Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/11/2004 1:41:53 AM EST
www.lacrossetribune.com/arti...ews/1news11.txt

Residents not excited about assault weapons

By LINDA McALPINE La Crosse Tribune
The 10-year-old ban on buying some assault weapons is due to expire Monday, but some Coulee Region residents wonder why anyone would want to buy one in the first place.

Talking to folks enjoying a late summer day out and about turned up similar sentiments about the right to own guns, just not assault weapons.

"There's no need at all for the general public to have assault weapons," said Sue Jeffers of Stoddard,Wis., who was reading a book on a bench in Riverside Park.

"The only thing people would use them for is criminal activity," she said. "There could be an increase in break-ins and drive-by shootings, if they are allowed."

Jeffers said she believes people have the right to protect themselves, but she draws the line at assault weapons.

La Crescent, Minn., residents David and Virginia Faas, eating a picnic supper at the park with their two young children, said they own no guns, themselves.

"We don't have any guns in our house," Virginia Faas said as she bent down to pick up one of her children.

"I hunt, but I'm a bow hunter," David Faas said. "I do believe that everyone has the right to own one, but they don't need an assault weapon.
"It would be fine if everyone was sane and responsible and there were no criminals," he added with a laugh.

Dropping off his double barrel shotgun for repair at a local sporting goods store, Gordon Krueger, of Eyota, Minn., said even if the ban expired, he probably wouldn't run right out and buy such a weapon.

"They're a short-range weapon and not too accurate. Their maximum range is probably a couple of hundred yards," he explained.

"If you like to do plinking, shooting tin cans or targets it's a cheap way to shoot because the ammunition is sold all over and it's cheap," he added.

Krueger, who said he enjoys hunting ducks, pheasant and deer, is also something of a gun collector.

"I have no use for an assault weapon, but if I wanted to buy one for my collection, I should be able to do that, as a law-abiding citizen," he said.

The federal ban, part of the 1994 Crime Bill, will — unless congressional leaders step in — expire at midnight Monday.

The federal law applied to 19 semiautomatic weapons, which fire one round and load automatically each time the trigger is pulled.

Fully automatic weapons, which are designed for military use only, remain prohibited to the public.

Linda McAlpine can be reached at (608) 791-8220 or lmcalpine@lacrosse
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 1:52:39 AM EST

Originally Posted By Burley:

"I have no use for an assault weapon, but if I wanted to buy one for my collection, I should be able to do that, as a law-abiding citizen," he said.



That is a hunter I can respect.
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 2:04:33 AM EST
I'll be darned. The article actually portrays both sides of the issue. The ignorant side and the right side.
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 2:27:54 AM EST

"The only thing people would use them for is criminal activity," she said. "There could be an increase in break-ins and drive-by shootings, if they are allowed."


...and computers will only be used for hacking, cars will be used for drunk driving, ropes will be used for hanging, dogs for attacking, rocks for thrwoing....ban everything.




Link Posted: 9/11/2004 2:34:20 AM EST
Dogs and cats living together........ mass hysteria.
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 2:42:34 AM EST
Don't more children drown in tubs every year than die because of gun violence? I remember reading the stats some where.

I love how the people who are against "assault weapons" fail to display an ounce of rational thought in the matter. It's allways answers like "I don't see why you need an UZI to hunt with," or "Only bad people use these, so why let them be legal."

People would kick and scream if their other Constitutional rights were being infringed upon, yet they wonder why we have a problem with the erosion of the 2nd Ammendment.
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 2:54:53 AM EST

"I hunt, but I'm a bow hunter," David Faas said. "I do believe that everyone has the right to own one, but they don't need an assault weapon.
"It would be fine if everyone was sane and responsible and there were no criminals," he added with a laugh.



I know many hunters, some in my family, who say the same thing. What they don't realize is that this is just a foot in the door. An assault weapons ban is just a stepping stone for outright ban on all firearms.
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 3:02:09 AM EST
The average person is not too fucking bright to start with and when you understand the Marxist lefts un-ending,40 year,from ALL directions,"Educational "(hi-jacking our schoolchildrens'minds with their B.S.) and the downright lies of "Dis-informatzia"coupled with the media,"False-info blitzes"........it is small wonder that the hamsters are restless.

The "Public" has been "Conditioned" to respond to whatever bullshit the Media and their Socialist masters have deemed to be "Worthy of belief."


Don't blame the puppets,blame the puppeters.People have allways been foolish and allways will be foolish.
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 3:44:29 AM EST
Send them an email thanking them for honest, unbiased journalism! I sent one of to the journalist, we need to make sure we support those who seek to represent the truth.

