto M-1 and older bolt actions rifles had been.

    XBJ – ‘M-16 round does not tumble’ somebody due told you wrong.

  22. sumyungboi says:

    xring: “The M-60 machine gun is now obsolete has been replaced with the M-240 guns.”

    You’ve made my point, in any case, the .308 is still used extensively within nato. The M-14 was never a good infantry rifle, and was fairly quickly replaced fifty years ago. Hence, obsolete outside of a few specialized applications.

    The M1A does not have full auto capability.

  23. sumyungboi says:

    xring: ” ‘M-16 round does not tumble’ somebody due told you wrong.”

    Nyet, someone told you wrong. A 150g .308 will go pretty much straight through regardless of what’s in the way, while a 55g .223 will lose energy very quickly, hit something hard, change direction somewhat, hit something else hard, change direction somewhat, etc. They don’t “tumble”. Look at what remains of the original bullet, and then tell me again how it was “tumbling”. :)

  24. nwcolorist says:

    I’ve noticed quite a bit of tunnel vision when it comes to the Bill of Rights.

    I wonder how many of the gun-control advocates who would infringe on our Second Amendment rights are the same ones who would defend any type of lewd, pornographic, or treasonable speech as a First Amendment issue?

  25. xring…”Colorado’s concealed handgun statute allows private property owners and business entities to set their own policies regarding guns.”

    http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2012/07/are-guns-allowed-in-movie-theaters.html

    This is true in many states with concealed carry laws.

  26. Also, Cinemark theaters have a no firearm policy.

    Now don’t get me wrong I’m not saying someone with a concealed permit may have prevented this tragedy. I am saying that criminals don’t give a rats behind about “gun free zones”. Which begs the question if they don’t care about the current laws they are breaking how exactly will passing new laws deter them? Logic 101.

  27. alindasue says:

    nwcolorist said, “I wonder how many of the gun-control advocates who would infringe on our Second Amendment rights are the same ones who would defend any type of lewd, pornographic, or treasonable speech as a First Amendment issue?”

    I wonder how many of those who object to any restriction on “Second Amendment rights” would defend any type of lewd, pornographic, or treasonable speech…? From what I’ve seen, I suspect the answer may be “not many”.

    With all rights come responsibilities and, yes, even some limits. For instance, “freedom of speech” does not give the person the right to threaten another person or the right to do things like yell “fire!” in a crowded theater.

    The argument is that if we outlaw the private ownership of military style assault weapons, only outlaws would own them. However, I have to ask: In all the cases of mass killings – from the Columbine shooting to the latest attack in Colorado – how many of those guns were obtained through “outlaw” means?

  28. sumyungboi says:

    You’re barking up the wrong tree, alindasue, all proud of your strawman, but hilariously off base.

    Say what you will. It’s the result of what you say which may land you in jail. If you yell “fire” in a crowded theater, and the only thing that happens is that people tell you to shut up, all’s good. (except that you’re an annoying movie goer) If you incite people to violence, or in the case of the theater, incite a panic resulting in injury and death, you’re culpable, and your free speech was the “weapon”. Subtle but very important difference.

    Outlawing assault type weapons would be the same thing as saying, you have free speech, but you don’t really need to protest the federal government. It’s not like we’re trying to take away your right to write letters to your congressman, or go to church. No one actually “needs” to go out in the streets and protest.

  29. SandHills says:

    alindasue – still it comes down to human nature, some humans go rogue and will get what it takes to act out a killing spree, even in the absence of assault weapons.

    This human nature is but degrees different than those who have the urge to drink and drive, or use illegal fireworks at 2am. Humans are the one species that only a regime run by the likes of Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot, can truly control.

    I personally see no reason to buy an assault weapon, but I can see how some see banning them as encroachment on the 2nd Amendment. And if banned, there will be many Ruby Ridges if gun owners are forced to give up the ones then already have.

