The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights > Legal and Political

 
 
Thread Tools
Old March 16, 2005, 12:58 AM   #1
XavierBreath
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 2002
Location: North Louisiana
Posts: 2,800
Let's get assault weapons off our streets

Let's get assault weapons off our streets

By SHERRY LONG
Staff Writer
A man drives downtown in Tyler and opens fire on the county courthouse steps, killing his ex-wife, an innocent bystander and wounding numerous others.

A sheriff's deputy remains in critical condition from his wounds.
SHERRY LONG
The Daily News


Unfortunately, this story is very familiar.

It happened last Thursday afternoon at the Smith County Courthouse when the shooter was due in court concerning a child custody case.

The man used an AK-47 semi-automatic assault firearm to kill his victims.

A quick check on the Internet revealed that on the same day a Los Angeles city employee shot two co-workers using the same type of gun that was used in the Tyler killings - a semi-automatic assault weapon.

Who needs a semi-automatic weapon?

I fully understand the United States Constitution allows people the right to protect themselves and their homes by owning guns.

But semi-automatic weapons?

What in the world would you kill with a semi-automatic, unless you are just purposely going hunting for other human beings?

Are you going to go out and shoot a deer with a semi-automatic?

I admit that I don't know a lot about hunting, but seems like if you use a semi-automatic there won't be much left of the very animals you're trying to take home for dinner.

Plus, animals will hear a multitude of gunfire, not just one shot.

Personally, I'm scared of guns. I will not go near them, whether they're pistols or rifles. I don't care. I have buried too many friends and family members who died from shooting incidents.

A better question to ask is, why are semi-automatic guns even manufactured?

Most large corporations are driven by the profit motive - cold, hard, green cash. It's a simple true hard fact of life.

How money-hungry and greedy does a corporation have to be to put killing machines on the streets?

In 1994, Congress banned automatic and semiautomatic weapons, but it seems there are more reports than ever about shootings involving assault weapons.

"Immediately after the 1994 law was enacted, the gun industry evaded it by making slight, cosmetic design changes to banned weapons-including those banned by name in the law-and continued to manufacture and sell these "post-ban" or "copycat" guns," as reported in a study by the Violence Policy Center.

In May 2003, a congressman from New York authored a bill to make it harder for gun manufacturers to make and sell the post-ban weapons.

I hope it passes. These types of weapons need to be taken off the streets once and forever.

Federal law states that automatic weapons can only be used by the military.

I can understand the military needing automatic weapons. They conduct business in war zones, where the enemy is likely to be equipped with equally powerful and destructive automatic weapons.

But on the streets of our cities right here at home?

Assault weapons have no place in America or on our streets.

It's not exactly what our founding fathers had in mind when they said we have the right to bear arms and protect ourselves.

Staff writer Sherry Long can be reached via email at schools@hendersondailynews.com.


http://www.hendersondailynews.com/ar...opiniontue.txt


__________________
Xavier's Blog
XavierBreath is offline  
Old March 16, 2005, 01:28 AM   #2
Crosshair
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Posts: 5,320
*Head explodes from anti-gun BS* :barf:

I could, if I wanted (I don't, don't call the police) to, go on a killing rampage with my M91/30 rifle. I could go on a killing rampage with an Axe, my car (Farmers market anyone. ), etc.

Police have semi-automatic assault weapons *head explodes again* does that mean they are all going to go start killing masses of people? I think not.

I say we set up a fund to wrap this persons entire house in bubble wrap so that he won't get hurt by the big bad world. Better yet, drop them off in the middle of Washington DC at 1am and see how well the make it out. (Guns are illegal there so it should be a nice urban utopia with people crapping sunshine, right?)

