Assault gun ban urged

Advocate staff photo by ARTHUR D. LAUCK -- Baton Rouge lawyer Lewis Unglesby speaks to the Baton Rouge Press Club Monday about gun rights in Louisiana and the United States. Show caption
Advocate staff photo by ARTHUR D. LAUCK -- Baton Rouge lawyer Lewis Unglesby speaks to the Baton Rouge Press Club Monday about gun rights in Louisiana and the United States.

Veteran Baton Rouge lawyer Lewis Unglesby described assault weapons as killing machines Monday and said unspeakable tragedies such as the one that occurred in December at an elementary school in Connecticut will continue until the weapons are banned.

Unglesby noted that law enforcement personnel arrived at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., just 200 seconds after the principal called police to report the alleged killer’s presence outside the school yet the gunman still was able to shoot open a locked door and kill 20 first-graders and six teachers on Dec. 14.

“You cannot do that with conventional weapons,” Unglesby told a Baton Rouge Press Club luncheon audience in downtown Baton Rouge.

A semi-automatic weapon fires a bullet each time the trigger is pulled with no need to manually move the next round into the firing chamber. A fully automatic weapon keeps firing bullets as long as the trigger is pulled.

Unglesby characterized both types of weapons as “extremely dangerous products” and said chiefs of police have repeatedly stated that the time it takes to reload a weapon makes all the difference to police and potential shooting victims.

“The danger of these guns is so obvious and evident,” he said.

Unglesby said an automatic weapon can fire 30 bullets in two seconds, and a semi-automatic weapon can fire 30 rounds in less than five seconds.

“Where do any of us live that we have to shoot 30 bullets in five seconds?” he asked.

Unglesby, a gun owner and hunter who said he twice has had a gun put to his head, said assault weapons are good for one thing and one thing only — and the person holding one doesn’t even have to aim.

“With one of these, I could kill all of you with my eyes closed,” he said. “That’s all they’re used for — killing people. Until we use this harsh language, we will continue to face these tragedies.”

“If enough states say we don’t want these weapons, you won’t have them,” Unglesby added, saying he just wants to “get rid of the carnage.”

Unglesby said he doesn’t believe the answer lies in background checks on gun sales. He used, as a hypothetical, a man named Joe who owns an AK-47 assault weapon and who snaps after losing his wife to his best friend, losing his job, and then finding out his 15-year-old daughter is pregnant — all in the span of about a week.

“Where’s your background check going to catch Joe?” he asked.

Unglesby said a ban on assault weapons would limit a person’s “dangerousness.”

“There isn’t a second side to this,” he argued. “To be for these weapons is stupid. If you think you need this type of gun, something’s wrong with you.”

President Barack Obama recently endorsed renewing a ban on assault weapons. Congress passed such a ban in 1994, but it expired a decade later.

Unglesby noted that the National Rifle Association, whose president said last month he doesn’t believe Congress will pass a new ban on assault weapons, made $18 million in direct political contributions in 2012. Unglesby labeled those contributions as “blood money.”


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (79)


1) Comment by getemtigers12 - 25/02/2013

First, assault weapons, such as the AR15, make the best home defense weapons. Mostly because the .223/5.56 is less likely, due to its ballistics, to go through a wall than even a shotgun or pistol round. Basically, when it hits a wall or even flesh, it breaks up into little pieces that are less likely to penetrate through a wall or something and hit a bystander, assuming you can aim properly. Second, he was in a room full of 5-6 year olds and women. He could have inflicted the same amount of sick, twisted carnage with a pistol or even a knife. The deadliest shooting in US history, the VT massacre, was committed using a .22 and 9mm with a backpack full of 10 and 15 round magazines. And no, a semi-automatic weapon cannot fire 30 bullets in 5 seconds. More like 45-60 rounds a minute, or about 5 bullets in 5 seconds. The time it takes to reload a weapon does not make all of the difference, as indicated by the failure of our previous assault weapon and high capacity magazine ban to have ANY effect on gun violence or the amount of gun shot victims or wounds per shooting incident. Or again by the fact that the deadliest shooting in US history occurred with a man using 10 & 15 round magazines. As for "needing" 30 round magazines, does he want citizens to be outgunned by criminals or what? Because these magazines are all over the streets and not to mention they are very easy to make, especially with 3D printers becoming more prevalent (one actually recently printed a working firearm). Assault weapons, like the AR15, are great for personal defense. In fact, they are the best. As a result, they are, indeed, effective killing machines. Would the US military stop using AR-15s because they are "too effective"? No, and citizens shouldn't either. I doubt anyone wants to be outgunned by criminals or have to face a criminal armed with an AR15 with a pistol or shotgun. To be for a ban on these weapons, is stupid and an uneducated position. Consider the fact that not only has the DOJ recently said it is unlikely to have an effect on gun violence, but we did ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines in 1994-2004. The result? Absolutely NOTHING. Not even a slight reduction in violence. Not only was there no reduction in gun violence, but there was no reduction in the amount of victims or gunshot wounds per shooting. The DOJ itself conducted this study and it was confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences, CDC and Library of Congress. The National Academy of Sciences and CDC conducted massive studies and were unable to link ANY gun control measure to a reduction in violent crime, suicides or accidents. I would suggest checking out the facts, next time.