  30. billybushey says:

    “Guns can be used for productive purposes or for evil, how they are used depends entirely on the user.” The same can be said for nuclear weapons. Using the “freedom” argument, by extension we should make no effort to keep nukes out of the hands of anyone. Many responsible governments have nukes and use them according to the law. Just like guns, we won’t ban them and just as the NRA logic dictates that we shouldn’t pursue getting any type of weapon banned or kept out of anyone hand, so then should we stop worrying about nukes and who has them. Terrorists could pass any background check as long as they have not, to date, commit ed a crime or been committed to a mental institution.

  31. Oh good the old nukes “argument” again. That never gets old. Newsflash, the 2nd Amendment is ALREADY the most regulated and restricted amendment by far. Those automatic firearms, you know the REAL ASSAULT RIFLES, are already illegal to own unless you have an expensive and hard to get license from the BATF. Nobody is arguing for tanks, bazooka’s, or nukes. You really need to find a new argument.

  32. Ill agree with “sumyungboi” xring…sorry but the round just doesnt tumble. And I’ll stick with my sources that are probably older than many posting here.

  33. During the process of determining my field of fire just in case someone tried to break into my home, I found that there’s practically no where that I could shoot without hitting a neighbor’s house. Regrettably, I’ll just have to wait until they are well inside and use a hand gun rather than a long rifle. Prior planning helps. So as I see it, a rifle or shotgun is not an option. If someone is too far away from you to use a hand gun, the prudent thing to do is don’t shoot. They are either leaving or are not considered to be a threat. Otherwise you may wind up in prison.

  34. Sumy,
    What the author said was “[his Mini-14 in .223] looks like a shrunken version of an obsolete military rifle, the M-14.”

    ‘M1A1 not full auto’ – You are a master of restating the obvious.

    Given your track record for getting things wrong you must have been the dude on the next commode talking to XB.

    Next you will tell me the forward assist was added because grunts wanted something to push on.

    Correcting your factual error about the M-60, does not prove your point about the 7.62×55.

    The M-14 was superior to the M-1 which it replaced. The M-14’s major downfall was its use of high power rifle cartage rather than the reduced size cartage found in assault weapons.

    I thought Sonic was a hedgehog, not a parrot.
    The question on the table is “Had the theater been declared a gun-free zone and was the proper notice posted”

    Pre-logic = we do not need new laws; we need to fully implement and enforce the ones we already have.

  35. sumyungboi says:

    xring: “What the author said was “[his Mini-14 in .223] looks like a shrunken version of an obsolete military rifle, the M-14.””

    Which was correct. The M-14 is obsolete. Some outfits still use it as a mid-range sniper rifle, but it has zero use in the infantry, hasn’t for fifty years.

    In any case, we’re simply going in circles. I contend that the M-14 is obsolete, and you want to us to think you know what you’re talking about. The “tumbling” .223 pretty much cleared that up.

  36. ruxpercnd says:

    I would prefer an M14 to a wimpy ar15 any day. The M14 is actually not obsolete, they just discontinued the government contracts on it. The military has been recalling M14’s into service. I would take the m14 or even an M1 Garand into combat any day.

    So, for you folks who are not into guns, why not visit a gun range some day and watch all the normal folks who enjoy shooting. The news media only shows wild eyed nut cases who murder people. I would invite to the news reporters to visit the Tacoma Sportsman’s club on a week day when it is not so terribly busy to take pictures of normal people.

    On the 2nd Amendment: it recognizes that the people are sovereign. We the people are responsible for our own freedom. Modern firearms help to ensure that. So, don’t protest about a gun not being for sporting and hunting. That is not what the writers of the U.S. Constitution had in mind.

    We are blessed that Washington State has very good gun laws that balance the rights of all citizens. Read them.

  37. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to protect the newly formed “free state” from despotism. If “the people” aren’t allowed to possess the same weapons as the government, how can this be assured? Now with the Federal government using drones, face recognition software, storing emails, tracking internet usage and phone calls, our only hope is that each and every citizen take up one of these semi-automatic weapons and a few high capacity magazines. Save them for your grandchildren. Train them how to use them. The day will come.

