I wrote earlier this month about an honest liberal who acknowledged the problems created by government dependency. Well, it happened again.

First, some background.

Like every other decent person, I was horrified and nauseated by the school shootings in Newton, Connecticut.

Part of me wishes the guy hadn’t killed himself so that he could be slowly fed into a meat grinder.

And my friends on the left will be happy to know that part of me, when I first learned about the murders, thought the world might be a better place if guns had never been invented.

Sort of like my gut reaction about cigarettes when I find out that somebody I know is dying of a smoking-related illness or how I feel about gambling when I read about a family being ruined because some jerk thought it would be a good idea to use the mortgage money at a casino.

But there’s a reason why it’s generally not a good idea to make impulsive decisions based on immediate reactions. In the case of gun control, it can lead to policies that don’t work. Or perhaps even make a bad situation worse.

I’ve certainly made these points when writing and pontificating about gun control. But I’m a libertarian, so that’s hardly a surprise. We’re people who instinctively are skeptical of giving government power over individuals.

But when someone on the left reaches the same conclusion, that’s perhaps more significant. Especially when you get the feeling that they would like ban private gun ownership in their version of a perfect world.

That’s why I heartily recommend Jeffrey Goldberg’s article in The Atlantic.

1
Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell is a top expert on tax reform and supply-side tax policy at the Cato Institute.

Be the first to read Daniel J. Mitchell’s column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Most Recent Articles

Join the Debate
219 Comments So Far
« Previous1234Next »
God_Of_War Wrote: Dec 19, 2012 4:02 PM
The MOST dangerous enemy the US has ever faced is the media. The social poison spewed by the media is causing children to go into schools and kill children.

Control of the media should encompass the intentions of the founding fathers.


What we need to keep in mind is what the founding fathers intended.

They intended "political" speech be free.

The founders never envisioned a society so morally bankrupt there would be films on bestiality, child porn, or violence leading to the killing of children in schools.

Free speech is guaranteed for POLITICAL speech. Not senseless violence or the teaching of homosexual acceptance.

Regulating the media is acceptable under these terms and in fact NECESSARY if we are to maintain our freedoms.
gasserjerry Wrote: Dec 18, 2012 9:54 AM
i'll give up my guns when all the people who are supposed to be our servants,whose taxes pay them,when, our own government officials,stop all the murder and all the abuse.they are power mad,power filled dirt bags.someday the american people may,and i say that loosely will stand up to these bully's and put the boots to them.until then watch your back.watch any you tube video on just police brutality alone and you might get the point.btw for all the deceived and misguided who think we should not bad mouth our gov.try and get this into your head.We the people are the government.these power hungry, money stealing ,idiots rape us&WE keep voting them in year after year just to keep on raping and killing us. insanity needs a new definition!!
PresidentDon Wrote: Dec 18, 2012 12:32 AM
I'll go along with gun control when Obama disarms the Secret Service who protect him.
hmiller Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 10:18 PM
Back when the NRA was of no consequence to either political party; that is before they found a gimmick that created money and power; I looked up the history of the Conscientious Objector status and history. A large item in their finally successful campaign was what became the 2nd Article of the Bill of Rights. To see what I mean look at the "Bill" as presented to Congress by James Madison. It can be easily found in his papers at The James Madison University.