2) Comment by eauxgod - 07/02/2013

DMJ - "...what are reasonable regulations? None? We tried that. That's how we got where we are now. " You just proved, again, that you are ignorant of current gun laws (federal, state and local) and the fact that criminals, by definition, don't care how many laws are broken while pursuing their goals. Now on a much more serious note...did your prized barry action figure come with the toy r/c drone, the che guevara outfit, the removable marx beard, the gold plated stethoscope or the collection of toy aborted late term fetuses? If you have managed to collected them all, which is your favorite?

3) Comment by Whatchange - 06/02/2013

DMJ; I'm not just demonising defense attorneys, I'm demonising attorneys in general. My point is real simple, I chose not to own a military style weapon, if I did, I shouldn't be demonize by a defense attorney because I do. @Buck; I guest you don't find Unglesby comment a personal attack on gun owners, "Who amongst you thinks you need a SWAT rifle? Or wants to hang out with anyone who thinks they need a SWAT rifle?" Unglesby wondered." It is people such as yourselves that make it hard for me to try and kept to my beliefs that only military or law enforcement has any business owing a military type weapon, the more y'all speak the more I fear you.

4) Comment by Buck - 06/02/2013

It appears Mr. Unglesby has hit a nerve of the gun industry. The tactics used be they multiple personal attacks, threats, can arguments points, etc,etc. are the same that the industry has employed since its lobbying group was taken over by the radical fringe. Wonder what Jesus would say about this issue and how he would be attacked. Myself, I enjoy whenever the group's prime spokesperson appears. With every presentation he sends more folks to the center of the issue. Of course it also helps to sell more weapons. Nothing sells like fear. I had hoped to attend the meeting of the Press Club the other day. Surely several of the commenters were there and derived their enlightened opinions. I look forward towards someone submitting their credentials and being invited to make presentations at the next Press Club meeting. One quote that has interested me is, "extremely dangerous product". This indicates that this issue is really about public health policy. Could this be the reason that the gun industry strived to forbid the CDC to discontinue their analysis of firearms using the same methodology that is used to evaluate other potential harmful products in our society? What are they afraid of? Oh, I forgot, the bottom line.

5) Comment by DMJ - 06/02/2013

I find it odd that those who seem to worship the Bill of Rights (well, the 2nd Amendment, anyway) are all too eager to ignore the 6th Amendment and demonize defense attorneys.

6) Comment by Whatchange - 06/02/2013

OK for the record, I don't believe anyone outside the military or law enforcement has any business owing a military type weapon, but the 2nd Amendment gives us that right. With that being said, I find Unglesby remarks to be a bit offensive. If I did own said military weapons, I am a law abiding citizen, I pay my taxes, I work, support my wife and kids, support my president even when I don't agree with him, attend church, and numerous other things that make me a upstanding citizen of this state and country, why does Unglesby find that I'm such a bad person to hang out with if I own a military style weapon, or in his words, "Who amongst you thinks you need a SWAT rifle? Or wants to hang out with anyone who thinks they need a SWAT rifle?" Unglesby wondered.", Who amongst us wants to hang out with a lawyer, you know the profession that lies, circumvents the laws to their favor, gets murders off, rapist off, child killers off, drunk drivers off, and clogs our court system with bull blank law suites and cost the tax payers millions on top of millions of dollars.

