Assault weapons.
Just think of the term: assault weapons. Is it unreasonable to take the term literally? They are made for assaulting. They are made to kill humans.
Who should have them? Who? Say it out loud. That’s right: law enforcement, and only law enforcement. There is NO other reasonable alternative, but there are many other failed attempts at reason. We’ll hear many in response to this letter.
D.J. Diebold, Scottsdale/Mesa
manini posted at 1:56 pm on Sun, Feb 27, 2011.
Ummm, I got a couple of "assault weapons"...
my hands & feet are lethal assault weapons as a Karate/Jujitsu Black belts expert; my M-1 Garand
8-shot 30-06 caliber semiautomatic U.S. Army weapon is an "assault weapon;" my M1A1 M-14-type .308 Winchester/7.62 mm NATO semiautomatic with a 20-round magazine is an "assault weapon;" my 30-round AK-47 is an "assault weapon;" my
custom 30-round .45 Colt Semi-auto rifle is an "assault weapon;" & my .50 Caliber BMG Barett semiautomatic rifle is an "assault weapon;" to defend myself while hiking, fishing, hunting, camping through the Tonto & Sitgreaves National Forests with my family against illegal MX Drug Cartel/Mafia Marijuana farmers armed with AK-47 "assault rifles" machine guns & UZI's protecting their 40,000 marijuana plant illegal crops our dumb "law enforcement" & ICE/Border Patrol are incapable of stopping. Like ole Confucius said: "Get Ur mind in gear b4 opening Ur mouth or people will know how truly stupid U are, nitwit!"...hehehe. BTW, I'm a retired Korean & Vietnam War vet who has "assaulted" many of the U.S. enemies with my souvenir "assault rifles"...successfully, I might add...LOL!!!
Cerulean posted at 4:28 pm on Sun, Feb 27, 2011.
It was just a matter of time since G. W. Bush allowed the Fed. assault weapons ban to expire before large numbers of people were doomed to a Loughner type massacre. It will happen again.
And it took 100 years for some very odd fellows to decide that Arizona needs a state gun.
manini, I know of a few who left Vietnam a little worse for wear. I wish you well.
D.J., you are correct assault weapons are "made to kill humans."
Leon Ceniceros posted at 5:22 pm on Sun, Feb 27, 2011.
The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America...."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".
Folks, this Amendment was not referring to .22Long Rifle squirrel rifles or .12 gauge side-by-side shotguns for grouse and duck hunting. It was referring to long rifles in .30, .40 and .50 millimeter calibers that were used at the time to kill large game and Indians, British soldiers and Hessian (Prussian) Mercenaries. In other words.............HUMANS.
If the United States were to be invaded....ask yourself this "logical" question....HOW IN THE HECK ARE THE POLICE GOING TO REPEL A FOREIGN ARMY WHILE DOING "LAW ENFORCEMENT" AND PRESERVING THE PUBLIC ORDER AT THE SAME TIME.
Modern Armies across the world use...ASSAULT RIFLES....if a Militia was called out to repel an invasion....they would need the same armament (ASSAULT RIFLES) as the invading forces.
A "well regulated militia" in 2011 requires "assault rifles" in order to be a "well regulated militia". Those are the .........FACTS.
So let's use a little of the ...REASON...that you mention and not let....EMOTION...or a personal...POLITICAL AGENDA...cloud the....ISSUE AT HAND....the 2nd Amendment.
samkat posted at 6:31 pm on Sun, Feb 27, 2011.
Lets start by banning the most lethal assault weapons prevalent in the United States - the common automobile. They kill far more if our innocence citizens than the so called assault weapons.
DJ and Cerulean are a cut from the far left liberal bent I suspect. I doubt if either ever served in the military to defend our great country.
Accuracy posted at 7:24 pm on Sun, Feb 27, 2011.
“No need for public use of assault weapons,” says D.J. Diebold . . . And so did Mexican President Felipe Calderon.
During a speech given to a joint session of Congress, May 20, 2010, Mexico President Felipe Calderon urged Congress to restore a ban on assault weapons.
------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handgun possession in 2008, and decided for the first time in the nation's history that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own a gun for self-defense.
In the July, 2010 Supreme Court case, which challenged Chicago's gun laws and ban on handguns. The U.S. Supreme Court came down on the side of gun rights. Ruling the Second Amendment limits the ability of the government to restrict "the right to keep and bear arms."
The two Supreme Court's decisions represented a major win for law-abiding gun dealers and gun owners have rights. The rulings will likely be used to fight restrictive guns law in courts across the country.
Dale Whiting posted at 8:27 am on Mon, Feb 28, 2011.
When the 2nd Amendment was written, the only national defense we had was the militia. Today's militia are Active Duty, National Guard and Reserve forces, all having their own amories where their assault weapons are kept locked up tight. The 2nd Amendment has become obsolete!
And D.J., the police do not need the standard fair of assault weapons. Sure, they probably do have a few. But SWAT teams have modified weapons, ones for sniping. Few active duty or reserve forces have those sorts of assault weapons. The ones coming to mind are those SEALS fighting pirates off Samilia and forces in Afghanistan. There those modified assault weapons appear to be effective, but we are loosing those battles anyway!
Every assault weapon ought to have as its home an arms rack locked up securely in either an arms room on government property or inside of a secure storage facility used by SWAT officers.
And those Glocks and cal .45 automatic pistols "needed' for individual security ought not to be equipped with extended round magazines. It's just crazy!
Slabside posted at 10:33 am on Mon, Feb 28, 2011.
Dunce Witless says: The 2nd Amendment has become obsolete!" And the 14th Amendment is being abused by illegals but like the true liberal you are you scream bloody murder when we attempt to stop the anchor baby infestation. What a hypocrite.
Dale Whiting posted at 9:48 am on Tue, Mar 1, 2011.
Slabside,
After giving specific examples of what changes have occured after 1789 to our need for that well regulated militia, I observed that the 2nd Amendment has become obsolete. I did not say that the right to bear arms is without support on other grounds. But clearly the justification to not make laws forbidding arms no longer rests on our need for a militia. That justification clearly has become obsolete.
Are you in some sort of need to own an assault rifle? If so, why don't you explain yourself! Or is this too much for you to comprehend? Apparently so!
samkat posted at 3:20 pm on Tue, Mar 1, 2011.
Dale: If the 2nd Amendment is obsolete, then so is the 14th. Care to go for more.
Dale Whiting posted at 9:39 am on Fri, Mar 4, 2011.
samkar,
Can you read? Can you understand the words you read? Apparently not!
I observed that "I did not say that the right to bear arms is without support on other grounds." The expressed basis for the 2nd Amendment, the need for a well regulated militia, is obsolete. We no longer have any regulated militia, much less well regulated ones.
But we still do have people, people who need the numerous protections afforded by the 14th amendment. And some of those people may perceive a need to bear an arm or two for self-protection, for hunting, for recreation, but not for becoming a member of some less than well regulated militia.
Absent the need for this militia, there appears to be constitutionally consistent grounds to limit the wide open, free for all characteristic of today's arms sales.