And look up the online history of the Pennsylvania National Guard. Look for the reason Ben Franklin started a military organization before that Colony had legislation for a militia. Note that the Quakers, in particular, had a religious objection to bearing arms. Not to carrying gun
cwa Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 9:48 PM
If the citizens of North Korea and Iran were armed it is a safe bet that the governments would represent the people not the national dictator’s. Individuals don't commit mass murders nations do. Think OK City vs. the Cambodian killing fields.
canetoad Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 9:31 PM
Adam Lanza was sure scared of being shot! Not. If as you say the solution is just to arm everyone because that is an effective deterrent to gun crime then why not let Iran or North Korea arm themselves with nuclear weapons. Makes about as much sense.
Curtis108 Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 10:20 PM
Wow. That analogy is wrong in a number of difference dimensions.
Hossfly2 Wrote: Dec 18, 2012 2:00 PM
You certainly have the correct name. It perfectly matches your IQ.
Rob Constitution Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 6:36 PM
If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will carry guns. That cliche also happens to be 100% true. Criminals don't care about laws. It's against the law to steal, rape, vandalize, use drugs, etc. So if it's against the law, why do people do it? Because they don't care about the law. The only people who do care about the law are law-abiding citizens. And if law abiding citizens know it is illegal to own a gun, they won't do it. This leaves only criminals who will own guns. So the law will actually have the opposite effect intended. DUH!
DavidM Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 6:03 PM
Obesity is up, lets BAN FORKS AND SPOONS.
natch Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 6:13 PM
Cars kill 40,000 people every year. Let's ban cars.
ericynot Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 6:38 PM
I can't (and neither can you) function in modern society without a car. But I've managed to get through 63 years just fine without owning a firearm.

Keep things in perspective.
hunkahunka Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 8:22 PM
90% of the military's snipers and sharp shooters are kids raised in rural areas that have been taught to shoot from a very young age. Ban firearms and weaken our military. Ban firearms from 90 million sportsmen and there will be starving deer, waterfowl, and small game all over the U.S. from over population and the divorce rate from not being able to get out for a day or so from the old lady's nagging will make at least 50 million more single moms with children for social security and state welfare programs to support. Ban firearms and the owners of 40,000 shooting ranges will be in the unemployment lines along with their 3 to 10 employees each. Ban firearms and all the employees at the 20+ gun makers will add their employees in to.
Curtis108 Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 10:22 PM
Well, bully for you. But if you are going to attempt to control something because it is dangerous, why not go for the most pervasive danger we face?
natch Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 11:07 PM
And which danger is the most pervasive, Curtis?
Jules65 Wrote: Dec 19, 2012 6:50 AM
So far. I've never had to use mine to protect my family or property, yet. Relying on the gov't. to protect you is lacking in common sense. As the saying goes, "police are just minutes away, when seconds count". I hope your good luck continues.
The Teleprompter Speaks Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 5:27 PM
Just so we can make a better comparison -- we know the homicide rate is half what it was 20 years ago. Do we have an accurate statistic on gun violence and shootings? The reason I ask is detractors will claim homicides are down in part to medical advances.

Kepha Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 4:53 PM
I couldn't agree more. Most new laws will probably do little but inconvenience the law-abiding, whether collectors, target shooters, hunters, or heirloom owners.

I also lived in Taiwan for a number of years, where gun controls were quite stringent. Further, while they were under martial law, armed robbery could carry the death penalty. Yet, somehow, every now and then, the baddies got into a shootout with the police, and the baddies were as well armed as many militaries.
LiveFree Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 4:35 PM
They can pass whatever laws they want. I of course will help resist in whatever ways I can through administrative methods - NRA membership, letters to representatives, social media, etc. But in the end, should they attempt to ban firearms, all they will have succeeded in doing will be to make an honest, upstanding citizen a criminal. I WILL NOT COMPLY. I will not surrender my responsibility to myself and my family and place our safety and security solely in the hands of an increasingly corrupt and bankrupt government who can NOT guarantee it.
hunkahunka Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 8:35 PM
They are going to claim that they are "only" banning semi-automatic assault weapons, but any weapon that can used against the military or its police forces will be classified as an assault weapon, e.g., my 50 year old tube fed .22 semi-automatic that hold 15 LR bullets and my dad's .20 ga. semi-automatic shotgun which he used for squirrel hunting...all will be confiscated by the government. But, if I bought a .22 caliber gatlin gun that will go through 1000 rounds in less than 15 seconds that would not be illegal as it it not automatic nor semi-automatic... 20 barrels mounted in rotation on a crank system each firing separately as fast as you can turn the crank about one revolution per second with two cranks, two sets of 20 barrels.
George257 Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 3:56 PM
I think by now it is quite apparent that the dems intend to make full use of the deaths of these children to advance their own cause. Remember we are not dealing with people who have any sort of moral compass to steer them.
SpaceVegetable Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 5:08 PM
Yup, and after they made such a stink about the GOP supposedly politicizing the Benghazi tragedy. Hypocritical asshats, the lot of them.
Reginald10 Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 5:13 PM
"Never let a good crisis go to waste."
Anonymous10152 Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 2:56 PM
David350 wrote:

“Take a look at WW2 and how Hitler went into several European countries, murdering millions of innocents. I wonder whether he would have been that successful in his evil if the citizenry had the right of gun ownership.”