  38. penumbrage says:

    Of course the .223 round is deadly, but the .223 round is illegal to hunt with since it lacks the stopping power to reliably take down game that the millions of hunting rifles in this country possess. The murder trial I served on involved an abused wife and three shots from a .22 revolver, any one of which which would have been fatal according to the coroner’s testimony.
    All firearms (even the anemic .25 ACP) can kill, and any position on this issue that ignores the stunning fact that 11,015 homicides and 600 accidental deaths (2010) means 99.996% of the 270,000,000 firearms in this country are responsibly owned and operated is blatantly unfair to gun owners – and that percentage approaches statistical certainty when you consider that the vast majority of the homicides and many of the accidental deaths were gang related, drug related or due to other criminals that commit the 4 million violent assaults on citizens each year.

  39. XB and Sumy,
    I’ll stick with the official Nam era tech manuals and medical reports which show that the Standard M-16 5.56 x 45 round used in Nam did tumble, after hitting a branch or a major bone.

    The M-14 is obsolete as a U.S. main battle rifle: however the U.S. Military still has about 45,000 weapons which are still in use for both ceremonial and combat activities.

    http://suite101.com/article/last-of-the-surviving-m14-battle-rifles-a113682

    Yours and XB’s knowledge of General Military Subjects makes me wonder who tumbled a 5.45 x 39 round through your brain housing groups.

    Frosty,
    For home defense I prefer a short barreled shotgun due to the increase likely hood of hitting the target.

    I prefer the double barreled 12 gage due to the wide variety of loads that are easily available.

    In your case did you consider a small bore (say 20 gage) or light 12 gage loads.
    .

    BillyB – good point about terrorists and background checks. Tangos would also use moles and other supporters to obtain firearms, or have arms and munitions smuggled in.

    Rusercnd,
    Assault rifles and submachine guns work well in close quarters such as jungles and urban areas, or where cannon fodder is cheap and plentiful.
    The M-14, like its processor the M-1, was designed to be used in more open areas.

    NWC – I wonder how many of the NoRequlationsAllowed 2nd Amendment group blindly supports GOP voter suppression activities.
    Penumb – the .223 is not legal for some large game, in some states.

  40. aislander says:

    It is a misapprehension to believe that smaller-caliber, low-mass, high-velocity bullets cannot be used to hunt big game. Cartridges such as the .275 Rigby (7X57 Mauser) have been used to bring down elephant and cape buffalo with 140-170 grain bullets, with many hunters preferring them over larger-caliber “classic” big-game cartridges…

  41. sumyungboi says:

    aislander, I was watching the bug show network once, and a Kenyen park ranger was describing how he had to bring down an elephant because it had some virus making it crazy and aggressive. He had a run of the mill .308 FAL, turned around, and brought the big guy down with a single shot, just dropped in his tracks.

    Europeans use the 6.5 Swede round in huge numbers for big game.

    Here in Washington, anything below .24 caliber is off limits, but that’s just more politicians knowing nothing; it’s almost hilarious that someone could legally hunt elk with a .243 loaded up with 58g coyote loads, but not a .223 loaded up with 75g. You could probably even hunt with a lever action .38 special, come to think of it.

    And penumbrage was describing the “anemic” .25 auto above, but over the course of time, that round has proven to be the most deadly of all. Yup, go shoot someone with a .25, and he’ll probably get p-ss-d off and beat you to death.

    (Couldn’t resist a little gun show humor. :)

  42. SoCalPunk62 says:

    Can anyone tell me what practical, legal purpose there is for owning a weapon that was made for the sole purpose of killing or maiming as many human beings in as brief a time as possible? What is the need for buying 60,000 rounds of ammunition for said weapon? And why would anyone need a 100-round drum-style magazine for their assault weapon?

  43. wyecoyote says:

    sole purpose of killing or maiming as many human beings in as brief a time as possible?

    Well then you better take them away from Police officers. If their only purpose is killing and maiming as many humans as possible why does law enforcement have and use them?

    Ok I’ll bite for practical and legal purposes I use mine for varmint hunting. Have taken several coyotes with an AR. Also I have one set up with a 6.5 grendel for long range. Have taken several out in eastern washington and montana with it. That rifles scope is zeroed at 400 yards.

    The AR-10 which is a larger version that can use the .308 or 30-06 is used by a diabled hunter I know. He can not operate a bolt rifle fast enough for a follow up shot.

