Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/24/2017 4:44:23 PM
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 9/16/2004 6:09:23 AM EST
www.mtsusidelines.com/news/2004/09/16/Opinions/Lifting.Gun.Ban.A.Danger.To.All-720140.shtml

typical misinformed arguments "no need" "for the children" etc....

sorry if we're all gettin' burned out on this stuff, but education of the masses should save us from another ban. i've already posted a comment, help me out here. thanks.

-Grant

Link Posted: 9/16/2004 6:12:18 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/16/2004 6:29:43 AM EST by MMcCall]
Getting a college student to know their ass from their elbow about ANYTHING is too much work, especially this time of the morning.

Our best rebuttal for all this nonsense is going to be when nothing happens. Let it go.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 6:18:40 AM EST
Yeah I go to the same school as grant and I am thinking about sending an email to her
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 6:24:45 AM EST
Is it worth a response?
I mean obviously the person who wrote this spent VERY little time on research in the first place.
I saw precious few "facts" in the entire piece. This isn't a story it's the authors opinion. Nothing more.
Someone willing to pass this off as news without research obviously is not going to care how many letters they recieve with cold hard facts in it.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 6:24:53 AM EST

WEEKLY POLL
Have you ever looked at pornography on a library computer?
-Yeah, but not on purpose. Once those pop-ups start...
-No. And by no, I mean yes.
-Not on a library computer...
-Absolutely not.




Link Posted: 9/16/2004 6:28:42 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dolomite:

WEEKLY POLL
Have you ever looked at pornography on a library computer?
-Yeah, but not on purpose. Once those pop-ups start...
-No. And by no, I mean yes.
-Not on a library computer...
-Absolutely not.







there's been big controversy here about that recently- supposedly someone got removed from the library, big scene- idiots.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 6:29:38 AM EST
I would but I am not registering for an account
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 6:30:54 AM EST
Hmm. Can't post to comment on the ignorance of the author or the posters below the article.

Would just love to tackle the "rednecks just love their guns" comment.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 6:31:21 AM EST
yeah, i know it's a pain in the butt, if you guys just wanna let this one go it's fine by me- a couple of buddies and i can handle it just fine- send emails if you like.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 7:15:57 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/16/2004 7:29:59 AM EST by Leisure_Shoot]

Lifting gun ban a danger to all
Sandi's Logic
By Sandi Van Orden
Published: Thursday, September 16, 2004
Article Tools: Page 1 of 1

The ban on assault weapons expired Monday. While there are groups that speak on both sides of the former law's effectiveness, we must ask ourselves if it is smart to let people purchase these firearms.

The National Rifle Association considers the lift of the ban a triumph for law-abiding citizens who will use them for various reasons including hunting and in self-defense, according to the NRA's Web site.

Is it necessary to hunt an animal with no defenses with an assault rifle, and for that matter are these weapons what we need in a home with children?

It isn't. For the past decade people have still been able to hunt using shotguns. Others have possessed handguns and shotguns for defense of their homes.

Having an assault weapon in a home doesn't make the occupants safer.

These weapons have a specific purpose, and it is not one that civilians should undertake.

"Assault weapons are well designed to perform the military function of killing large numbers of people," according to a report by the Legal Community Against Violence.

In a commentary by John R. Lott Jr. in The Los Angeles Times, Lott says that these weapons have a different function.

"Weapons covered by the ban function the same as any semiautomatic hunting rifle," Lott said in his commentary published Sept. 10.

He continues to say that these firearms have the same effect as shotguns.

There is too much conflicting information to know what the results of the ban were, but for the last 10 years no one could walk into a store and purchase them.

If nothing else, that should have made Americans sleep a little easier.

The NRA says on their Web site that criminals will not be able to legally purchase these weapons.

That is true, a convicted criminal won't, but what if a criminal who has not been caught in a crime purchases one legally? Then the demise of this law has made life easier for that person.

Should Americans be able to possess firearms?

Yes, if they are law-abiding citizens. But that doesn't mean that anyone should own an assault rifle.

A gun owner with proper training on how to use his firearm can do just as much damage to a deer or a burglar with a shotgun or handgun as he can an assault rifle.

The average citizen doesn't need a semi-automatic rifle for any reason, but now just about anyone can own one.