Prior to WW2 Hitler sent a diplomatic mission to Switzerland to negotiate Swiss unification with Germany. The secret part of the mission was for his Generals to scope out the country for possible invasion. A Germany General told his Swiss Counterpart that since the German army had twice as many soldiers as Switzerland had citizens, how could they possibly stop a German invasion. The Swiss General replied, “Everyone will shoot two times.”

Germany never invaded Switzerland.
Dr_Zinj Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 2:53 PM
"because encouraging learned helplessness is morally corrupt"

That is soooooo true!
Bill110 Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 2:04 PM
Its time to prosecute the perpetrators of violence; that is the producers of violent training videos and quack doctors who fill kids full of drugs.
Bill110 Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 2:01 PM
bHo, the Liar in Chief, will "strike while the iron is hot". He desperately wants to disarm America and Americans. He sees this as his chance to "never let a crises go unexploited". The cause of the tragedy he will never consider. His Hollywood and drug company supporters will never allow it. Blame the guns and deny the facts.
MG formerly minnesotagrandma Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 1:47 PM
My sister looked my niece in the eye and said "don't make me kill you". Not a thing we could do until she threatened to harm herself or someone else in front of witness who were NOT family members. Nothing.
MG formerly minnesotagrandma Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 1:46 PM
My husband and I belonged to a group that was lobbying for "shall issue" instead of "may issue" in MN. Of course there was a lot of opposition. They had "this is a gun free home" posters made and offered them to the opposition. Never gave even ONE away.
Why do liberals not get the disconnect there?
Jeff2422 Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 1:35 PM
The logic of those who wish to ban gun ownership is that because a certain segment of society misuses guns then guns need to be banned so they cannot be misused. Well, then turn in your car, all eating utensils, ladders, etc. With that kind of thinking I am not sure we would have survived as a species. Obviously, the issue is human behavior and if our current societal norms, or lack thereof, contribute and/or cause violence. The lib writer in the article is finally acknowledging the obvious which most libs will not.
PETERTIMBER Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 12:53 PM
Goldberg said it: Prohibition is a flop/ War on Drugs is misguided and now Gun Control has joined their ranks!!!!!!!!
JB12345 Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 12:21 PM
Think about this: once they get rid of the 2ND Amendement to the Constitution, how long will it take to get rid of the 1ST Amendment?
ocarol500 Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 11:34 AM
Noah Webster aptly stated: "The Bible must be considered as the great source of all the truth by which men are to be guided in government as well as in all social transactions."
Congress has the ability to put the Bible back into the Public School system to be studied for its relationship to our Declaration of Independence and Constitution and read as literature for the morality which it teaches and upon which this Nation was built. This would not be considered as Politically Correct by today's "standards." Congress allowed prayer to be taken from the schools but the minute a crisis happens, the first response is to pray, to do the politically incorrect but morally correct thing.
ericynot Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 11:43 AM
carol,

Oh yeah, we need the Bible in schools to teach morality.

How about this teaching from the Book of Kings?

"Meanwhile, the LORD instructed one of the group of prophets to say to another man, "Strike me!" But the man refused to strike the prophet. Then the prophet told him, "Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, a lion will kill you as soon as you leave me." And sure enough, when he had gone, a lion attacked and killed him."

If you've studied the Bible at all, you know it's full of loopy advice and instructions which, if followed, will quickly land you in prison.
True Conservative! Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 12:08 PM
You are SO right ... leftist moron!
Oldschool7 Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 12:18 PM
Trouble is . . . today it's really hard to find a "Prophet" . . . in fact there are none . . . so your point is NONSENSE ! ! !
ericynot Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 12:26 PM
school,

OK, not enough prophets (although you're obviously not a regular viewer of TBN).