I need to stop, my head is hurting too much.
Crosshair is offline  
Old March 16, 2005, 05:03 AM   #3
tyme
Staff
 
Join Date: October 13, 2001
Posts: 3,152
I invited her to respond to this thread.
__________________
“The egg hatched...” “...the egg hatched... and a hundred baby spiders came out...”
“Who are you?” “A friend. I'm here to prevent you from making a mistake.” “You have no idea what I'm doing here, friend.” “In specific terms, no, but I swore an oath to protect the world...”
“It's a goal you won't understand until later. Your job is to make sure he doesn't achieve the goal.”
tyme is offline  
Old March 16, 2005, 05:38 AM   #4
BillCA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,087
Observations:

She's afraid of firearms -- all types.
She admits to not knowing much about hunting.
Doesn't know why semiautos are made
Says only military can have automatic weapons
Says assault weapons have no place on American streets.
Claims these weapons are not what our founding fathers intended.

Commentary:
1. Why is someone who is afraid of firearms permitted to write such illogical tripe for a newspaper? Don't they have standards? (yes, low ones apparently).

2. If she doesn't know much about hunting then she can't make any claims that semi-auto firearms are inappropriate. Yet she claims they are inappropriate without any facts or expertise to make the claim.

3. Semi-Auto firearms have been in use since before 1900. Uses include, sport hunting, trap shooting, skeet shooting, recreational shooting, defensive shooting, long range matches, short range matches, IPSC, IDPA and other types of matches. Yet she doesn't see any validity to owning one.

4. The U.S. military has machine guns; fully automatic firearms. So do thousands of ordinary U.S. citizens who have paid the special transfer tax, undergone a background check and registered their firearm. I can't recall a single case of a lawfully registered machine gun being used in a crime.

5. If you want to get the "assault weapons" off American streets, start with the group that puts more of them on our streets than anyone -- the POLICE. The move to arm police with these rifles should stop before criminals start stealing them from police cars.

6. The founding fathers DID intend us to have semi-automatic firearms. As well as machine guns and "...every other terrible implement of the soldier" according to Tenche Cox.

I certainly hope Mz. Long didn't wet herself while writing that "let's ban anything I'm afraid of" article.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
Old March 16, 2005, 05:48 AM   #5
klgreene
Member
 
Join Date: March 13, 2005
Location: Virginia
Posts: 16
Assault weapons

OK Mz Long, who doesn't know alot about hunting, or firearms. And who want's to blame firearm manufacturers for semi-auto', and auto's. Let's also blame the ball point pen manufacturers for all of our misspelled words!! And you show me where it says that federal law states that only the military may use semiautomatic weapons!! Oh and by the way, no ethical hunter is going to unload a clip or a magazine on a deer, but they may want to have a quick reload for a humane kill on the animal just in case of unforseen circumstances such as a limb, the animal stepped out just as you squeeze off a shot, any number of things........Anyway......

My sympathy goes out to all of the families of not just firearm related crimes, but all crimes. But to get right down to the truth. It doesn't really matter what kind of weapon was used to commit a crime. Whether the assailant used an automatic, semi-auto, single shot, or a baseball bat. The only way we're going to stop crime..is to come up with very harsh penalties for the people commiting these acts of violence. Make and example of the people who commit the hanus crimes. If all firearms of any sort were banned (god forbid that would ever happen), these criminals would be using knives, axes, etc. So now let's ban all sharp objects. Then these criminals would be using bats, clubs, sticks, whatever.....The problem is not the type of weapon...The problem is that these people who commit these acts of violence know that if..if..if..they do get convicted, they're going to be setting inside with air conditioning in the summer, and heat in the winter, three squares per day (and then some), with television, basketball, weight lifting, etc...and we're going to foot the bill. And they have to have these things or they and/or their families, lawyers, etc. will claim that they are being treated unjustly and that their rights are being infringed upon. Well big freakin' deal......The last time I checked, once a person was convicted of a felony they had no more rights, so sit back, take your punishment, and shut-up!! In Sinapore there is almost ZERO crime rate. This is because they have severe punishment for those would be criminals. But we must treat our criminals here with respect and dignity???....BAH HUMBUG !!! Why is it that most all of our prison systems are full beyond capacity? Because of the above reasons, they have it way too easy. What do we do when insects invade our homes? We terminate these vermin with extreme prejudice, and try to end their very existence. Yes...before I'm bombarded.... I do associate these types of criminals with bugs, vermin, unicelled organisms, etc. Make a public example out of this type of scum who cannot and/or will not serve any useful purpose or play any type of functional role within society, and the crime rate will dwindle. And for those who would try to tell me that these people can't help what they've done or are doing because of their upbringing, lifestyles, poverty, etc. I say BAH HUMBUG on you too! They still know right from wrong! And if they do not then they never will be able to function in society. So they should be exterminated (oh, humanely of course), before they happen to reproduce and create more of themselves... through...oh let's say rape! It's not the weapon!.... It's what we let these low rent criminals get away with!!! I appologize for the rambling, but this type of thing really gets under my skin. I appreciate your endulgence.
__________________
The Roman Empire was not built nor did it prosper and come to be feared by all the land by doing paperwork or having meetings....It accomplished this by killing all that opposed it!


