Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/15/2004 4:06:41 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/15/2004 4:31:50 PM EST by fullclip]
This is in our local paper today.www.timesrecordnews.com/trn/lo_our_opinions/article/0,1891,TRN_5782_3181777,00.html Anyone car to hit them for a little educiation?

Our Opinions: Right to ban arms
Despite Second Amendment arguments, semi-automatic weapons still pose a big threat to law enforcement

September 15, 2004

The ban on sale of semi-automatic assault weapons and large-capacity ammo magazines ended Monday, and it appears the open market will stay open for the foreseeable future.

While we believe that Americans have the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, our Founding Fathers never contemplated the kind of firepower and the threat to law enforcement posed by military-style weapons in the hands of our citizens.

While it's true that gangs and other criminals have had little trouble getting their hands on semi-automatic weapons even during the ban, they have been forced into a black market where the rifles are expensive, thus upping the illegal activities they must pursue.

Now, with the weapons legal to use and own, it's predictable that the manufacturers will increase production, lowering prices and making more of them easily available.

The cops aren't being paranoid when they say that semi-automatic weapons with high-capacity magazines pose a terrific threat. They can't be blamed for worrying that outlaws can easily attain more firepower than law enforcement can muster.

Opponents of the ban say any law that interferes with the Second Amendment provides a slippery slope. That argument doesn't hold water. For years, there's been a ban on automatic weapons. And there has never been a serious move in Congress to ban deer rifles or such.

Yes, there may be collectors out there who just want an AK-47 to put into the living room gun rack.

For the good of all, they might consider something less attractive to burglars. We're not advocating pea-shooters; we are advocating rifles that have some legitimate purpose beyond killing cops.

Edit to add... This is the editor of the paper writing the column, not me. Sorry if I misled you guys, I am going to write them.
Please, be nice and have fun. I will.. fullclip
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 4:07:37 PM EST
Ummm...aren't you supposed to be...?
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 4:08:04 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 4:10:10 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 4:10:15 PM EST
hmmmmm
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 4:11:37 PM EST
Precisely what I was thinking. You don't happen to know Michael Pennington do you?
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 4:13:14 PM EST
What the
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 4:15:46 PM EST
I didn't know the afterlife had an internet connection to arfcom... Schweet, heaven is even better than you'd have thought!
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 4:15:56 PM EST

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Ummm...aren't you supposed to be...?



I am missing the point of this. fullclip
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 4:16:04 PM EST
Didn't see the hardcopy of the paper today. Who wrote that? Was it our own Carrol Wilson at TRN? [offtopic] BTW fullclip, anywhere to get a barrel threaded here in WF.? [/offtopic]
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 4:16:51 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/15/2004 4:18:49 PM EST by The_Groovinator]
Looks like the other fullclip has a dash in his name. full-clip www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=275278

But I'm not sure of anything anymore.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 4:17:20 PM EST
Are you posting from the grave, dude?
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 4:18:16 PM EST
Just more proof that the police are one of the most anti-gun groups in existance.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 4:19:02 PM EST
Ah. Case of mistaken spiritual identity. Carry on.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 4:21:04 PM EST
bwahhh!

That's just creepy!
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 4:22:19 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/15/2004 4:24:56 PM EST by Aim4MyHead]
here's my letter to the editor....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LETTER: Right to Ban Arms.... I'm sorry to hear that whoever composed that article did such a bad job when doing so. If they would of taken the time to do some fact checking they would of found that these "evil rifles" were still on the market the entire 10 year span of the ban. There were 2 crimes commited in the 10 year period. Two crimes in 10 years. The ban only limited features which do not increase the power of the weapon. Criminals have no easier access to these weapons than they did prior to the ban since there was and still a federal background check run through the NICS. The only way for a criminal to commit a crime with a firearm is for him to obtain one illegally. So what good is a law if criminals don't abide by them? It's a shame we were lied to. What's even sadder than the out-right lies is the fact most people believe what they were told and never did any sort of research before they formed their own opinions. As a law enforcement officer myself i have no fear of being gunned down by assault weapons. Most LEO fatalities occur with my own firearm being used against me. Criminals don't commit crimes with high dollar firearms, which most of these " military style" rifles are. They commit them with $150 pistols they steal or buy from over convicted felons. One day people will realize what gun control does to them. If you want a look at the future. Take a peek at England where there is a total gun ban. Then look at their crime rate. It's on a rise and that's a fact not a lie in attempts to scare you. Fear is only a tool used by groups who cannot show fact to back their claims. What saddens me is most people who write articles like the one i am responding to have never fired a gun or could even tell you what an " assault weapon " is. Thank you for your time.




J
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 4:22:48 PM EST
"in the hands of our citizens."

So when did citizen become a pejorative?

Oh, wait, I see, we shouldn't buy them because someone might steal them, I guess like they might steal your Toyota, your identity or your wife.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 4:24:14 PM EST

Originally Posted By fullclip:
While we believe that Americans have the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, our Founding Fathers never contemplated the kind of firepower and the threat to law enforcement posed by military-style weapons in the hands of our citizens.



Yes they did. As a matter of fact, that was precisely the point!



While it's true that gangs and other criminals have had little trouble getting their hands on semi-automatic weapons even during the ban, they have been forced into a black market where the rifles are expensive, thus upping the illegal activities they must pursue.



So you admit that the ban failed to keep weapons out of the hand of criminals, yet you still tout it's virtues. Huh.