    Now 60,000 rounds. I bet you heard that on the radio. The Colorado shooter actually had 6,000 rounds from all reports I have heard not the 60,000 rounds that has been going about some talk radio. As to why one would need 60,000 rounds. Several friends of mine go through that in a month or two. Course they shoot competition. A 100 round beta mag let them have it. I have never used one that didn’t require work to get in good operation.

    I’ll stick with the official Nam era tech manuals and medical reports which show that the Standard M-16 5.56 x 45 round used in Nam did tumble, after hitting a branch or a major bone.

    That is your problem you are using out dated manuals. Tumbling “yes” the round tumbles or changes direction. Check out The Box of Truth. However, the heavier rounds do not tumble and break apart like the original xm-15 rounds in vieatnam nor cause the damage. I suggest Xring put down the video game controls get out of the parents basement and actually test the rounds and the capabilities.

  44. SoCalPunk62 says:

    John Muir, a man whom most would consider a great American, said it best when he asked President Theodore Roosevelt, “When, Mr. President, will you set aside this infantile need to shoot and kill living things?” Infantile indeed.

  45. aislander says:

    Lefties are always pontificating that we should yield to our animal natures in matters sexual or mind-altering, yet they inveigh against the atavistic need to hunt meat.

    As the philosopher i*a*m*j*i*m*m would say: kooky!

  46. Sumy,
    The ranger knew his weapon would do the job by shooting the elephant behind the ear rather than from the font.

    I’ve heard of bears and deer being taking by being shot though the eye with a 22 LR.

    The .24 Restriction applies to deer, elk, and bear only.
    http://www.atg.wa.gov/teenconsumer/recreation/hunting_laws.htm

    Cougar may be hunted with 22 caliber centerfire rifle.
    http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-421702.html

    A 6.5 is the same as a .256 (in other words bigger than a .243.
    RE the .25 – go read what I said about the ranger and the elephant and think about shot placement.

    SoCal – some people like to shoot of lots of rounds and to brag about their equipment claiming it gives them an orgasmic feeling.

    Wyecoyote – let me introduce myself:

    USMC – 1964 -1972, Nam 1966 – 1968.

    Last three rifle quals with an standard M-16A1 and Ball ammo – at 500 yards, 20 rounds loaded 10 and 10, I put all 20 rounds into the head and shoulder areas of the two man sized silhouette targets.

    Police have assault weapons them because drug dealers and terrorists have them.

    Sumy and XB claimed that tumbling in the 5.56 round was ‘a rumor and propaganda as old as the weapon itself’

    My Nam era data and experience disproved that statement by showing that the original 5.56 round did tumble.

    Newer 5.56 rounds, with heavier bullets, and a tighter twist do not tumble which gives better accuracy and better penetration on a hard target, but terrible wound producing performance requiring multiple hits on the bad guys to stop them.

    PS:60,000 rounds – I see as a typo. But then I’m not paranoid.

  47. Sumy,
    If you incite a person to violence, resulting in injury and death, you’re culpable, and your free speech was the “weapon”.

    Except if a concerative kills someone who is providing a legal medical procedure the conseracons don’t approve of.

  48. SoCalPunk62 says:

    “60,000 rounds” came from none other than your conservative demigod, Bill O’Reilly…as he advocated for stricter regulations on the purchase of such large quantities.

  49. SoCalPunk62 says:

    I stand corrected. 6,000 or 60,000, either way you’ll be able to kill a lot of people. And hey, you might as well have high-capacity magazine so you don’t waste time reloading as your pesky moving targets try to run away. I really think some of you are either intellectually dishonest or just plain stupid.

  50. Nobody is arguing for tanks, bazooka’s, or nukes.

    Where in the 2nd Amendment does it define “arms” as only those weapons that shoot bullets?

    The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to protect the newly formed “free state” from despotism. If “the people” aren’t allowed to possess the same weapons as the government, how can this be assured? Now with the Federal government using drones, face recognition software, storing emails, tracking internet usage and phone calls

    If, as gscott states, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure the people have a means to fight against the despotism of their own government, it follows that we the people should be able to own every weapon individually that the government owns…….of course that would require an awfully large budget for an individual citizen……which brings up the Founders’ general concern about the dangers of maintaining a standing army….