7) Comment by nimby? - 06/02/2013

"what are reasonable regulations? None? " the government knows who I am , where I live . they know what weapons I own , their make , model and serial #s . they know I am certified to carry , and must maintain certification . None ?

8) Comment by DMJ - 06/02/2013

If President Obama's proposed regulations are "draconian" then please tell me...what are reasonable regulations? None? We tried that. That's how we got where we are now.

9) Comment by eauxgod - 06/02/2013

DMJ - Thank you for showing the rest of us how ignorant you really are.

10) Comment by nimby? - 06/02/2013

the intent of the law in Chicago , D,C. , NYC , etc. was to make possession of a weapon a criminal offense . is this having any effect on the level of gun violence in these areas ? apparently not . why not a door to door sweep looking for stolen , illegal weapons , I have no problem with this . start in the high crime areas . since Brave knows who and where the "major culprits" are , instead of dialogue why not just round them up ? wonder where the ACLU would stand on this ...

11) Comment by DMJ - 06/02/2013

eauxgod, I'm not arguing for a national ban. I don't consider the measures I offered are draconian. Like I said, other than the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines bans, none of the things I mentioned would infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. There's no accountability for the gun industry. They're shielded from oversight regulations. Just where do you think street criminals get their guns? They're mostly American-made and imported (legally) by American companies. At some point, they're sold illegally. The NRA and its mouthpieces don't care about this because to them, a sale is a sale. So what if it makes the country more dangerous? That's good for their business. See what I mean? Adn pangris, do you mean to tell me that a militia basically means anyone and that well-regulated means armed? Who on earth told you that? Since you're such a history buff, surely you know that shortly after the ratification of the Constitution, Congress passed several laws which....wait for it....regulated militias. Yeah. And since you know so much about history, surely you know that the reason they had militias back then was because of fear of a large standing army....which, in case you missed it, we already have in the U.S. And you lecture others on needing a history lesson? Good god, this debate has become ridiculous.

12) Comment by HRoark - 06/02/2013

Pangris, you're the one that noted that the wording of the Constitution was "in the context of the time." That suggests that it might be little behind the current context. I've always marveled that many of the same folks who cling to the inerrant words of the original variations of the Constitution, will blindly follow the Bible, which has been rewritten, embellished and cobbled together many times. Why not give the Constitution a bit of an upgrade? With your pro gun majority maybe you could require ALL citizens to be armed at all times. Think about it.

13) Comment by pangris - 06/02/2013

HRoark, you could also use a history lesson. Rather than repeating talking points, take a moment to consider that in the scope of history 200 (sic) years isn't that long - as a matter of fact, there are thousands of years before that in human history that are dominated with well armed folks killing, enslaving, an generally doing whatever they want to the population they control. In the grand scheme of things I think our Constitution is relatively young and amazingly relevant if you study history and the fate of those without such a "crutch". People that fancy themselves intellectuals because they can parrot those they admire on TV are doomed to repeat the very worst history has to offer.

14) Comment by eauxgod - 06/02/2013

DMJ - Your argument is quite flawed. How can you argue for draconian national gun control laws by pointing out the uselessness of municiple gun bans in the way that you did but at the same time say "You can't have an outright ban or confiscate all guns, if for no other reason than logistics."?

15) Comment by nimby? - 06/02/2013

consistent gun enforcement , longer jail terms for crimes committed with firearms , truth in sentencing , juveniles committing crimes w/weapons tried as adults ? how about some more incentive from the judicial system ?

16) Comment by HRoark - 06/02/2013

Oh good, pangris just presented a compelling argument that the wording of the Constitution is anachronistic and no longer applicable. Maybe its time for an update so we can have responsible gun regulation in this country without the crutch of a 200+ year old document to support the gun nut arguments.

17) Comment by nimby? - 06/02/2013

if a person drives from Chicago to Indiana , purchases a weapon and returns to Chicago they have broken the law and should be dealt with . if they return with a weapon for the purpose of committing a crime/killing someone they aren't interested in the law to begin with...