Do you know any adulterers? Newt Gingrich springs to mind...

How about this from Leviticus?

"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death."

Bummer for Newt, huh?
Younger Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 12:31 PM
Can you tell us in which Book of Kings you have found this, and in which chapter?
Oldschool7 Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 12:34 PM
What about your buddy Barney?
You another brainless cave explorer ? ? ?
ericynot Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 12:52 PM
Younger --

Kings 20:35-36.
ericynot Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 12:54 PM
Old,

I'm too old to watch TV shows about purple dinosaurs.
Truthwalker Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 1:37 PM
Romans 8:1-2
There is therefore now, no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh (see Galatians 5:19-21for explanation eric....save me a lot of typing) but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Meaning sin in the OT required death as punishment
But now.. where sin did abound, grace doth much more abound. (That even applies to reprobates who renounce God and His word if they will turn, repent, and call on Him.)
Anonymous10152 Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 2:47 PM
If you've studied the Bible at all, you know any verse take out of context can be twisted to make it sound loopy. When the verse you cite is put back into the context of the entire chapter of 1 Kings 20, it come out with a completely different context and meaning than the one which you try (and fail) to impart to it.

Here's one for you to put into proper context "...if anyone adds to or takes away from...."
ericynot Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 4:05 PM
Anon,

Here's another fave of mine, this one from 2 Kings 2:23-24

"From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces."

There you have it -- God kills children for mocking bald guys! Maybe those first graders in Newtown made fun of Adam Lanza's hair (it was pretty odd looking).
Younger Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 5:44 PM
Thank you. You will note that the man who disobeyed the prophet lost his life, and that the prophet had a reason--so that the king would notice him.
Apparently you have never been warned against taking a passage of Scripture out of its context or not understanding it at all and talking from what you think the passage means. Consider the preacher, who when disturbed by the large hairdo of one member of his congregation, preached from "Topknot, come down," (Mt. 24:17, KJV).
Younger Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 5:44 PM
Thank you. You will note that the man who disobeyed the prophet lost his life, and that the prophet had a reason--so that the king would notice him.
Apparently you have never been warned against taking a passage of Scripture out of its context or not understanding it at all and talking from what you think the passage means. Consider the preacher, who when disturbed by the large hairdo of one member of his congregation, preached from "Topknot, come down," (Mt. 24:17, KJV).
Younger Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 5:44 PM
Thank you. You will note that the man who disobeyed the prophet lost his life, and that the prophet had a reason--so that the king would notice him.
Apparently you have never been warned against taking a passage of Scripture out of its context or not understanding it at all and talking from what you think the passage means. Consider the preacher, who when disturbed by the large hairdo of one member of his congregation, preached from "Topknot, come down," (Mt. 24:17, KJV).
ericynot Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 6:43 PM
Oh yeah, good reason. A guy should die so that the king would notice a "prophet".

How can you say something like that with a straight face?
Younger Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 10:22 PM
You miss the point of the account entirely.
Curtis108 Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 10:25 PM
New Flash: The Bible is more than the Old Testament.

Please try to keep up.
ericynot Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 11:32 AM
Hey, all you paranoid gun owners. Change is coming. Not only will there be more gun control legislation, but I think the Second Amendment might be repealed. Will that do anything to stop mass murder by firearm? No, because there are already too many weapons out there. But, if you can't feel the national revulsion -- more disgust than was ever there after V. Tech, Killeen, Tucson, or Columbine -- you need to step outside and check the breeze.

Do I favor this option? No, because I think we're divided enough already and this is just one more useless fight. But get ready because it's on its way.
stangerinmyownland Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 12:04 PM
My oath to this country was given unconditionally, based upon the constitution and the Bill of Rights, which absolutely includes the 2d Amendment. When you open the door to repealing basic rights, such as the 2d Amendment, do you really think any of the others will be sacrosanct. I mean, really, isn't it destructive to say bad things about our glorious leaders-how counterproductive. So, if the government breaks the deal with me, then I consider myself free of my oath.
True Conservative! Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 12:08 PM
Fat chance, leftist idiot!
Oldschool7 Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 12:19 PM
You sound like you're going to be the next "shooter" . . . only INSANE Lieberals apply . . . lol
ericynot Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 12:30 PM
Old,