There are no "stupid questions"...There are, however... Alot of "inquisitive idiots!"

Last edited by klgreene; March 16, 2005 at 06:33 AM.
klgreene is offline  
Old March 16, 2005, 07:51 AM   #6
KSFreeman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2001
Location: Lafayette, Indiana--American-occupied America
Posts: 5,416
Off the streets and into my gun safes!
__________________
"Arguments of policy must give way to a constitutional command." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 602 (1980).
KSFreeman is offline  
Old March 16, 2005, 08:04 AM   #7
WillBrayjr
Junior member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2004
Location: Northern Indiana
Posts: 1,881
I remember reading a G&A article by Massad Ayoob about a guy that opened fired with a 303 british war relic. I think the guy's name was James Cantwell. Anyhow anything can be considered an assault weapon. Suppose you stab a person with a fork. Since the fork was used to assault the person, wouldn't the fork be considered an assault weapon?
WillBrayjr is offline  
Old March 16, 2005, 08:32 AM   #8
XavierBreath
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 2002
Location: North Louisiana
Posts: 2,800
The woman used a semi-automatic typewriter to type her fallacies.

A quick check on the Internet revealed that on the same day a Los Angeles city employee typed two lies using the same type of typewritter that was used in the Henderson typings - a semi-automatic typewritter.

Who needs a semi-automatic writter?

I fully understand the United States Constitution allows people the right to express themselves and their thoughts by owning typewritters.

But semi-automatic typewritters?

What in the world would you type with a semi-automatic, unless you are just purposely going lying about other human beings?

Are you going to go out and type a sentence with a semi-automatic?

I admit that I don't know a lot about typing, but seems like if you use a semi-automatic there won't be much left of the very points you're trying to make.

Plus, your thoughts will hear a multitude of clacking, not just one hmmmmmm.

Personally, I'm scared of typewritters. I will not go near them, whether they're manual or electric. I don't care. I have buried too many friends and family members who cried from typing incidents.

A better question to ask is, why are semi-automatic typewritters even manufactured?

Most large corporations are driven by the profit motive - cold, hard, green cash. It's a simple true hard fact of life.

How money-hungry and greedy does a corporation have to be to put typing machines on the streets?