18) Comment by pangris - 06/02/2013

Regarding the militia and being "well regulated" - you need a history lesson. Anyone with a fifth grade education and access to a library can easily see that the militia is all able bodied men and "well regulated" in the context of the time means well equipped and maintained. Further - "Suppose the Second amendment said "A well-educated electorate being necessary for self-governance in a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed." Is there anyone who would suggest that means only registered voters have a right to read?" – Robert Levy, Georgetown University professor

19) Comment by pangris - 06/02/2013

"Gun control" in the US is a fantasy. There are more guns in this country than anywhere in the history of the world. If you took 80% of the guns in the country out of the hands of law abiding citizens (unlikely) the remaining 20% would mean that criminals in America have 70 million guns. That would mean we are still the most heavily armed nation in the world - and only the criminals would have them. If this is really about saving lives, ban drunk driving - ban texting while driving - ban murder with blunt objects - all those things kill far more people than rifles. Oh right we did ban those other things and they still happen. This is the worst case kind of disingenuous, a defense attorney who frees murderers trying to drum up business by violating his oath to make innocent people 1) felons and 2) potential clients.

20) Comment by DMJ - 06/02/2013

Eauxgod, gun control can't be effective if confined to particular cities; those cities are surrounded by a country with lax gun laws. Gun control must be on a national scale or it will be useless...like in Chicago or D.C. And meaningful reform?... bans on assault rifles (those you already have would be grandfathered in), bans on high capacity magazines, background checks for all purchases, require all sellers to register all sales and keep/report inventory, ban internet sales, make straw-buying a federal crime. Save for the assault weapons and magazine bans, none of my reforms would encroach on the rights of law abiding citizens. And nimby, you're right...I don't want anyone to have a gun. I think (and stats back me up) it's more dangerous to have one than not to.... that being said, I'm a realist. You can't have an outright ban or confiscate all guns, if for no other reason than logistics. I recognize the Supreme Court says people have the right to have a gun. I disagree with their interpretation, but I accept it. You want a gun? Fine. I'm not nearly as worried about you as I am about those who sell guns. They're the ones who are subject to less oversight than the federal agency charged with enforcing firearm laws. It's insane and it's created a vast illegal gun market despite (because of) guns being legal and easily available. They're the ones who profit from gun violence and the resulting fear and paranoia. Moreoever, they are not protected by the 2nd Amendment, which does NOT guarantee the right to sell guns shall not be infringed. Am I wrong?

21) Comment by eauxgod - 06/02/2013

DMJ - What is meaningful and effective reform to you? Do you suggest that the nation follow the gun laws of Chicago or DC? Lets just say all guns in the hands of citizens were made illegal today. Would you feel more safe going to North Baton Rouge at night if required to do so? Please elaborate...

22) Comment by nimby? - 06/02/2013

please DMJ , tell me what kind of weapons I'm holding ? since the government knows maybe you should also . you don't like/want guns , cool . you don't want anyone to have guns , not cool . you would prefer dictate how I secure my home , back off bub . emotion , guilt overplayed can be pathetic ...

23) Comment by Chucky - 06/02/2013

DMJ – Is reform the same as abridged ? What kills and what save lives may be the same,oranges and oranges.

24) Comment by DMJ - 06/02/2013

Mildred, if you want to get anecdotal, there's plenty of stories of people who should have never had a gun in the first place. There's a flip side to that coin. Just google, "Man accidentally shoots..." and you'll see what I mean. Also, I noticed you left out the bit about the "well-regulated militia" when talking about the 2nd Amendment. I wonder....what's the name of your militia and who regulates it? Right. And nimby, that's weak dude. Very weak. Sure, maybe no one was killed with YOUR weapons, but plenty of people were killed with ones just like them. Until we stop pretending this isn't true, we'll never get meaningul and effective reform. But hey....I guess that's the point, right? Who cares what happens to anyone else as long as you get to keep your guns, right?