  51. sumyungboi says:

    xring, I can read the labels on the boxes, and I know what necks they go into. You’re like the kid who learned a bunch of new words, and wants to make sure we all know.

    SoCal: “I stand corrected. 6,000 or 60,000, either way you’ll be able to kill a lot of people”

    Or take a lot of shots. When I take family members to the range, I can easily go through several hundred rounds in one sitting. At the gun show, I used to buy as a matter of course, one case of .223 and one case of .30 short Russian. Not so much anymore, because it’s so expensive now, but that was 2000 rounds every two months. That doesn’t count my hand loaded .308 for high power matches. Each match is typically 88 rounds, and counting practice, that’s about 500 rounds per match. So don’t wander on in as the clueless tool that you are and start telling everyone how you think they should live their lives, or how much of anything they should be allowed to have because of your own ignorant prejudices. I was down at the state IDPA match at Paul Bunyan on Saturday, do you have any idea how many thousands of rounds were spent? Go back and whine on the Kos, homes, you’re a clueless irritant.

  52. Beerboy…”State v. Kessler, 289 Or. 359, 614 P. 2d 94, at 95, at 98 (1980)

    …”Therefore, the term ‘arms’ as used by the drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used by settlers for both personal and military defense. The term ‘arms’ was not limited to firearms, but included several handcarried weapons commonly used for defense. The term ‘arms’ would not have included cannon or other heavy ordnance not kept by militiamen or private citizens.”

  53. Sumy,
    I’ve been walking the walk since you were in three-cornered pants.

    bBoy and Sonic,
    Cannons and other heavy ordnance were kept by individuals as it was common for artillery units to own at least some of their own cannons usually brought by the men who wanted to form and control the unit and the election of officers.

  54. sumyungboi says:

    xring, you haven’t a clue who I am or of my history, and I’ve never offered any of that up, since this is an internet forum, and anyone can claim to be pretty much anything, can’t they? Nice try, kiddo. ;)

  55. Educator1 says:

    Yes vietnam was a blood destructive conflict. But your story is not quite acurrate. As a medical specialist in vietnam with 3rd infantry, it as rare for a 9mm round to cause destruction you describe. What calliber round hit your friend?, how far was he away. Were the group of vietcong hit by Puff? Those were 20mm rounds and larger.

    Sorry for your experience but tell the complete story instead of varnishing the truth.

  56. xring, take it up with the court, no offense but I’ll take their conclusion over yours.

  57. I would also argue that the words “well regulated” in the 2nd Amendment would apply to arms. Of course firearms are already well regulated and the types of weapons one can buy or posses are regulated/restricted. The nukes argument is an absurd strawman.

  58. SoCalPunk62 says:

    Sumy
    This “clueless tool” has seen more dead bodies than you’ll ever know. I’ve seen first hand the incredible damage done by a weapon that fires a projectile at more than 3,000 feet per second. I know the feeling of taking a life. That’s a feeling that most loud-mouthed, knuckle-dragging Church of the NRA members will never know. The 2nd ammendment is not a religion. The framers of the Constitution were men, not gods with divine edict. It’s amazing that we can’t even talk about regulating weapons that were designed for combat, or controlling who gets high-capacity magazines for these weapons. Spare us the bumper sticker rhetoric. I’m not talking about taking away the right to own a firearm. Just asking for some intellectual debate aimed at real change that keeps people a little safer.

  59. sumyungboi says:

    SoCal, words cannot begin to convey the near infinitesimal amount of disinterest I have in your personal story, but what you have done is to demonstrate that your argument is based solely on emotion, rather than reason.

  60. SoCalPunk62 says:

    If you cannot have any emotion over the death of another human being, or the senseless gun violence that kills tens of thousands of Americans every year, then you have one foot in hell already. It’s unfortunate that some people care more about their firearms than about human life.