Sandi Van Orden is a junior journalism major and can be reached at slv2e@mtsu.edu.



Dear Sandi,

I read your article on "assault weapons" and the 1994 Violent Crime Bill, which recently sunsetted. You mentioned "hunting" 5 times in your article. Yet, the word "hunting" is not found in the 2nd amendment once.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You do mention self defense, which is the intended purpose of the 2nd amendment. That is better than many journalists, so I give you credit for recognizing that aspect of firearms use by citizens.

What your article lacks is one reference to what has changed since the legislation sunsetted. What has changed is that bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, and a collapsible stock, are now legal to be present on rifles manufactured after 1994. Please think about how any of these 3 items will make a rifle more dangerous. Bayonet lugs mean that knives can be attached to a rifle. Are you suggesting guns will be more dangerous with a knife than they are with bullets? Flash suppressors are designed to help consume the gas that causes an enormous fireball/flame and eliminate that flash from the shooters sight when shooting at night, with the intention of helping him reduce night blindness. It does not allow the shooter to remain hidden from sight, with no muzzle blast, as is often reported. And what do collapsible stock accomplish? Make the gun more comfortable to shoot for different people? The overall length requirement has not changed for rifles. It remains 26" (although there are various state laws that make it longer. Michigan is one example) A 26" rifle is far from concealable. Try it. Put a 26" piece of wood under a coat. You can get it under your coat, but not very easily, nor inconspicuously. The point of all of this is that the ban was nothing more than cosmetic. Yet, the reason we supporters of the 2nd amendment were so adamantly opposed was, we know it would not be the last restriction of our rights, if anti-gun legislators got their way. There are plenty of legislators who wish for an outright ban of firearms in the United States. One need only look to Canada, The U.K., and Australia, and to some extent California and Massachusetts and New York City and Washington DC to see almost total gun bans already in effect. Diane Feinstein, the primary supporter of renewing the 1994 Crime bill is quoted as saying if she could ban all guns, she would. This is just a first step.

One common misconception regarding the sunsetting of the ban is that machine guns will suddenly be legal. They are, but they always have been. But machine guns are very heavily regulated by the ATF, since passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934. You must go through a 6 month application process and background check by the FBI before you are permitted to purchase one. They are also extraordinarily expensive. It is highly unlikely anyone that is criminally inclined would subject themselves to such a process. And more importantly, since it is highly unlikely, it is wrong to try stop so many other law abiding Americans from engaging in an activity because of the actions of a few criminals. Look at cars, personal watercraft, priests, chain saws, hammers, carving knives, etc.. If we applied the same logic, we would ban all of the above. All can be used in a criminal way to kill someone, or damage someone, yet they are permitted to exist, because they do far more good than harm. In the case of firearms, the same case can be made, and to top it off, they are protected by the Constitution, something that is not true for any of the other items.

Back to the 2nd amendment for a second...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This article is taken from Outdoorsbest.com and explains why the 2nd amendment refers to all people, not just militias. This is why those of us who support gun rights, and the 2nd amendment, are so adamant about fighting gun restrictions in this country. There are plenty of articles available to show that as more and more guns enter society, crime rates decrease. Crime rates have been decreasing for 10 years, according to gov't stats, as concealed carry legislation has been passed 46 states to date. But that's another "letter to the editor" Look into it, if you are interested.

RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE
Anti-gun writers cite my article (83 Michigan Law Review, pp. 204-273) as the definitive standard-model treatment. Yet, remarkably, these anti-gun writers give only that one initial mention. If they have answers to the 50 pages of evidence I offer for the standard model, they neglect to offer them. So I shall limit myself to just two examples of my unrefuted evidence.

Written by James Madison, the Bill of Rights was enacted as a single document. Whenever it says "right of the people," it does so to describe individual rights. To ignore this point you must think that in the First Amendment Madison used "right of the people" to describe an individual right. But then, 16 words later, he used it in the Second Amendment meaning a state's right. But then, 46 words later, the Fourth Amendment says "right of the people" meaning an individual right again. And then "right of the people" was used in the Ninth Amendment to mean--guess what--a right of the people.