25) Comment by Mildred Citizen - 05/02/2013

Unglesby only wishes there was not another side to this argument. He's been pretty successful at winning arguments. Like for clients who kill other people. But, as a lawyer, he swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. The second amendment to the Constitution of the United States is the other side of the argument, Mr. Unglesby. The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. I know you are educated enough to understand the meaning of infringed. An elderly person or woman at home who is attacked by young men need a weapon that is specifically designed to kill people and the AR-15 and Bushmaster are excellent for this kind of defense. A young woman in Georgia recently used all six rounds to defend herself and her child from ONE attacker, hitting him with five of the six rounds. The assailant survived!!! But she was able to escape. What if there had been three young men attacking her? Also, women cannot control a large caliber weapon, so they have to make up for it with more rounds. It is precisely women and the elderly that you would make defenseless. I conclude the other side of the argument. Thank you.

26) Comment by nimby? - 05/02/2013

DMJ , no one was killed , harmed or robbed with any of the weapons I own either , pears and bananas ....

27) Comment by jobbyb - 05/02/2013

@billynurse and anyone else that cares! The problem with gun control is the same as with education. It's not the guns, it's not the teachers, it's the lack of parenting, and involvement with the children, that has lead us to where we are now! I promise that Unglesby see's a way to profit off of this somehow!!!!!

28) Comment by BoiledCrabs - 05/02/2013

I have a better idea. Let's ban lawyers. They are responsible for way more misery than any gun.

29) Comment by billynurse - 05/02/2013

I'm sorry, Mr. Unglesby, but my poor faith in the wisdom of lawyers just took another hit.

30) Comment by Sandy - 05/02/2013

Under Unglesby's logic, the shotgun I duck hunt with should be banned. And if he thinks you can kill a room full a people with your eyes closed with a semi-automatic assault rifle, he should check the U.S. Army stats. They fire several hundred thousand rounds in combat for every enemy they kill. In most cases, they even keep their eyes open. Unglesby is just another anti-gunner spouting his mouth when he doesn't really know anything about the subject.

31) Comment by billynurse - 05/02/2013

Just a little illustration to emphasize an earlier question I posed and no one has answered --- In 1929, an Average Joe could mail-order a Thompson submachine gun with unlimited barrel-type magazines at a very affordable $. Even with ol' Al Capone's gangland activity, TOTAL Murder rate in Chicago was 26...... Now, there were 42 murders last month alone..... I ask again ; have weapons and their killing capacity changed, so that we have to focus on them?.... OR has something changed in the # of deranged or violent criminals allowed on the streets?!?... Address the REAL problems !!!

32) Comment by DMJ - 05/02/2013

Nimby, and just how many people were killed with security systems, alarms or door locks last year? Right. Taking apples and oranges to a whole new level.

33) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 05/02/2013

Why listen to someone who wants you to surrender your rights, just to get along?

34) Comment by HLH - 05/02/2013

Whether you agree or disagree with someone you shouldn't be posting home addresses and phone numbers for all to see. I am sure you would just love for someone to do that to you so you could deal with people who don't share your point of view calling you at all hours and showing up on your doorstep. When you look at how angry everyone gets about this subject you kind of wonder if either side knows that they both have good and bad points. They both are so sure that they are right that they won't listen to each other. This is the same problem we are having in Congress - both sides won't listen and nothing ever gets done.

35) Comment by mcarter - 05/02/2013

cbcs, don't forget about his client that stapped his lawyer wife THIRTY EIGHT TIMES in her office on 3rd st. Yes, we need to ban knives.

36) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 05/02/2013

Thank you, Billy K, for your comment !

37) Comment by nimby? - 05/02/2013

a little advice to the anti-gun nuts ; get rid of the home security system and car alarm . don't worry with locking your doors or windows . there's only a slight chance of someone breaking into your home ...

38) Comment by Whatnow - 05/02/2013

Hey, Unglesby, how much blood do you have on your hands???

39) Comment by Whatnow - 05/02/2013

Wow! What a nice house! Nice swimming pool, too!

40) Comment by Chucky - 05/02/2013

Watch out where the husky's go don't you eat that yellow snow.

41) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 05/02/2013

****Comment Removed for Violation of Terms of Use****

42) Comment by BillyK - 05/02/2013

Thanks for you opinion. But mine is that you keep bad people out of jail and I should have the right to defend myself with any weapon of my choosing or better yet -send them to your house at 14415 Highland Rd. Maybe if you are lucky they will call you before coming over (225) 752-9745 and give you a heads up to load your non assault weapon or better yet they will just suprise you.