  61. aislander says:

    Ah! An emotional appeal for using emotion to create law. It IS consistent, I guess, but still a bad idea…

  62. SoCalPunk62 says:

    The main motivating factor for most human action is fear. Any thoughtful, intelligent person will affirm that. To deny that is to live in fear that someone may label you a coward.

  63. sumyungboi says:

    SoCal, I’m not unsympathetic to tragedy. But you’d asked why someone could possibly need 6,000 rounds of ammunition, or a rifle “that was made for the sole purpose of killing or maiming as many human beings ..” in a holier than thou attitude, and I gave you an answer. Go to a high power match, and you’ll see more assault weapons than you can shake a stick at, with thousands of rounds being spent. It’s a sport, with a fatality rate of, well, zero. (and did I mention that the AR-15 and it’s variants are the rifle of choice for varmint hunters?)

    So you wander on in and announce that since you don’t like “assault” rifles, no one should have them, and this, per you, is an emotion based conclusion. When you start tampering with rights based on nothing but emotion, it’s a real slippery slope. (see Patriot Act) There’s a reason that Lady Justice wears a blindfold.

    Oh, and by the way, you will remember that you’d called anyone who disagreed with you either dishonest or stupid. Nice debate point, kiddo.

  64. Sonic – what should I take up with the Courts? Even the Courts can’t change history, and the last privately funded militia units fought in the Spanish American War.

    The key concept of ‘well regulated’ = was and individuals were expected to own all of his personal basic equipment and weapons as required by the type of unit he was in. Larger equipment and ‘crew served weapons’ were owned by the unit. Once mustered the State would provide ammo, repair, and other services.

    The first U.S. military weapon banned from civilian use, that I know of, was the Government 1911 .45 automatic pistol, and until the 1928 Federal Firearms Act Tommy guns and other full auto weapons were not banned, controlled, or regulated.

  65. xring, the point is that cannons and large artillery are different than “arms” as mentioned in the 2nd Amendment. It’s a ridiculous assertion to say that because someone believes semi-automatic rifles (even if the look “scary”) should not be banned to the public that must mean that they also believe nukes and bazooka’s should be available to all. I think we can have a reasonable debate about firearms without resorting to inane comparisons to nuclear weapons.

  66. sumyungboi says:

    Sonic, actually, and I hate to disagree with you, The Second Amendment doesn’t differentiate “arms”. Arms, meaning “armaments”. We all pretend that, well, nobody really _meant_ bazookas or suitcase nukes, but there’s no difference between that line of thought, and say, nobody really _meant_ 15 round magazines, they meant 10 round magazines.

  67. sumyungboi, There were actually restrictions even during the time of the founding. There were limitations, laws, and regulations around weapons even way back then (afrighting being one example).

    Every Amendment has restrictions, a right doesn’t mean anything goes. Reasonable people already know this.

  68. You see I’m not against reinstating the so called “assault” weapons ban, or having a magazine capacity ban because they would be unconstitutional. I’m against those things because they are stupid policy and do nothing to address the real issue of violence. Firearms are already hightly regulated, there are countless laws regarding them. If you really believe that there should be no laws regarding firearms because they all violate the 2nd Amendment, well sorry you’re living in fantasy land because that ship sailed a looong time ago. If one believes that an age limit restriction on purchasing firearms is reasonable, if one believes that felons not owning firearms is reasonable, then it’s pretty safe to say that nuclear weapons should not be owned by the general public as well.

  69. sumyungboi says:

    Not so, Sonic14, a “right” is either a right or it isn’t, in which case it does not belong in The Bill of Rights.

    The misconception being that some particular exercise of a “right” should send you straight to jail, but it’s the _result_ of that use of a right that can land you in hot water. Subtle but very important difference. The cliche of shouting “fire” in a crowded theater is a good example. As I’ve said before, yell “fire” and nothing happens besides people telling you to shut your hole, and it’s all good, outside of annoying people. Incite a panic, though, and get arraigned the next day.

    All Libertarian theory, of course, and I’m not fooling myself to believe that I actually live in a free country, but the concept was really outstanding.

  70. sumyungboi, so to be clear you believe there should be no restrictions whatsoever on any of our rights?

