Link?
But, really, where to start with this shit?
But semiautomatic guns aren't used for safety or recreation; their rat-a-tat is meant to turn a civilian landscape into something resembling a war zone.
|
No answer for that which is unanswerable. The big lie is obviously the best in her opinion, so why not lead with it.
This nation first restricted private ownership of fully automated weapons -- that is, machine guns -- in 1934. Why owning a Kalashnikov or an Uzi has a more acceptable public purpose eludes me.
|
Who says that gun ownership must have a public purpose? Does your ownership of a pair of shoes have a public purpose? To answer it directly, however, it's only necessary to go right to the Second Amendment itself "...necessary to the security of a free state..."
At first glance, extending it would appear to be common sense.
|
Nuff said.
Unfortunately, when it comes to legislating gun use in this country, common sense takes a back seat to emotion.
|
Well put, but obviously by mistake. She apparently thinks that the conservatives are using emotional arguments. Pot > kettle > black. Wow!
Helped by the President's flip-flop...
|
Once again: Pot > kettle > black. This, from the side that is backing the consummate flip-flopper.
The facts show that the ban's effectiveness in reducing criminal use of guns with military-style features and large ammunition capacities is debatable.
|
And then it's followed by the facts about 2 paragraphs below:
The weapons banned in the law were used in only about 2 percent of all gun crimes before the ban, so banning them hardly had an effect.
|
WTF is she thinking anyway?
And the ban left untouched the real sources of danger with guns: illegal purchases, spotty prosecution of gun trafficking, and irresponsible owners.
|
And this is a problem with the AWB, how? (I can just hear the editors discussion about this article "Hey, let's just throw it all up against the wall & see what sticks.")
When the ban took effect on Sept. 13, 1994, the country was reeling from stories of assault weapons used in school shootings, gang warfare and other acts of seemingly senseless violence.
|
I assume that she's talking about Columbine even though it took place long after the AWB. In any event, things like that are more a function of the extensive coverage and agenda driven coverage, at that, by the ultra-leftwing media. Interestingly, the young lady who provided some of the firearms to Harris & Klebold was never charged.
...Jerry Lee Center of Criminology at the University of Pennsylvania.
|
Who know that Jerry Lee Lewis was even in to criminology?
One moral of this story is that even well-intentioned attempts to stem the flow of goods in a market economy can backfire, since such attempts spur producers to find ingenious yet legal ways of circumventing the common good.
|
More whining that sounds like the gun manufacturers somehow tricked the lawmakers. If the lawmakers are that naive, then they deserve what they get.
I bet that his namesake is rolling over in his grave!
...the ease with which weapons are purchased at gun shows without any scrutiny of buyers' background or intent...
|
Don't let the facts get in your way.
Webster and his colleagues just published research showing that laws requiring guns to be safely stored can help reduce teen suicide.
|
It would be interesting to see the "facts" that make up that study. Can you say "hypothesis fitting? I knew you could."
Our existing laws are often barely enforced. The Brady Act of 1993 created a three-day waiting period and required that firearms dealers perform background checks. But a report issued in July by the inspector general of the U.S. Department of Justice found lax enforcement. In 2002 and 2003, for instance, less than 1 percent of the 120,000 people with a questionable background were prosecuted.
|
And, IIRC, zero were prosecuted during the Clintons terms.
The gun lobby cries that instead of new laws we should better enforce the ones we have. Fine. Let's do it.
|
Now where's that interpretation of what a woman really means when she says "fine?" Somehow I have the feeling that even stricter enforcement still would not placate her.
Just wait: The next time someone opens fire on a school or street or restaurant, we'll be clamoring to bring it back.
|
Or not. Hopefully if anything that tragic happens there will be several people with legal concealed weapons who will take out the bad guy/s. Again, however, it could wind up like the coverage of the shooting at Appalachian Law School that died a quick death when it came to light that the bad guy was stopped with legal firearms. Or, the Pali terrorist who was shot in an Israeli supermarket by a shopper who was carrying a legal handgun & she shot him before he could detonate his suicide bomb. The major concern in these types of incidents, after the tragic loss of life, is the media advancing their agenda. If it is a slow news day, a shooting can be vastly blown out of proportion. It's unfortunate, but people have been doing terrible things to one another since there have been people. Disarming lawful gun owners is not going to change that.
At the risk of being called a sexist, this sounds like a typical female rant disguised as a well thought out argument.
WTF is an LCM anyway?
And who is Jane R. Eisner?