In 1994, Congress banned automatic and semiautomatic typwritters, but it seems there are more reports than ever about typings involving assault typewritters.

etc etc etc........
My facetious typewritter hatred is about as logical as Ms. Long's gun hatred.
__________________
Xavier's Blog
XavierBreath is offline  
Old March 16, 2005, 08:41 AM   #9
Tamara
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: March 11, 2000
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 15,930
Quote:
Let's get assault weapons off our streets
I ran to the window and looked out, but didn't see any. Damn.
__________________
MOLON LABE!
2% Unobtainium, 98% Hypetanium.
The Arms Room: An Online Museum.
Tamara is offline  
Old March 16, 2005, 10:56 AM   #10
FirstFreedom
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 31, 2004
Location: The Toll Road State, U.S.A.
Posts: 12,451
Quote:
I fully understand the United States Constitution allows people the right to protect themselves and their homes by owning guns.
No you don't. The 2nd amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting. Yes, it's about killing people, should the need arise - a tyrannical government or invading force, such as the Japanese contemplated doing in WWII. It's about ensuring that the PEOPLE have the SAME firepower as the standing army, which means FULLY automatic, not just semi-automatic. The RKBA is a check against unlimited government power to suppress speech and other fundamental human rights, such as good ol King George did, and just as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Saddam Hussein did. Checks and balances - go back to 8th grade civics (oops, I forgot, the textbook writers have been taken over by the historical revisionist - nevermind - it's understandable she doesn't know the first thing of which she speaks, come to think of it).

Quote:
Federal law states that automatic weapons can only be used by the military.
Wow, her ignorance knows no bounds. Anyone with a clean record, the ability to fill out some forms, and a little cash, can (and should be able to) get full auto weapons.

Quote:
Personally, I'm scared of guns. I will not go near them, whether they're pistols or rifles. I don't care.
Gee, what a surprise.

Quote:
I have buried too many friends and family members who died from shooting incidents.
I can't help but wondering how many of them would still be alive if they had had more firepower with which to defend themselves.

Xavier, nice analogy - speech vs. RKBA - the 2 most important fundamental rights.
FirstFreedom is offline  
Old March 17, 2005, 12:55 PM   #11
Te Anau
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2004
Location: Somewhere south of the No
Posts: 3,824
Yet another clueless liberal. :barf:
__________________
"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." --American author Mark Twain (1835-1910)
Te Anau is offline  
Old March 17, 2005, 01:32 PM   #12
NSO_w/_SIG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2004
Posts: 553
I like the part where she makes the assertion that if you hunt with a semi-auto rifle your game will be chewed up into burger when you get done firing at it. One of the most uninformed articles I've ever read.
NSO_w/_SIG is offline  
Old March 17, 2005, 01:41 PM   #13
dasmi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 18, 2005
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 881
She switches her argument from semi-auto to full auto at the end. This reads like it was written by a ten year old.
__________________
If we look at the black record of mass murder, exploitation, and tyranny levied on society by governments over the ages, we need not be loath to abandon the Leviathan State and ... try freedom.
--Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty
dasmi is offline  
Old March 17, 2005, 04:27 PM   #14
CaptainRazor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2005
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 302
Ya know...I'm really starting to despise people like this.

Not for the fact that she's anti-gun, but for the reason of she has no clue of what she's talking about.

If I where to campaign against something in this country (or anywhere for that matter).
I would arm myself with every little bit of knowledge about the subject, I would become an "expert" on the subject I oppose.
Why do they always bring hunting into this?
What if I don't like to hunt?
What if I just enjoy the "sport" of shooting?
This is just more rhetoric from a misinformed, liberal know-it-all.
Geez...I'm really getting sick of this.

I have an SKS....it's NOT an "assault rifle"...it's a semi-automatic loading
"Sporting" rifle.

Gawd lady...get clue!
CaptainRazor is offline  
Old March 17, 2005, 08:55 PM   #15
Bobarino
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2004
Location: western WA.
Posts: 183
"I ran to the window and looked out, but didn't see any. Damn."

man me too! last September i drove home home real fast from work to see if i could catch some of those assault weapons that were going to be flooding our streets. i got TOTALLY JIPPED! no flood, no guns, no nothin'. what a jip.

Bobby
Bobarino is offline  
Old March 17, 2005, 09:17 PM   #16
Garand Illusion
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,278
You know ... I'll argue with any anti ... but when you get hit with so much BS at one time ... where do you start?