I live without the pleasures of a houseful of firearms. Guess maybe I could be the next "stabber".
Oldschool7 Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 12:37 PM
Entirely possible . . . you mean like the Chinese guy last week got over 20 students?
Do you have a sign on your house "Gun Free Zone"?
Lieberal stupidity knows no bounds . . .
ericynot Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 12:57 PM
Old,

Did you notice that none of those Chinese kids died?
Younger Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 5:35 PM
Jay Wye Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 5:46 PM
FEDGOV is "missing" over 1000 of their guns as of 2003,some being full-auto machine guns. that does not include US military arms losses. Then state and local law enforcement have guns stolen from their vehicles frequently. Former Orlando POLICE CHIEF Val Demings had her service handgun stolen from her unmarked SUV,and over a year later,it still hasn't been recovered. OPD has "lost" 2 AR-15 kits,and had 2 machine guns stolen from vehicles.
Jay Wye Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 5:46 PM
12-17-12
Tip about tractor theft leads to stolen Army grenades, assault weapon

Alabama police say a tip about a stolen tractor led them to a cache of stolen military hardware, Fox 6 News reported.
The investigation reportedly began last week when police found a stolen tractor at a residence in Glencoe, Ala.
A search of the home found 30 guns, including an assault rifle, as well as grenades and blasting caps stolen from the Anniston Army Depot, according to the station. Spare parts for Stryker military vehicles also were recovered.
According to Fox 6, police suspect the homeowner, Anniston Army Depot employee Ryan Mayo, stole the military items from his workplace.
Jay Wye Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 5:47 PM
yet you morons think that a gun ban would keep guns out of civilian hands.
Curtis108 Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 10:26 PM
Here's a thought that just might work: How about some Mentally Ill Control?
Vieteravet Wrote: Dec 18, 2012 9:10 PM
Hey idiot, Columbine happened when the asault rifle ban was still enforced!
chicaree Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 11:27 AM
We are not going to get rid of guns in this society so that argument is a moot point. But we should get better mental health care. Reagan shut down mental institutions saying they are the states responsibility with out providing any grants to states to get them started. our mental institutions are how the jails and it costs on average 30,000 a year to keep one person incarcerated. That money would be better invested in institutions to deal with the mentally ill.
Another point.... the number of instances where a home owner shoots an intruder is far more rare than someone shooting a member of his own family.
Stuart95 Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 11:42 AM
I'm not an expert on this, so you are advised to do your own research - but I thought the widespread release of people thought to have mental problems was spurred by lawsuits (ACLU and other liberal groups) claiming that institutionalization was contrary to civil rights. Reagan signed legislation resulting from the lawsuits while he was governor of California, not while he was president.

Eventually the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to confine the mentally ill unless they were a direct threat to themselves or other.
True Conservative! Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 12:10 PM
And even when they are a direct threat, it's still iffy as to whether they will be confined!
Curtis108 Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 10:27 PM
Ah, but if it is a direct threat, you have the right to defend yourself.
True Conservative! Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 12:09 PM
Reagan shut down mental institutions? Are you INSANE? The federal government has never had anything to do with mental institutions and it has ALWAYS been a state responsibility. Nice try lefty!
Stuart95 Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 12:38 PM
That's how the liberal masters keep the rabble in thrall. They feed them lies about conservatives, especially the one they fear the most: Reagan. The rabble will always be confined to the plantation until they learn to think for themselves.

I'm sure that conservatives have misled liberals at one time or another, but they are no where near the art form developed by people like Pelosi, Emmanuel, Reid, Biden, Schumer, Sharpton, etc., and their flying monkeys, the MSM.