In fact, throughout the Bill of Rights and the Constitution the word "right" is always used to refer to something individuals have and never used to refer to powers possessed by government. Such powers are always called "power" or "authority."

Respectfully,
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 8:59:46 AM EST

Originally Posted By Leisure_Shoot:

Lifting gun ban a danger to allSandi's Logic
By Sandi Van Orden
Published: Thursday, September 16, 2004
Article Tools: Page 1 of 1

Snip

Sandi Van Orden is a junior journalism major and can be reached at slv2e@mtsu.edu.



Dear Sandi,

Snip



Dude you spent way to much time on that reply. Here is all I sent her...

"You is dupid."

:D
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 9:14:33 AM EST

Originally Posted By bookertbab:

Originally Posted By Leisure_Shoot:

Lifting gun ban a danger to allSandi's Logic
By Sandi Van Orden
Published: Thursday, September 16, 2004
Article Tools: Page 1 of 1

Snip

Sandi Van Orden is a junior journalism major and can be reached at slv2e@mtsu.edu.



Dear Sandi,

Snip



Dude you spent way to much time on that reply. Here is all I sent her...

"You is dupid."

:D



[lib tree hugging hippy] IFEEL That you both did a Wonderful job! [/lib tree hugging hippy]
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 9:23:59 AM EST
Fuck her.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 9:30:57 AM EST

Originally Posted By Thepilot:
yeah, i know it's a pain in the butt, if you guys just wanna let this one go it's fine by me- a couple of buddies and i can handle it just fine- send emails if you like.



I sent an e-mail, actually looking forward to the response.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 9:41:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By TNDude:
Yeah I go to the same school as grant and I am thinking about sending an email to her



Offer to take the author to a shooting range so that she can do more in depth research.

At one point the author implies that they support home defence. Point out that a 223 round looses more energy when going through a wall than a 9mm round. Therefore a AR15 would be safer to occupants in a home defence situation than a 9mm handgun.

ktm500
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 9:59:55 AM EST

Originally Posted By skpp108:
Fuck her.



Nope, haven't seen what she looks like yet
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 10:47:15 AM EST
Copy of my response to her article.

Sandi, I am writing this in the hope that you are not a partisan who will listen to facts that fly in the face of your very poorly written article. I am going to assume that you have no idea what the 2nd amendment was written for. It was not written to guarantee that people could hunt. It was written so that the American people could defend themselves from tyranny either through a despotic government (liberal?) or from invasion by a hostile country. It was written so that the American people could have combat weapons not shotguns, deer rifles or any other hunting type of weapon. The next thing is that it has always been possible to buy "assault rifles" this ban did not prevent anyone from buying a AK47 or AR15 or whatever they wanted. What it did was say you couldn’t have one with a flash hider, bayonet lug or telescoping butstock on it. So they have been sold for the last 10 yrs without these scary accessories on it! The AWB only banned cosmetic features on some type of weapons. It also banned the current selling of high capacity magazines to civilians. But the truth was that there has been hundred of thousands of these mags that are still on the market today that were made before the AWB came into effect that anybody could buy at anytime. The only thing the AWB did was punish law abiding citizens from exercising their constitutional rights. In case you haven't noticed, criminals BREAK LAWS they don’t care what kind of laws there are because they BREAK THEM. So the AWB had absolutely no effect on any criminals what so ever all they did was punish law abiding gun owners. It also has been pointed out repeatedly that it had absolutely no effect on preventing any kind of crime involving "assault weapons". And finally there is a huge difference between a fully automatic rifle where you pull the trigger once and it discharges a whole mag at once and a semiautomatic where you have to pull the trigger for every single round. The general populace has never been able to buy a fully automatic weapon without a special federal permit and license and still cannot with the AWB's demise. The AWB had nothing to do with banning fully automatic weapons they were already banned! So in conclusion Sandi I hope you are a FAIR minded person who will write further about this in a honest, fair and factually correct follow up story.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 10:54:47 AM EST
thanks gentlemen.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 1:39:52 PM EST
fellas its not the fact that its easy to debunk its about makin some liberals cry. We have to go to this institution everyday and read there propaganda and they few of us that are educated can tune them out but the masses of students here are drones. They read they follow, I mean its written right there in front of them so they think it must be true. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH beet the---->hippie.gif
Top Top