« Share your thankful thoughts | Main | Don’t listen to Limbaugh »

November 16, 2008

Who really needs an assault rifle?

The picture of Ward Weber of Olathe buying an assault rifle (11/10, A-1, “Election’s outcome

triggers record sales at gun shops”) makes me glad I live in Lee’s Summit.

Why would an ordinary citizen want an assault rifle? Have you watched the news lately? There

are senseless killings every day. Will Mr. Weber’s gun help that? Will he hunt with that

rifle? Pity the prey.

We can only hope that the powerful NRA lobby is faced with a president who won’t back down

from them and will finally push through guns laws with teeth.

I welcome President-elect Obama and anything he can do to change the gun-hungry nation that

President Bush has incited with his tactics of fear.

A.L Pearson

Lee’s Summit

Comments

Engineer

dolomon
gotcha beat on hand guns-11 .357's to start with-but you are ahead of me on semis, M1, M14, Mini 14. No comics but piles of paper backs. Takes one to know one?

whispering_to_kc

The NRA is a "civil rights" group?

As is the Klan. Fighting for the civil rights of robed, oppressed white people EVERYWHERE!!!

The same people who "have" to carry for protection are, often as not, obese. If personal well-being was the real reason behind your desire to carry, you'd first lay off the Cheetos and Lamar's and drop a few pounds.

Further, the people who do bad things with firearms frequently acquire them (by theft) from people who bought them legally for protection.

It makes no sense. But, why should it?

A shop in Lee's Summit used to sell submachine guns out of the back of his store, Mr. Pearson. Infringing on his rights as a free American, the Feds keeping the store under surveillance from the white van parked forever in front of the Gas Company building across the street were not amused They eventually placed the store owner in the Big House.

Johnny Yuma

Gun Control is very simple: You don't like guns, don't get them.

Until someone misuses one it's none of your business what they do with it. Our criminal justice system is designed to punish people after a crime's been committed, not because the possess a tool that _might_ be used for crime.

BTW nice touch with the Bush reference. How long are you going to make him the cause for all evil in the world?

solomon

Engineer,

I have a SKS I brought home from asia in the 70s, a couple of aks, a range rifle and a stag arms lefty new in the box. Throw in a few shotguns and 13 handguns and many would call me a gun nut.

I also have about 7800 comic books.

Engineer

repete
As to effectiveness, the BAR was very effective at long range. The other automatic "shoulder arm' of my day were, as you say, only effective at limited range. However, the 2nd Amendment was about personal and public defense,it was not about hunting. I know I a somewhat outmoded as I shot for objects and today's soldiers are trained in "area fire". But it still remains true that a semiautomatic arm is not used as an assault arm by any current army. Therefore calling a semiautomatic arm an "assault rifle" is at the very best a misnomer. This designation for military look-alikes was chosen for propaganda purposes. And this ploy has worked exceedingly well.

repete

Engineer,

Points taken re military intent of the 2nd Amendment. I think it's fair to assume when using the word militia the Constitution has a military weapon in mind. Granted, military weapons of the late 18th century weren't much different from hunting weapons (at least the long ones), so I'm not sure what the language would read were there as clear a distinction then as there is now.

As far as the auto vs. semi-auto argument goes, most standard military assault rifles are select fire, having both semi- and full auto. So although semi-only weapons are by definition not assault rifles, there can be a military application of a semi-only weapon. If you've fired a full auto rifle you know that its effectiveness is very limited except in close quarters. What I'm saying is there isn't *that* much of a difference between an AR-15 and an M16/M4. Splitting hairs I guess.

While a .30-06 will do more damage than a 5.56, it's not the power that bothers the anti-gun people, it's the application. AR-15s aren't hunting rifles. Although your .30-06 can be seen as nothing more than a sniper rifle, it does have hunting applications. So it's easier to ban the assault because its application can be categorized as either "fun" or "killing people". Fun things are easier to do away with than practical things. Ask any parent.

Know what I mean?

Engineer

Jim
One must give solomon a pass on some things. But as the Framers had in mind the most militarily effective weapons available when they wrote the 2nd Amendment, what they would want to own would be fully automatic weapons, not semiautomatic military look-alikes. The amount of misinformation on this matter is staggering as demonstrated by the letter and at least one post on the thread. In a way this shows how effective the continued lies and misinformation put out by the "antis" has been. The very designation "assault weapon" for a semiautomatic firearm is a lie or at least it is deliberately misleading. No national army in the world today uses a semiautomatic as its assault arm. The arms so called are generally less powerful than the usual large game hunting rifle such as a 30-06, .308 or .270. However it is hard to explain these things to people who have no idea how a semiautomatic weapon functions.