Oldschool7 Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 12:46 PM
In 1974 the ACLU sued the federal govt . . . Confining the mentally handicapped was "Unconstitutional" . . . The Supreme Court agreed and ruled that they could no longer confine these people against their will.
Reagan was inaugurated in January 1981 . . . are you suggesting he should have "defied" the supreme court?
David350 Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 11:22 AM
Take a look at WW2 and how Hitler went into several European countries, murdering millions of innocents. I wonder whether he would have been that successful in his evil if the citizenry had the the right of gun ownership. The Founding Fathers had more foresight than some would give them credit for.
If we abolish the 2nd Amendment, the only ones who will have guns will be the state and criminals. Is that desirable? Instead, let's look at the weapon of choice in this particular tragedy: a rapid-fire automatic rifle. Does anyone doubt that if this perpetrator used just a simple gun, he would have had a much more difficult time perpetrating his evil? Other than military use, there is no justification for a citizen to own or use them.
stangerinmyownland Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 12:06 PM
And at the same time, the Japanese determined that it would be futile to invade the US, because there would be a "gun behind every blade of grass".
rpm Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 1:12 PM
Had the European Jews owned guns at the rate in the US (especially then, even now) the "Holocaust" would have been still born.
Dot462 Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 1:37 PM
The Jews illustrated this in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. A small group of brave people with guns obtained from killing Germans individually held off the German army for over a month. They proved that self defense and fighting back was preferable to going passively to the trains for transport to a death camp. The fact that most Israelis today are members of the military reserve and have received training in weapons and have weapons at home has resulted in less gun violence on the streets of Israel. They don't just conceal their weapons; they carry them in the open on the street. An AK is a fine deterrent to street crime. Unfortunately, a gun isn't a good defense against a bomb.
Reginald10 Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 5:21 PM
Which is why the Arabs usually use bombs and missiles.
rpm Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 1:17 PM
Had the European Jews owned guns at the rate in the US (especially then, even now) the "Holocaust" would have been still born.

Actually, the Founding Fathers were not operating out of "foresight", they had plenty of examples of despots disarming the populace. The didn't want it happening here.

I once was quite proficient in firearm use, although I haven't pulled a trigger in decades. Under those conditions (children, disarmed adults) I could, even now, kill that many in that time frame with any repeating weapon. Maybe even with a single shot.

With respect to "justification"; the 2nd amendment prohibits the government from "infringing" a RIGHT. It does NOT give us the right--we are assumed to have that right.
Reginald10 Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 5:19 PM
Actually, none of the guns involved was "a rapid-fire automatic rifle". The pistols and rifle used were SEMI-automatic weapons - one trigger pull, one bullet. True automatic weapons just keep shooting as long as the trigger is held back. Automatic weapons are also highly regulated, require special licenses to buy and keep, and are terribly expensive.
Jay Wye Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 5:50 PM
From the reports I read,the CT guy left the AR-15 in the cars trunk,used the two handguns.
those were stolen,so no background check or law would have prevented that.

During the LA riots of 1992,the police REFUSED to enter the riot zone to protect citizens,and Korean shopkeepers used "assault weapons" to hold off the rioting mob that came to burn them and their families alive in their shops/homes. that's just ONE good reason,not that we need ANY reason to own them.
it also is justification for 30 round magazines,you need firepower to hold off a riot mob.
Not that we need any justification.
Jay Wye Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 5:51 PM
semi-auto,magazine-fed rifles such as the AR-15 and AK-47 are today's modern MILITIA weapons,and thus should be the most protected of firearms under the Second Amendment.

Militiamen were expected to appear for muster bearing arms and ammo similar to and compatible with what the Regular military had in use AT THAT TIME.
Since we "compromised" and restricted ownership of full-auto,true assault rifles,that leaves the semi-auto versions for civilian militia use.
PresidentDon Wrote: Dec 18, 2012 12:26 AM
If the United Nations troops were invading your home to take possession of your home, to put you and your fqmily out on the street, would like like to have a gun, or a bible? We have to stand up to tyranny someway, and be realistic as to the danger of a government only having guns. We would still be a sattelite of England if our ancestors had not had guns. I don't care if the times are different, people are not different, and when we have a totalitarian government, you will have no freedoms. IF I'm being invaded, I want sufficient firepower to protect me and my family. The military in New Orleans went home to home and demanded surrender of all weapons, do you suppose they would have taken NO for an answer, or would they have shot resistors?
« Previous1234Next »