Personally, I'm scared of cars. I've buried a lot of friends who were in car accidents. But I understand their use, and I know we're better of with them than without them. Cars are empowering because most of us can't walk 20 miles a day to work, and old/disabled people may not be able to walk at all. God made some men good walkers, some men poor walkers, but Ford made all men equal.

I'm willing to bet that about any American has buried more friends and families with cars than with guns.

And it's so easy to throw out deep sounding BS lines like ...

Quote:
I have buried too many friends and family members who died from shooting incidents.
when you don't have to back it up with facts or even anecdotes.

A friend of mine who's radically anti gun once tried to get away with that crap. We'd been having a friendly debate over beer but she was getting mad because she was losing. Finally she just shook her head sadly and said, "You can make any argument you want, but I'm just against guns. I've seen too much of what they can do."

I countered with, "Well, I sometimes hate what guns do, but I just know too much about history to be for taking them away."

This ticked her off, because she considers herself a student of history.

"How many times,' I asked her, "within our century has a democracy been seized by a tyrant? Could it happen here? Why not? Is there some reason we Americans are just better than the Germans or the people of the Balkans?" (that's a good question to ask, BTW, because most extreme liberals consider Americans intrinsically the worse and stupidest people on Earth).

She stuttered at that, and I said "As the world's last superpower, the government HAS to be responsible to us. I don't like hearing about school shootings or gun accidents either, and I'm all for safety and pretty much a nut about it, but freedom has a price and we citizens have to be responsible for our government and our own security."

She couldn't answer that one, so she bought the next round and we changed the subject. She's still an anti, BTW, but I have gotten her to finally admit that people should be able to at least own firearms in their houses for their own defense. That's a victory in itself .
Garand Illusion is offline  
Old March 17, 2005, 09:21 PM   #17
Garand Illusion
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,278
Quote:
I admit that I don't know a lot about hunting, but seems like if you use a semi-automatic there won't be much left of the very animals you're trying to take home for dinner.
Sorry to post again, but this is my favorit anti "assault weapon" quote, and I've seen it in many posts and many cartoons and etc.

Of course WE on this forum all know that the "assault weapons" mentioned are almost always SMALLER caliber weapons than a hunting rifle. I know lots of people take deer with SKS's, and a few will hunt with .223 weapons, but they're in the minority.

So AK47's aren't hunted with because they're NOT powerful enough.

The only thing worse than sheer ignorance is ignorance delivered with self righteous arrogance.
Garand Illusion is offline  
Old March 17, 2005, 10:35 PM   #18
missourigunner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 6, 2005
Location: Holts Summit, Missouri
Posts: 112
Lets get assault weapons off the street

Do that mean I can't carry my "Assault Slingshot" , This is another prime example of "know nada reporting."
missourigunner is offline  
Old March 18, 2005, 07:19 PM   #19
Don Gwinn
Staff Emeritus
 
Join Date: March 9, 2000
Location: Virden, IL
Posts: 5,917
I simply fisked it and sent it back to her. I counted eight outright lies, not counting "I fully understand the 2nd Amendment . . . "

I explained a very simple version of the federal full-auto law, but she's kind of all over the map.

Her thesis changes like the wind:
1. "Semi-automatic assault weapons" are bad.
2. All semi-auto weapons are bad--this is the bulk of the "column."
3. Back to the "assault weapons."
4. Inexplicable swerving into machine guns for no discernible reason.
5. Whoops! Back to "assault weapons" for the big finish!
__________________
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Gwinn: Chicago Gun Rights Examiner
Don Gwinn is offline  
Old March 18, 2005, 08:23 PM   #20
kelsey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 5, 2004
Posts: 101
This is the kind of stuff we need to be fighting not only here on the forum, but in the same publication where it was originally posted. If we don't confront people like this with the facts about what they are taking about, then their assumptions and bias is taken as fact.