43) Comment by Whatnow - 05/02/2013

A true American and my stance also... http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NyYYgLzF6zU

44) Comment by Whatnow - 05/02/2013

DMJ, this video shows that those in authority can in this day and time play at tyranny. No, maybe this video wasn't the feds, but they were government all the same. Pushing little old ladies and punching them shows real men and how ignorant a lot of law enforcement officers and their leaders or mayors are. Besides, the men weren't armed. Their guns were packed up. When this kind of martial law goes into effect around the country, don't think for a second that bands of patriots won't rise up. It's already happening in New York. Not everyone is a little old lady or scared citizens.

45) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 05/02/2013

DMJ (and others) very well may witness a history lesson shortly.

46) Comment by foldgers - 05/02/2013

*alive, not "a love"

47) Comment by foldgers - 05/02/2013

MEM, I guess you really do not focus on my other comments over time. I was being sarcastic about the fair-share. I hate that term and I do NOT drink the kool-aid. I only said that because he is speaking like a liberal, who I am sure was also for the fair share bit, but I guarantee you he took every tax break possible, along with every other liberal out there who makes over $400k a year. I was just pointing out the hypocritical statements and actions of these people. And I love how people call me crazy for thinking it is possible for OUR government to "take us over." Granted, I honestly do not think it will happen any time soon, maybe not even over the next 60 years or so I will be a love for, but you slowly take away the rights of citizens, little by little...all we are doing is opening that door for some guy to become a dictator. It just takes one crazy person. Do you really want to leave future generations vulnerable? I don't. And until then, I will make sure my house is safe from whatever. If I hear a person break in in the middle of the night, you darn tootin right I want a weapon that I do not need to aim to do the damage I would want to do. And if I need 30 shots in 5 seconds to make sure my home is NOT invaded, then so be it. The guy was more insane for breaking in in the first place. :)

48) Comment by DMJ - 05/02/2013

Whatnow, couple of things....those were local cops - NOPD, St. Tammany Sheriff's, etc.- not the feds. Second of all....if those people were armed, then how'd they let the big bad government take their guns away? It's like I've been saying... if the government wants your guns, they'll take them. Simply having them won't change this. Thanks for posting that video which proves my point.

49) Comment by Whatnow - 05/02/2013

I guess the anti-gun ladies don't remember when guns were confiscated from the law-abiding citizens during Katrina who were only trying to protect their homes from the lawless animals who were out shooting at helicopters and looting homes. Did they confiscate the animals guns, also, or did they just slink back into the ghetto with their weapons? And it was all so easy for the police. The police had big bad weapons, but they didn't have drones, tanks or bombs.They had automatic rifles. Don't think it could happen in this day and age? http://www.military.com/video/law-enforcement/police/gun-confiscation-after-katrina/2083834238001/ They took away the rights of good citizens to protect themselves.

50) Comment by nimby? - 05/02/2013

this lawyer has returned a number of "citizens" to the streets who have resumed a life of crime . considering the source this article would better serve April 1st ...

51) Comment by Whatnow - 05/02/2013

The weapons used where classified by the Dept. of Homeland Security as "home defense" weapons not assault weapons. These weapons were not "military weapons" as touted by Feinstien, the MSM and opponents of guns. And the sad thing is they use that term to further their agenda and confused the uninformed. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NyYYgLzF6zU)

52) Comment by HRoark - 05/02/2013

Based on the tone and number of comments, Mr. Unglesby seems to be a pretty good spokesperson for us anti gun Obamacrats. Good job poking at the gun nuts Lewis!

53) Comment by phil - 05/02/2013

A perfect world would be a world where there is no violence, no war, no hate, no murder, etc. I wish we were there. Sorry, we do not live in that perfect world. Our world is a world where our government could one day become a dictatorship or be led by a Hitler, and there is violence and murder etc. Because of that, I want to keep my gun. If it was a perfect world I would ask that everyone get rid of ALL arms. We are not there yet, so now it is a matter of where you want to draw the line.