"I would like to thank you for writing such a good
peice on the AWB sunset which is rapidly approaching.
Too many journalists try to put a negative slant on
articles which deal with the subject, and its
refreshing to see an honorable journalist who can just
represent the facts.
I myself am an avid hunter and gun collector and I
fully support the passing of the AWB. Crime statistics
show assault weapons are used in approx 3% of all gun
crimes, which represents a very small portion of all
gun crimes. Additionally, the assault weapons ban was
a paper victory only, as the weapons it banned were
still publically available if in a slightly different
form.
I feel the qoute from Kruger sums it up best, ""I have
no use for an assault weapon, but if I wanted to buy
one for my collection, I should be able to do that, as
a law-abiding citizen," he said."
Again, thank you for your good article and
professional journalism on the subject and presenting
both sides of the argument,
Eli"
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 4:06:40 AM EST
RANT ON:

I don't recall asking any of those assholes to determine what I NEED! I alone will determine what I need or WANT.

Hey, you don't need that ZX Turbo-charged thing to do 150 mph. No one NEEDS to go that fast. See the direction that line of thinking (or lack thereof) can go?

I also don't give a shit what pecentage of sheeple are opposed to the sunset. Since when are popularity polls of the ignorant public used to determine which Constitutional rights are infringed. Hell, if that was the case I bet we'd have all our peace loving Muslim brothers here in the U.S. safely locked away. Another analogy: at one point (early on) the majority of the German people supported Hitler. Did that make it right? "Majority" doesn't mean shit when we're talking about Constitutional rights.

RANT OFF.
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 4:40:09 AM EST
There was nothing truly balanced about that article. Both hunters interviewed were dipshits! They didn't interview anyone who actually likes semi-autos and owns them.

The theme, as usual: Who would want one of these *bad* kind of guns?

"They are not accurate" -- yeah, I consider MOA accuracy out of an CMP AR-15 sub-par

"They are only short range" -- my FAL shoots to 1000 yards. WTH? (this, coming from a dude who owns shotguns!)

"I have no use for an assault weapon" -- fine, but your opinion is hardly universal you dumb old codger. Why do shotgunners always have that holier than thou bs attitude?

And why does the issue of need always get raised? As if anyone "needs" a BMW or a Corvette. Anyone who collects anything does not "need" to collect it. You can find a utilitarian argument against every single form of freedom there is.

Instead of giving an interview to the media freaks, all you need to say is "no comment" or "go away you lying turd." Because you're not going to educate reporters who already know exactly what they have to write for their editors to print it.

And what's with Minnesotans and Wisconsans anyways? They have good midwestern values for the most part, but you bring up guns and they turn into communists all of a sudden. Remember the Northfield bank robbery? Remember when the townspeople turned out--heavily ARMED--and basically blew most of the James/Younger gang to pieces? That is one of Minnesota's finest moments (although, truth be told, I am a huge fan of Jesse James for other reasons).

Link Posted: 9/11/2004 4:41:48 AM EST
IDIOTS

Fuck them, it's over monday and they can drown in tears
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 4:53:12 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/11/2004 4:56:09 AM EST by pale_pony]
When will these sheep learn that it's NOT ABOUT DUCK HUNTING!

Our forefathers did not enumerate our God Given rights in the US Constitution to play chess, or go bowling, it's not about a fuggin' sport. The framers of our Constitution did not recognize the Army's or the National Guard's right to Free Speech or Freedom of the Press. IT'S WE, THE PEOPLE! It's about the ultimate recall election. It's about defending our country against ALL enemies, both foreign and DOMESTIC.


They are NOT to be called "Assault Weapons" any more. They are "HOMELAND DEFENSE WEAPONS!"
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 4:59:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By ABNAK:
RANT ON:

I don't recall asking any of those assholes to determine what I NEED! I alone will determine what I need or WANT.

Hey, you don't need that ZX Turbo-charged thing to do 150 mph. No one NEEDS to go that fast. See the direction that line of thinking (or lack thereof) can go?

I also don't give a shit what pecentage of sheeple are opposed to the sunset. Since when are popularity polls of the ignorant public used to determine which Constitutional rights are infringed. Hell, if that was the case I bet we'd have all our peace loving Muslim brothers here in the U.S. safely locked away. Another analogy: at one point (early on) the majority of the German people supported Hitler. Did that make it right? "Majority" doesn't mean shit when we're talking about Constitutional rights.

RANT OFF.