I have no idea why people think outlawing semi autos would stop people from killing other people. Maybe we should just outlaw killing. Wait a minute, it already is. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....................

Kelsey
www.luvtohunt.com
kelsey is offline  
Old March 19, 2005, 06:14 PM   #21
perception
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 9, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 421
Well, I fired off my email, here is the text:

Dear Ms. Long

I write this with regaurds to your column "Let's get assault weapons off our streets."

Your article is filled with many untruths and misunderstandings. The first one is the unfortunate Tyler, Texas incident. The man was armed with a semi automatic weapon, and yes, he did kill his wife and a bystander. What you fail to mention was that the man was also trying to kill his son and failed. He failed because the bystander, Mark Wilson was also armed with a semi-automatic weapon. Mr. Wilson stopped the shooter, giving his life in the process.

Next, you go on to question the constitution. The constitution protects our right to bear arms of any type. You then go on to question why we need semi-automatic weapons. You ask "What in the world would you kill with a semi-automatic, unless you are just purposely going hunting for other human beings?" You then go on to say that you don't know much about hunting but assume that semi-automatic weapons are innapropriate for hunting.

I have only been hunting once, and I carried a semi-automatic weapon. I shot one squirrel, and it only took one shot. The meat was not the least bit chewed up by multiple shots, as there were no more shots.

You state that you are scared of guns and will not go near them. This shows you do not have an understanding of firearms at all. I personally do not know anyone that has been killed by a gun, yet I have buried many friends killed in automobile accidents. I would assume that you know many more people involved in car accidents than in shootings, but you probably drove to work anyway.

You then go on to talk about the 1994 assault weapons ban. It is clear that you do not have a clear understanding of this bill. This bill did nothing for automatic weapons, those were addressed in 1934. The assault weapons ban addressed mostly cosmetic features on guns, and many guns with exactly the same performance and ballistics were left on the street as they did not have what some would call the menacing look of the weapons that were addressed in the bill. I have attached a document in PDF format that may help shed some light on the assault weapons ban of 1994.

Next you go on to state that federal law states that fully automatic weapons can only be used by the milatary. This is completely untrue. While these weapons are indeed regulated, there is nothing preventing their legal ownership by anyone else.

Finally, you close by saying that assault weapons have no place on our streets and that the founding fathers did not have assault weapons in mind when they wrote the second amendment. I contend that the founding fathers did have assault weapons in mind when they wrote the amendment, along with ALL other form of weapon. Protection comes in many forms, be it from other people, animals, or even the hypothetical tyrannical government.

I close by simply asking that in the future you refrain from writing on subjects that you are uninformed on. Your position in the media gives you a wide audience and assumed credibility that should not be used either intentionally or unintentionally to spread falsehood. As the saying goes, the pen is mightier than the sword, and I feel that given the topic of your article, you can appreciate that.

Sincerely,
Adam Zimmerman

We'll see what kind of response it garners.
perception is offline  
Old March 19, 2005, 07:39 PM   #22
jonathon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 14, 2005
Location: Washougal, Washington. YEHAW!
Posts: 1,872
Theres a reason they should remove all warning labels from things
__________________
Romans 12:21

Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good


More CZ M52 info than you can shake a stick at!
jonathon is offline  
Old March 20, 2005, 12:02 PM   #23
Jungle Work
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 31, 2005
Location: 20 Miles from Water, 2 Miles from Hell
Posts: 282
My E-Mail to Ms Long and Most Importantly to her Editor.

Dear Ms. Long,

As a retired Texas Municipal Police Officer and a Federal Officer, I found your "Opinion Article on Semi Automatic Firearms" poorly written and even more poorly reasearched. You should check your facts before setting yourself up to be an "X-Purt" in any given area. Want me to list some of your mistatements.

What in the world would you kill with a semi-automatic, unless you are just purposely going hunting for other human beings?

Ms. Young they are used for Competition Shooting and Hunting both. I have used a Semi Auto Rifle for hunting and competive sport shooting since 1961.