  71. SoCalPunk62 says:

    Our morals are very much based on emotion. Our laws are very much based on our morals. There is no way to separate them completely.

    Read again: I never talked about taking away everyone’s weapons. I clearly stated the opposite above. I merely suggested a serious intelligent debate about regulating and tracking their purchase and use.
    If all a mentally derranged person has to do is check “NO” next to the question about history of mental illness, then would you say that just maybe we should make it a little bit more difficult for that person to buy a weapon?

  72. sumyungboi says:

    Sonic14, as written, The Second Amendment draws no distinction between a BB gun and the Tsar Bomba. The Constitution does contain instructions for amending itself.

  73. Wow, and I thought I had libertarian leanings!

  74. sumyungboi says:

    SoCal: “I merely suggested a serious intelligent debate about regulating and tracking their purchase and use”

    Kicking your intelligent debate off by calling people dishonest and stupid is not how these things work. Arguing a social topic with high emotion and mockery gets you nowhere. There are lots of things that we _could_ do to make Americans safer, lots of things way more productive than putting ever more restrictions on private gun ownership, but the question is, _should_ we? And more importantly, does The Constitution allow it? Sometimes, individual rights do get in the way of what most would consider to be the good of society, rights regarding search and seizure come to mind, but do we really want to go there? Do we want to start down that slope? Or better stated, hit the black diamond run instead of the bunny hill?

  75. penumbrage says:

    xring – ‘The question on the table is “Had the theater been declared a gun-free zone and was the proper notice posted” ‘

    I can’t say for sure if the Aurora theater manager risked his job by not posting a notice, but there are several accounts online of legally armed citizens interacting with the strict ‘LEO guns only’ policy of Cinemark Holdings Inc. (the parent company of Century 16 and over 450 other theaters). Curiously, you won’t find it on their website anymore. Perhaps some lawyer smelled a potential liability lawsuit, particularly in light of the shooter’s ‘body armor’ turning out to be just a nylon tactical vest.

    “If you asked, if he was still alive, he would have said his only
    regret is he didn’t have his sidearm with him and he couldn’t do
    anything to stop him.” –James Gill, on friend Jonathan Blunk,
    killed in the Aurora, CO Century movie theater shooting after being left no other recourse to save his girlfriend’s life other than push her down and shield her with his body.

    Many CWPs ignore such posted notices since many carry instructors (including ex-LEOs) advise you that, if discovered, the offended business can only ask you to leave (unless you refuse, make a scene and Law Enforcement is called) and only an illegal pat-down (or a self-defense incident) will ever show you to be in violation of their obviously flawed business policy.

  76. averageJose says:

    Ever heard of people being torn apart by a vehicle, a knife, a chainsaw … etc. ?

  77. Never heard of a madman, armed with a chainsaw, knife, vehicle, going into a movie theater and killing 12 (now 13) and injuring 50.

  78. averageJose says:

    Never heard of a muslim suicide car bomber? Kooky.

    LMAO… (typical kettle/black when it comes to being obtuse) Is a theater a requirement?

  79. SoCalPunk62 says:

    If one says that no serious debate is required about regulation and tracking, trying to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, then that person is either stupid or intellectually dishonest. Period

  80. averageJose says:

    Who has said “no serious debate is required” ?

  81. averageJose says:

    No comment bB?

  82. from the article “And of course, maybe it had nothing to do with jihad at all.”

    Here’s the thing that the NRA nutsos refuse to acknowledge when making the “car, knife, hammer” comparison: the whackjobs with “assault” weapons who kill are using the weapon in the manner for which it was designed. And, of course, the fact that the “assault” weapon, being designed for the purpose, is much, much, much more efficient manner of killing many people in a short period of time.

    BTW – it is the bomb that is transported in the car, not the car itself, that makes a car bomb a weapon.

  83. averageJose says:

    The weapon was not designed for “going into a movie theater and killing 12 (now 13) and injuring 50.” ;)

    Love the namecalling b.

    Ummm… your assertion about the effectiveness of killing many in a short time depends on their proximity to the killer… just like a car.

  84. averageJose says:

    LMAO @ your last line. You sure are good at picking nits.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0