Now, with the weapons legal to use and own, it's predictable that the manufacturers will increase production, lowering prices and making more of them easily available.


Tell that to Colt! Besides, most of the guns on the 1994 AWB are banned from import by the 1989 Assault Weapons Import Ban.


The cops aren't being paranoid when they say that semi-automatic weapons with high-capacity magazines pose a terrific threat. They can't be blamed for worrying that outlaws can easily attain more firepower than law enforcement can muster.


Most urban police forces have begun arming their patrol officers with AR's.


Opponents of the ban say any law that interferes with the Second Amendment provides a slippery slope. That argument doesn't hold water. For years, there's been a ban on automatic weapons. And there has never been a serious move in Congress to ban deer rifles or such.


I see, so the Second Amendment only applies to deer rifles. I am seriously sick of the "you can't hunt with an AK-47" shit. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting!


Yes, there may be collectors out there who just want an AK-47 to put into the living room gun rack.


The Second Amendment has nothing to do with collector either! It has to do with people arming themselves to defend their nation from forgein aggressors or domestic tyrants! P-E-R-I-O-FUCKING-D!


For the good of all, they might consider something less attractive to burglars. We're not advocating pea-shooters; we are advocating rifles that have some legitimate purpose beyond killing cops.


It is for the good of all, and the preservation of all that is good that we keep these rifles you ninny!
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 4:25:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By jtw2:
bwahhh!

That's just creepy!



+1
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 4:25:41 PM EST
OK. WE need a Texas LEO boardmember to reply. Takers?
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 4:27:35 PM EST
... Guys this is not full-clip
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 4:32:02 PM EST
"While we believe"

What makes the arrogant bastards think what they believe should be taken as the meaning The Second Amendment??
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 4:40:41 PM EST

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By fullclip:
While we believe that Americans have the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, our Founding Fathers never contemplated the kind of firepower and the threat to law enforcement posed by military-style weapons in the hands of our citizens.



Yes they did. As a matter of fact, that was precisely the point!



While it's true that gangs and other criminals have had little trouble getting their hands on semi-automatic weapons even during the ban, they have been forced into a black market where the rifles are expensive, thus upping the illegal activities they must pursue.



So you admit that the ban failed to keep weapons out of the hand of criminals, yet you still tout it's virtues. Huh.


Now, with the weapons legal to use and own, it's predictable that the manufacturers will increase production, lowering prices and making more of them easily available.


Tell that to Colt! Besides, most of the guns on the 1994 AWB are banned from import by the 1989 Assault Weapons Import Ban.


The cops aren't being paranoid when they say that semi-automatic weapons with high-capacity magazines pose a terrific threat. They can't be blamed for worrying that outlaws can easily attain more firepower than law enforcement can muster.


Most urban police forces have begun arming their patrol officers with AR's.


Opponents of the ban say any law that interferes with the Second Amendment provides a slippery slope. That argument doesn't hold water. For years, there's been a ban on automatic weapons. And there has never been a serious move in Congress to ban deer rifles or such.


I see, so the Second Amendment only applies to deer rifles. I am seriously sick of the "you can't hunt with an AK-47" shit. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting!


Yes, there may be collectors out there who just want an AK-47 to put into the living room gun rack.


The Second Amendment has nothing to do with collector either! It has to do with people arming themselves to defend their nation from forgein aggressors or domestic tyrants! P-E-R-I-O-FUCKING-D!


For the good of all, they might consider something less attractive to burglars. We're not advocating pea-shooters; we are advocating rifles that have some legitimate purpose beyond killing cops.


It is for the good of all, and the preservation of all that is good that we keep these rifles you ninny!



I see a misunderstanding here. I did not writhe the article, the editor did. I just posted it for you to read. I am on your side!! fullclip
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 4:45:16 PM EST
I just saw the post of the loss of our member "Full-Clip". I as will others will pray for the family and him.

For those who are curious, I have been posting here under this name since Janurary of 2001. Sorry for any misunderstandings.. fullclip
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 4:46:39 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/15/2004 4:50:32 PM EST by TxLewis]
While we believe that Americans have the First Amendment right to a free press, our Founding Fathers never contemplated the kind of communication and the threat to the government by computer generated articles posted by the hands of our citizens. While it's true that gangs and other criminals have had little trouble getting their hands on photo copiers, they have been forced into a black market where the articles are expensive, thus upping the illegal activities they must pursue. Now, with high speed printers legal to use and own, it's predictable that the manufacturers will increase production, lowering prices and making more of them easily available. The politicians aren't being paranoid when they say that laser printers with high-capacity paper feeders pose a terrific threat. They can't be blamed for worrying that newspapers can easily attain more distribution of lies than law enforcement can muster. Opponents of the ban say any law that interferes with the First Amendment provides a slippery slope. That argument doesn't hold water. For years, there's been a law limiting free speech. Take for instance the law banning the yelling of FIRE in a movie theater. And there has never been a serious move in Congress to ban mimi-o-graphs or such. Yes, there may be collectors out there who just want an 3 GHZ computer with high speed internet connections and an HP 4000L to put into the home office. For the good of all, they might consider something less attractive to burglars. We're not advocating dot-matrix printers and TRS-80's; we are advocating printing stations that have some legitimate purpose beyond spreading disinformation and lies.



Think they would like this?

I am sending it to their editor.

TXL
Top Top