Are you going to go out and shoot a deer with a semi-automatic?

I have hunted deer on several occasions with a Semi Automatic Rifle. When hunting the magazine is limited to four rounds of ammunition.

I admit that I don't know a lot about hunting, but seems like if you use a semi-automatic there won't be much left of the very animals you're trying to take home for dinner.

Again, extremely poor research. Most of the rifles that are commonly refered to as "Assault Rifles" have less powerful cartridges than the common rifles used to hunt deer in Texas. The ol' 30-06 is far more powerful that the "AKs or AR-15s" you don't like.

Personally, I'm scared of guns. I will not go near them, whether they're pistols or rifles. I don't care. I have buried too many friends and family members who died from shooting incidents.

But wait, you want to ban Semi Auto Rifles baised on your X-Purt opinions.

In 1994, Congress banned automatic and semiautomatic weapons, but it seems there are more reports than ever about shootings involving assault weapons.
"Immediately after the 1994 law was enacted, the gun industry evaded it by making slight, cosmetic design changes to banned weapons-including those banned by name in the law-and continued to manufacture and sell these "post-ban" or "copycat" guns," as reported in a study by the Violence Policy Center.

I would truly try and not write in one paragraph that the guns are banned and in the next state how they are being sold with slight mondifications. And by the way, the companpanies are adhereing to the law.

Federal law states that automatic weapons can only be used by the military.

I can understand the military needing automatic weapons. They conduct business in war zones, where the enemy is likely to be equipped with equally powerful and destructive automatic weapons.

But on the streets of our cities right here at home?

Assault weapons have no place in America or on our streets.

In the first paragraphs you are talking about Semi Automatic Rifles and in the conclusion you switch to Fully Automatic Machine Guns. Ms. Long, are you intentionally trying to confuse the public you write for or is this just another of your faulty prouncements.

Ms. Sherry Long, I pity your Editor and the readers in Rusk County if your editorial is an example of the journalism your paper produces. In the line of work I dedicated my self to, this sensationalism and faultly writing would have not have been tolerated. I would have been terminated with just cause immediately.

Respectfully,

Her Non Answer

Hello,


I got a lot of response from my assault weapon opinion/edtiorial article that ran in our paper earlier this month.

I realize that some of you may not be from Texas (I noticed that a few emails were from other states with the sign-off signatures at the bottom.)

I have been born and raised in Texas, Dallas to be exact. I did NOT mean for my article to indicate THAT ALL GUNOWNERS are bad and evil. I know it depends who is holding the weapon.

But after the Tyler incident, I began having flashbacks to the night my friend died.

It was 11 years ago. We had just graduated high school two weeks before, a group of us were going to a party for high school 2004 graduates near downtown Dallas. We were just going to have fun. We were teenagers. We didn't bother nobody. We pulled into the parking lot and started to walk to the party. Well there were some other teenagers in the parking lot, stealing a car. As we walked to the party my friend happened to look over and saw them. He could recognize one of the guys from our neighborhood. The kid pulled out a weapon and began firing. It hit two of my friends. It hit one in his main artery in his leg * he lived. My other friend was not so lucky. He took a bullet in the back and a bullet in his side through his ribs. He died protecting me. I was right next to him. It could have been me. I held him as the ambulance was the way. He died on the operating hospital at Parkland Hospital (the same hospital President John F. Kennedy was taken to). Three weeks after graduation we buried him. We were just going to have fun. FUN,,,,FUN,,, we were teenagers. He was scheduled to leave later that summer for a full football scholarship to a 4-year university in Louisiana. I vowed that day I would never ever go near a gun. (and yes I have undergone years of counseling and prayer to move forward. It doesn't make the pain any less painful though)

I realize that everyone with guns is not a bad person and some people do feel safer with them. The point I was trying to make is I don't. I sometimes wonder and ask myself what if guns had never been invented. Would my friend still be alive. Sure the other guy could have ran and had a fist fight with the guys or even try to cut them with a knife. We might have been able to run into the club by the time the guys got near us if that had been the case. My friends and I couldn't out run a bullet no matter how fast we ran.