54) Comment by dpguy - 05/02/2013

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." -William Shakespeare

55) Comment by Chucky - 05/02/2013

Buck - You wood yea ,

56) Comment by Buck - 05/02/2013

"what a wast of a threat". What are you implying? Hopefully by your misspelling not only are you demonstrating your lack of education, but also avoiding legal action. I just love the gun nuts. Reminds me of David Duke.

57) Comment by hog611 - 05/02/2013

This guy not only looks stupid he proves it when he opens his mouth. An AR Rifle is semi-auto and they have been used for sporting purposes in the US for near 100 years. If this guy believes what he said Stupid is not a strong enough word for him. A single barrel 12 ga shotgun sawed off with # 4 Buck Shot will put put more projectiles down range than an ar will in the same time frame and be just as deadly.

58) Comment by Chucky - 05/02/2013

P.S. Probably placed charges and then represented the two-gun men who put a gun to his head, only if they had the money or advertisement.

59) Comment by Chucky - 05/02/2013

DMJ -Far better people than this guy to support on anti-gun/assault weapon's band. He has no information other than a gun to his head and guess he talked them out of shooting, what a wast of a threat, sorry again for the thought.

60) Comment by tradewinns - 05/02/2013

total unequivocal bovine droppings!

61) Comment by Concerned_Parent - 05/02/2013

Why is he not calling for a ban on cars, or drinking, or pretty blonde headed women who drive drunk and kill innocent people? Oh, that's right, b/c if your family has money those things are OK to do. Maybe we should be asking him just why a gun was put to his head? I'm pretty sure the gun didn't decide to do it on it's own. We can't enforce the laws we have now b/c of bottom feeders like Unglesby. Stop looking for every loophole available to keep killers on the street. That would be a good place to start!

62) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 05/02/2013

@Foldgers, if you read the thousands of pages of the Internal Revenue Code, the words "fair share" appear nowhere. However, that concept IS found in the communist manifesto. Please quit drinking the Kool Aid and falling for that class warfare tactic.

63) Comment by Bowman@ms - 05/02/2013

Lewis is a joke. nuff said.

64) Comment by DMJ - 05/02/2013

“The danger of these guns is so obvious and evident,” he said. Not to those who care more about their right to have one than they do about victims of shootings. “To be for these weapons is stupid. If you think you need this type of gun, something’s wrong with you.” Amen to that. Just see below. These yahoos think they're preventing tyranny by having an AR15. It's insane.

65) Comment by foldgers - 05/02/2013

So, now you are a practicing shrink as well? There is something wrong with me? Who are you to tell me that? What kind of clients have you defended and made tons of money off of and then turned around and used every deduction and loophole to pay less taxes on that income to avoid your fair share? Come on man. I think that if people are willing to give up ANY of their liberties for a bit of safety have something SERIOUSLY wrong with them. Getting murderers out of jail in as little time possible does more damage than a man losing his wife, losing his job, losing his home, finding out his wife left him for his boss, his cat running away and running out of Viagra all in a week (Seriously, how often does a scenario like you presented happen? And how often does that person have an AR-15 when it does happen?) You don't like guns, you want strict strict gun control, go to Chicago. Either way, this is America, son. It was created by patriots who fought and risked their lives for. Back when generals were presidents. Just because lawyers have invaded every aspect of politics does not make you guys experts. Hey, I think I just heard an Ambulance going down Perkins Road... quick...go chase it!

66) Comment by 8point6 - 05/02/2013

In other news.....On a larger scale than assault weapons..... http://news.yahoo.com/rare-look-obama-decides-send-drones-kill- americans-031832960.html

67) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 05/02/2013

@WaltH, that "one day" has arrived, just look around. It's so obvious, even Ray Charles can see it and he's both blind AND dead.

68) Comment by Chucky - 05/02/2013

“go speak on something he actually understands” What does he understand other than Defense Tactics in a court room ? The letter of the law and procedural misdirection is his expertise , not gun control.

69) Comment by 8point6 - 05/02/2013

“Where do any of us live that we have to shoot 30 bullets in five seconds?” he asked. 70805?