Jim

"I mean, many of them owned people."


Uh oh. More "hate America first" language, Solomon? You're going to have Rogue and Engineer in a tizzy.

repete

Gun shops are making a fortune off the economic windfall created by the panic of Obama's election--a panic which has very little basis in reality. I was applying for my conceal and carry last week and everyone in the sheriff's office was in a stink. I went shooting this weekend at a local range and people there were grumbling too.

This is rather entertaining considering Obama has stated very clearly on more than one occasion that he has no problem with handguns, hunting rifles and shotguns.

solomon

If assault rifles were available to the founding fathers I think they would have owned some. I mean, many of them owned people.

I don't understand why anyone wants to regulate what I have in my home based on a very small % of the population who use weapons in criminal activities. Why should I own an assault rifle? Because I want to.

I'd like to see a study that shows where the anti assault rifle crowd stand on abortion and smoking.

TinaMcG

If you thought it was a good idea to buy guns after this election, you're a moron. No one is going to take your killing toys away. You will still have the right to accidentally blow your family members' heads off, kill your hunting buddy while drunk, or shoot your neighbor when you think he's trying to break into your house. The Constitution gives you that right, and Barack Obama has never indicated he intends to screw around with the Constitution. That was Bush's specialty.

Go ahead. Hunt to your heart's content. Fill your freezers for the winter, or, if you're a hunter who just likes killing things, have a ball. I will always support the rights of hunters to hunt, though I have a hard time thinking of killing as a sport. Sorry, we just view it differently.

But assault weapons...give me a break. Something tells me the Founding Fathers are spinning in their hallowed graves at the thought of those weapons of mass destruction being legal.

Arminius

A.L Pearson answered her own question.

solomon

Rogue,

You won't find this on Youtube while you're looking for rumpshaker rap videos but if you use your "search" box enter "civil rights" and then "constitutional rights" you'll find they are different things.

The move to limit gun ownership is an attack on our Constitutional rights, not our civil rights. You like to make it a civil rights issue so it looks like you're a victim.

NoMoreMrNiceGuy

The US Constitution does not make any statements disregarding ANY particular type of gun. I would bet that Socialist-elect will afford for his Civil Defense Force to carry assault rifles. We were granted UNALIENABLE rights. You bleeding heart liberals just don't get it. Criminals will get their mits on whatever type of weapon is manufactured, no law will stop that. Why do common citizens need an assault rifle? Criminals, rogue government and fundemantal right to own.

Rogue

Well stated Kee, very well stated.

It is on record that the President Elect has in the past: consistently opposed concealed carry; as also saying "just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the excercise of that right" (sounds like we are close to civil rights to me Race Card); has also said "I think it is a scandal that this president (bush) did not authorize the renewal of an assault weapons ban;" etc. etc. etc.

I have purchased a couple of firearms in advance of this man's regime.

solomon

I take issue with the question of "who needs...." The Constitution says I can have, that is enough for me. The ANTI people, no smoking, no standing at concerts, no this not that except what we think society should have are really a pain in (name your favorite pained are).

Good morning Kee,

The NRA was not founded as a civil rights organization, and only has been touting themselves as such after gun ownership became an issue in modern times. When they came into existence gun ownership was not problematic, and the only anti-concealed laws enacted in the nation were done (as in Missouri, which was the political arguemnt used to get CC on the ballot in the late 90s) to keep emancipated Americans from carrying weapons concealed. They are now a civil rights group, but more aptly they are a definition of the 2nd amendment group. The 2nd amendment is a Constitutional right, not a civil right.

Kee

Mr. Pearson, please define "assault rifle" for us, I have seen everything from a Remington 700 to a Ruger 10-22 termed an assault rifle. Both are common hunting guns.

The oldest Civil Rights Organization in the nation, the NRA founded in 1871 by former officers in the Union Army has done more sir to promote gun-safety and prevent crime than any other group in this nation.

If you do not chose to support the hunting and shooting sports thats fine, just do not infringe upom the rights of other citizens who do.

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright