Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Clarification needed

January 10, 2013

We need to keep in force the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but with a clarification of...... "Arms"....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(106)

CMReeder

Jan-12-13 11:13 AM

The term 'assault weapon or rifle' has been used since WWII. The military on both sides referred to these types of weapons as assault. The pro gun do not like it when it is used by those opposed to them. Now they want to be politically correct. It is not illegal to refer to them as assault.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RogerMurdock

Jan-11-13 11:20 AM

Josh, That's correct per the Armalite website.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Josh84

Jan-11-13 8:11 AM

RogerMurdock Jan-10-13 10:22 PM***"The AR designation has nothing to do with "Automatic Rifle."

Could be wrong, but I always thought "AR" stood for "ArmaLite Rifle".

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rmiller

Jan-11-13 8:03 AM

Gavin,

While David Koresh was a sick individual and the purported abuse that was going on inside of the compound was not justified, what transpired in the name of "law" was just another example of the "state" out of control. My memory recalls Ruby Ridge and the bungling of forces by big brother also. I may part with some of my conservative friends on this topic, but so be it. The govt. is oppressive..some ways subtly, some aggressively, but still oppressive. Progressives bemoan the killing of innocent children by a few madmen, but thinks nothing of their destruction with (arms) of innocent children, either.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Jan-11-13 5:22 AM

You do realize that "Fast and Furious" and the tragedy at Waco have absolutely no connection at all, right?

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RogerMurdock

Jan-10-13 10:22 PM

Enigma, You might want to give the ArmaLite website a look-see and read a little of the history section. The DOD had nothing to do with the AR designation. The AR-1 and AR-5 were both bolt action rifles and the AR-24 is a pistol. Both the AR-30 and the AR-50 are also bolt action rifles. The AR-17 is a shotgun. The AR designation has nothing to do with "Automatic Rifle".

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Jan-10-13 9:37 PM

Would you still feel threatened that someone is gonna come take your guns away?

Yes, because the gun grabbing is not about the mass killing or any other crime for that matter. It is about taking the guns away from citizens so that they cannot oppose anything the government wants to do. That's what gun grabbing is always about.

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

djzlucky

Jan-10-13 8:50 PM

I'll play along with the hypothetical (and ignore the or not).

First their would probably be an instant call for impeachment on a number of charges. While that was occurring I'd wager even more than 90% of the military would either lay down their arms or actively resist. In either case our guns would be safe.

New hypothetical...a few years pass, gun laws are tightened,effective mental health reforms are in place, the current climate has cooled off and people aren't arguing as ferociously about this topic anymore. Over time gun deaths have gone down and mass shootings have ceased. Would you still feel threatened that someone is gonna come take your guns away?

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rmiller

Jan-10-13 8:29 PM

Just a hypothetical...or not...

The CIC orders confiscation of all guns in this country and declares martial law to enforce taking our "arms"......

Some have mentioned that we wouldn't stand a chance against our military? I could be wrong, but the military's first obligation is to defend the Constitution of the United States (of which our 2nd A is assured)....I would wager 90% of our forces, would defend the citizenry first...as should be by law.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Jan-10-13 8:16 PM

Can we please dispose with the stupid term "assault weapons"? There is no such thing except in the minds of gun hating politicians. what they really are is semi-automatic rifles that are ergonomically superior to old style hunting rifles. The improvements were developed by the military to make it possible to carry the rifle for a long time without getting tired or injured. That certainly isn't something a hunter would want, or is it. Only people who know nothing about guns would think that there is something especially harmful about the "assault weapon". So let's get down to the real issue. Laws to limit what weapons we can buy or own are just a stepping stone to owning no guns.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rmiller

Jan-10-13 8:13 PM

Sham,

"Still lookin' forward to that Race War, are you?? "

Phil said nothing about race....why would you?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Jan-10-13 8:00 PM

It would depend on the definition of an "assault weapon"? Is it just the cosmetic appearance or the actual function?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

sideliner

Jan-10-13 7:51 PM

nobud, I absolutely agree with your right to own firearms for the protection of your family and sport shooting. I get that. But are assault weapons part of that arsenal? And if so, are they necessary to fulfill those needs you listed?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Jan-10-13 7:48 PM

..and for what it's worth Bobbie, I blame David Koresh and his followers for the tragedy at Waco.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Jan-10-13 7:31 PM

"Furthermore, I would be more leery of those stockpiling arms of that variety and capacity for human destruction than I would of the government they say they fear." - sideliner

July 28, 1932 - Bonus Army

Executive Order 9066, signed by Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 19, 1942 - allowed for the internment of an entire race of people for a crime of nothing more than their ancestry. Also notice that it is not a law, but an Executive Order.

May 4,1970 - Kent State

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rick424

Jan-10-13 7:23 PM

100

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nobud74

Jan-10-13 6:50 PM

Spike, I own firearms for recreational shooting, to protect my family and property should the need arise and any other threat to my family's well being. Government included. I would hope that only the first of those items would ever come into play, but I am perfectly willing to engage the other two should they arise.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

philunderwood

Jan-10-13 6:44 PM

Side, do you think there aren’t any liberals in the Republican Party?

You’ll have to let us know your definition of Conservative, since many on the right didn’t consider “Compassionate Conservatism” as anything but moderate; certainly not conservative.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Jan-10-13 6:12 PM

...and for what it's worth, they were not all "armed citizens of Afghanistan" that fought the Soviets.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Jan-10-13 6:10 PM

"Sticks and stones would not stop them." - rick424

No, but Stingers shooting down their Hind D's did.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

sideliner

Jan-10-13 5:58 PM

enigma: "Have you ever heard of the slippery slope? ... Just keep sliding things in the direction you want to go, a little at a time until you get what you wanted all along."

Is that the "slippery slope" upon which Conservatives got us into Iraq? Do you mean all that war-drum beating, innuendo, and rhetoric repeated so many times it became "fact?" THAT's "slippery slope" you are talking about?

Please don't act like liberals are exclusive in their "love to use the method" when such glaring examples of the Republican party grooming the slope like masters are rampant through recent history.

1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

sideliner

Jan-10-13 5:31 PM

I highly doubt that the ownership of assault weapons by civilians has much to do with protecting themselves from an unfriendly or any other type of government. It has nothing to do with that. They just want, need, gotta have, and all that goes with that type of selfishness.

Furthermore, I would be more leery of those stockpiling arms of that variety and capacity for human destruction than I would of the government they say they fear. And we have seen evidence of those people's mental instability in various standoffs across the country with law enforcement officials.

2 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

spike2

Jan-10-13 5:23 PM

Boobie - Congress has to release the funds before the President can do anything. They are voting on the relief. Only flood insurance was given aid. Oh, Boobie, we don't need the well-formed militia because it is no longer necessary. No redcoats. How about you stick to reloading your musket. You don't get to eliminate portions if you don't want us to. Again, where is your militia?

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

spike2

Jan-10-13 5:12 PM

How many of you really bought a gun to protect yourself from the government? How many purchased to protect yourself and/or family from an intruder. Be honest.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

djzlucky

Jan-10-13 4:55 PM

Enigma, I'd be happy to look at any new legislation if it existed. At this point all we have are proposals and ideas. No new bills have been put forth.

Also, I'm hoping the Liberal comment was just a fallback for you and not meant specifically about me. I rarely post on here but was genuinely curious about how other people saw our government actually following through on the threats I keep hearing gun rights people espousing. I think I made some cogent points and asked simple questions that weren't filled with either sides rhetoric.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 106 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web