AMEN BROTHER!!!!! Rant away!!!!!
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 7:18:14 AM EST

"There's no need at all for the general public to have assault weapons," said Sue Jeffers of Stoddard,Wis., who was reading a book on a bench in Riverside Park.



There's no need for you to have a gas-guzzling SUV either, s0kkermommie. Get a station wagon.
The problem with people like this is they NEVER believe that they are part of the "general public" (her words). They can always make an exemption for themselves.


"The only thing people would use them for is criminal activity," she said. "There could be an increase in break-ins and drive-by shootings, if they are allowed."



She must be a prostitute then. I mean she's got all the necessary equipment, so it must be so.


Jeffers said she believes people have the right to protect themselves, but she draws the line at assault weapons.


Sorry folks, you can't use a highly-effective weapon to protect yourself. Go stand in line to buy your 10/22 and .38 Special. Sue S0kkermommie has deemed that you have no use for an assault weapon for any purpose, including self-defense.


"I hunt, but I'm a bow hunter," David Faas said. "I do believe that everyone has the right to own one, but they don't need an assault weapon.



Translation: I got mine, fuck the rest of you. As long as I get what I want.


"It would be fine if everyone was sane and responsible and there were no criminals," he added with a laugh.



Better outlaw bowhunting too, then. There's too many poachers, and silent assassin bows give poachers an unfair advantage over the Game & Fish folks. I mean, you don't need a bow, you can just buy your meat at the supermarket like every else.


Dropping off his double barrel shotgun for repair at a local sporting goods store, Gordon Krueger, of Eyota, Minn., said even if the ban expired, he probably wouldn't run right out and buy such a weapon.

"They're a short-range weapon and not too accurate. Their maximum range is probably a couple of hundred yards," he explained.



Short-range weapon? Shorter range than that double barrel Fuddgun? Even if this guy WASN'T a complete moron, a couple hundred yards is still longer range that what's capable with his Fuddgun. I guess those guys at Camp Perry must be complete jackasses to think they can hit targets at 1000 yards with an 'assault weapon'.


Krueger, who said he enjoys hunting ducks, pheasant and deer, is also something of a gun collector.



Why does hunting keep getting associated with the Second Amendment? Is there an agenda here, or are people really so simple-minded that all they can do is make the weak association between 'keeping and bearing arms' and the fact that some hunters use guns?


The federal law applied to 19 semiautomatic weapons, which fire one round and load automatically each time the trigger is pulled.

Fully automatic weapons, which are designed for military use only, remain prohibited to the public.



Somebody in the media actually did 5 minutes worth of research. Wow.


Amendment II

A well regulated militia duckhunter, being necessary to the security of a free state absolutely nothing, the right of the people to keep and bear arms double barrel Fuddguns, shall not be infringed.


Link Posted: 9/11/2004 7:23:59 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/11/2004 7:27:03 AM EST by RenegadeX]

Originally Posted By napalm:

Somebody in the media actually did 5 minutes worth of research. Wow.




Except for the fact it is completely false, ownership of fully automatic weapons are NOT prohibited by the public. I legally own several.
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 7:39:43 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/11/2004 7:40:48 AM EST by FNBrowning]

Originally Posted By napalm:
[quote

Amendment II

A well regulated militia duckhunter, being necessary to the security of a free state absolutely nothing, the right of the people to keep and bear arms double barrel Fuddguns, shall not be infringed.



That pharaphrase is a real gem!

I second the questioned asked by thelibertarian:
Why do shotgunners always have that holier than thou bs attitude?

Link Posted: 9/11/2004 11:03:12 AM EST

Originally Posted By RenegadeX:

Originally Posted By napalm:

Somebody in the media actually did 5 minutes worth of research. Wow.




Except for the fact it is completely false, ownership of fully automatic weapons are NOT prohibited by the public. I legally own several.




Please note that I said "5 minutes," not "5 minutes and 30 seconds."

Link Posted: 9/11/2004 11:36:35 AM EST

Originally Posted By thelibertarian:
There was nothing truly balanced about that article. Both hunters interviewed were dipshits! They didn't interview anyone who actually likes semi-autos and owns them.

The theme, as usual: Who would want one of these *bad* kind of guns?

"They are not accurate" -- yeah, I consider MOA accuracy out of an CMP AR-15 sub-par

"They are only short range" -- my FAL shoots to 1000 yards. WTH? (this, coming from a dude who owns shotguns!)



What is the distance that EVERY United States Marine qualifies at using only iron sights? I think it is a bit more than 25 yards.
Top Top