70) Comment by wherearewegoing - 05/02/2013

Not advocating for guns (because I know the libs will be here soon to fight that) but I'd like to point out this man's inaccuracies. “You cannot do that with conventional weapons,” That's debatable, sir, but you certainly can do that with household products in the form of a bomb. He talks about how dangerous full auto guns are. That's true, which is why it's VERY difficult to LEGALLY get your hands on one, as well as very expensive. It's been said more than once....criminals don't follow the law. Having a gun held to your head twice (most likely NOT an "assault weapon") and being labeled as a "hunter" does not make this man an expert. Also, the line "the person holding one doesn’t even have to aim" is hilariously false. You know how we all watch the bad guys missing the good guy on TV with those full auto weapons and we think we could do better? Try it! It's quite difficult. And I don't know how many people were there at that meeting, but I'll jump in with The_Host on that bet. "I could kill all of you with my eyes closed" Haha!! What a bogus statement from an uneducated fool. Go back to the slimy pit you crawled out of.

71) Comment by Walt H - 05/02/2013

Well, I'd like to thank Lewis for helping me to recognize that there's "something wrong with" me. Lewis may right: there is no practical reason to own an "assault weapon" (which, by the way is called a "personal defense weapon" by the Pentagon) for normal personal protection. But it does make a difference in situations such as Katrina and the LA riots. But more importantly, we must always recognize the the Second Amendment was written not so I could protect myself from Lewis. It was written to allow us to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. To think that our government will never turn on the people is beyond naive, it's full blown ignorance bordering on stupidity. Our government WILL, one day turn on us. It's a cycle of human nature. It may not happen for a long time, but it will happen. Mr. Unglesby's ignorance or deliberate attempt to mislead people has blown a hole in his credibility on the issue. I suggest he keep his unfounded opinions to himself and go speak on something he actually understands.

72) Comment by arin - 05/02/2013

Good comments!

73) Comment by CountryBoysCanSurvive - 05/02/2013

Mr. Unglesby, you should push for a ban on knives, seeing that your latest client murdered an innocent child, by cutting his throat.

74) Comment by jdk944 - 05/02/2013

Misinformation Mr. Unglesby!!! 4 pistols/revolvers were actually what was used at Sandy Hook, no AR15!!! The government started calling them Assault Rifles back in the 1990's when Citizens own them. When the government buys/owns them they are called "defensive weapons". This isn't worthy of an article in The Advocate but then again, this is The Advocate's position as well!!!

75) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 05/02/2013

Typical Amerikan statist, automatically assumes government can do anything it wants with no regard for the rights of the citizens.

76) Comment by Chucky - 05/02/2013

Unglesby has never even opened a door for any one and not thought of it as a favor that needed paying back. Why is this lie-yer getting face time ? Write a letter like everyone else. Blood money, that’s rich.

77) Comment by The_Host - 05/02/2013

Typo there at the end folks meant to type "Presume" not pressure. Early morning post what can I say someone has to go to work millions on welfare are counting on us. I just don't for a second think this guy ever had a rifle put to his head he is grandstanding.

78) Comment by The_Host - 05/02/2013

A lawyer calling someone else out for blood money, that is some rich comedy there. Twice he had a gun to his head and I bet he shoots skeet all the time with Obama too. I will make this idiot an offer. If he can hit all 30 shots with a semi auto rifle in 5 SECONDS inside a target at 25 yards I will give him my AR15. If he can't he has to give me his license to practice law and leave the state. You hear me Unglesby? Don't worry when you lose you can always go to NY where they have just done what you wanted. Or you could just do us all a favor and go anyway, right now, before I pressure another ASSAULT RIFLE is put to your head. Oh wait he didn't mention if it was a pistol put to his head or a rifle now did he? Details, details.

79) Comment by jimmingo - 05/02/2013

Well it seems Mr. Unglesby must have found a way to make a dollar off this "assault weapon" hysteria taking hold in the US. He wouldn't take a side about anything unless he is going to be paid to do so, or already has been paid. Apparently Mr. Unglesby hasn't been squeamish in the past about taking money from those same clients that have used illegal weapons here in South Louisiana against the same citizenry he wants to protect now. Like most litigious-prone lawyers, the true scales of justice just get in the way of their paychecks. I suggest that whoever is paying Mr. Unglesby to do this, find a much more believable representative in this endeavor. He can't make any serious intelligent person believe what he says anymore. Jim