When I want to talk to my friend. I have to go to a grave. A grave. I can't call him up and say hi. I can't say let's go get desert or watch a movie.

I am not nieve enough to know that guns will never go away. It's like saying rapists will go away. It doesn't mean that I have to like it.

The problem is guns wind up in the hands of the wrong people. If we didn't have guns they couldn't wind up in their hands though.

My father has friends who own guns and other weapons. When his friends start pulling them out to look at, load, prepare their bullets and other things I leave the room. A friend of a friend in college was raised around guns his whole life. He pulled out a pistol one day and played with it like it was a children's toy plastic gun. I couldn't get out of the room fast enough. He almost blew off part of his foot. He was twirling it around and stuff.

While I realize some of you may be like, well tough...your friend died. They meant a lot to me. I don't expect everyone to understand. You can't understand unless you have been there. Unless you've experienced the same thing.

I would also like to note that this was not an article that ran on our front page. It was an editorial/opinion/column. Which means just that. It was my opinion. I understand you may not agree with my opinion. THAT'S OK. Can you imagine what life would be like if everyone never disagreed or had differences in opinion. When differences in opinion are expressed in a logically and rational manner new things can be established. It's called compromise. It's called seeing the other person's point of view.

I thank you for your responses. Granted, all of them were opposing mine, but I didn't expect everyone to have the same opinion as mine. But please keep in mind, it's my opinion.

Everyone in America is granted the right to voice their opinions. Whether others may think they are wrong or not. My dad, uncles and countless of his friends fought for that right in the Vietnam War. I got lucky my dad came back.

For the record....I am considered by my collegues, friends, and family a (and consider myself to be a) very open-minded person.

I thank you for your opinions and the tasteful way they were presented.

Sherry Long

*****************************************************
Both were sent and received on 3/15/2005

Typical Anti Air Head, might have as well argued to a brick wall
What Most ANTIS understands is:
Take their money,
Take their freedom,
or Take their Life.

Jugnle Work
Jungle Work is offline  
Old March 20, 2005, 12:36 PM   #24
trespass
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2004
Location: oklahoma
Posts: 341
tripe. back to guns commit crimes. some of the anti-gun folks seem to imply that the "gun" is like some kind of magical thing..black magic..and will warp the soul of all who touch it! ACTUALLY, the so-called "assault rifle" is involved in very few crimes...last time I checked it was well under even 1%...and, if this same guy with the AK had been armed with a decent pistol or 2 and reasonably skilled in their use, he could have done the very same damage..(you know what the anti-gunners will say to that..take them all then!)..the anti-gunners take limited anecdotal evidence, such as the Tyler incident..and try to cast it as some kind of universal rule....it is fallacious reasoning and unsupported in the empirical evidence. (in fact the eivdenc eindicates violent crime in Canada, Australia and England WAY up since strict guns laws enacted) From my point of view if a couple of the local citizens had had a decent rifle/carine in their vehicles this jerk's shooting spree would have been a good bit shorter.....it was NOT
law enforcement who stopped the Jame's or the Youngers...or the Dalton's...it was the armed citizen. Sure, people can abuse firearms...people can abuse butter... it does not mean all must be banned and all reasonable people prohibited...to withdraw rights and confiscate property because less than 1% abuse something is not a reasonable path for a freedom loving people....especially when it appears it does not work anyway!
trespass is offline  
Old March 20, 2005, 02:17 PM   #25
XavierBreath
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 2002
Location: North Louisiana
Posts: 2,800
that's the same canned "response" we all have recieved to our emails. We need to keep banging on this woman's editor's door until she is canned.
__________________
Xavier's Blog
XavierBreath is offline  
 

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15593 seconds with 7 queries