Our Views: A new look at weapons

If there is some good news to come out of the Newtown tragedies, it is that there is agreement across the political spectrum about mental-health treatment. We welcome that discussion, although we should always note that making services available to those who need them and cannot afford them will require a discussion of money.

Where there isn’t yet agreement is on the issue of controlling the proliferation of high-powered weapons that have no legitimate hunting use. We hope that lawmakers will look with open minds at the so-called “assault weapons” ban that was dropped in 2004.

Many gun enthusiasts called it “imperfect,” but its renewal was supported by law enforcement and President George W. Bush. We supported its renewal at that time, and could support a new-and-improved version.

There is no legitimacy in having easy access to 30-round clips and military weapons in civilian hands. And there is no legitimate argument, as the U.S. Supreme Court has said, that the Second Amendment to the Constitution rules out common-sense restrictions on weapons that help criminals outgun local police across this country.

Comments

1) Comment by Whatnow - 29/12/2012

HRoark, it's a true story, seriously. I could care less if they know. I am not a coward. They do know. All my neighbors have guns and know how to use them and they know. We let them know. This is the country and we know and watch out for each other. I've had to help neighbors plenty of times at night. Luckily, I didn't have to use my gun, but the sight of one sure makes them run. I am not trigger happy. Just prepared. Besides, most of the drug thugs and thieves are either in prison or have moved to Baton Rouge for easier pickings. Hopefully with the knowledge that we won't take it anymore will keep them there.

2) Comment by HRoark - 28/12/2012

The idea of thieves stealing pecans with headlamps reported by Whatnow is laughable and a bit far fetched, but it's a funny anecdote. Of course now the pecan thieve's less benign friends and relations know you have a bunch of guns and they know where you live if they follow the Advocate comments. You might want to consider not advertising your arsenal in the newspaper. You are delusional to think criminals fear people with guns. They deal with them every day.

3) Comment by ScotB - 28/12/2012

Here again I point out that the citizens are allowed to own guns to defend themselves, as stated by the Supreme Court. An "assault weapon" is not for hunting, no one said it was. It is clearly designed to kill people, which is just what you need when your home and family are under attack. A semi-automatic handgun is not for hunting, either. It is clearly protected under the second amendment. An amendment with simple wording. "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." Infringe (definition)- .Act so as to limit or undermine (something). Capisci?

4) Comment by Whatnow - 28/12/2012

“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty.” ― Thomas Jefferson

5) Comment by Whatnow - 28/12/2012

See you assume again, Protean, not Fox, but the NRA. And I like how you presume to know what the criminals fear. I haven't had a theft on my place since I started collecting guns, except "almost" one time. A bunch of thieves came out at night with head lights on to steal from my pecan crop, which I sell. I loaded my shotgun with bird shot and walked outside. I couldn't see anything except all these headlights under my trees. When I shot my gun into the sky, you could see headlights running in all directions. The dumb yoyo's hid behind the trees and forgot to turn off their headlights. My family and I were cracking up. I told them they had 1 minute to get off my land and you never saw so many headlights running down the road in all your life. I haven't had a bit of trouble or been robbed since. Sometimes it pays to advertise. And I do have a concealed weapon permit and don't advertise that one. Just because you don't agree with our methods does not mean we are stupid. And just because you live in your safe little world and have never seen your wife and kids crying and scared when you get robbed, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It has happen to my family. We are not the criminals and you left wingers are acting like we are. And your presumption that we are all talk and no action, just shows you that you think your intellect will work instead. Put your intellect up against an armed robber, I dare you. Until you walk in my shoes, don't presume to know better. Sounds like you are the one with all talk and no action because it hasn't happened to you and you don't know what you're talking about. I am free to use what ever makes my family feel safe. If you're ever up against an armed robber, pull out a book and see it it works. Put up a "Gun Free Zone" sign in your yard and see how long you last.

6) Comment by Protean - 28/12/2012

Right wingers are very uncomfortable debating the complexities of life. As you can see from this and other gun-related threads, any mention of restricting public access to any kind of weapon instantly becomes a complete "gun ban" in their minds. Object to the useless bluster about what a well armed and fearless killing machine they'll be when the villains appear, and you then become a sprout-munching pacifist who'll promptly submit to criminal aggression. I suppose we should take pity on the blusterers, because they are the most likely to get themselves and other non-combatants killed. It's the folks who don't care to rave about their alleged combat readiness who criminals fear most. It's those folks who are most likely to have a little surprise for the bad guys.

7) Comment by Scrooge - 28/12/2012

"I like my odds of protecting what is mine better than yours" I don't believe I ever mentioned my preferred mode of protection and don't really have any need to do so publicly. Why is it necessary to anthropomorphize and publicize your deepest adversarial desires as imagined fantasy on an anonymous forum? Obviously, there are risks to life many of which demonstrate that humanity is its own worse enemy and steps may be necessary. As I said, if it is your desire to advertise your willingness to kill people, you would probably be better served by placing a neon sign on your front yard. Of course, given free speech one can post publicly any sort of inanity one chooses. Generally, I comment on these forums when inconsistencies and contradictions make it difficult to understand the point. Combat is not glorious, it is an infinitely ugly mess. Personally, I do not believe that military weaponry should be available to civilians and for good reason.

8) Comment by Protean - 28/12/2012

And the initial "knee jerk" reaction from the extreme right is to provide the deadliest of weaponry to everyone ... provided they conform to the "proper" social stratum, ethnicity and ideology. Am I wrong? Actually neither of us are wrong. But neither the extreme left nor the extreme right should be driving a proper discussion about fair and responsible firearms policy. So how about we drop this rubbish about an indiscriminate "gun grab" by the big bad boogie men.

9) Comment by nimby? - 28/12/2012

the initial "knee jerk" reaction is usually from the extreme left for the banning of all weapons , am I wrong ?

10) Comment by Attila - 28/12/2012

@Scrooge: Not bluster...just a statement of fact. You may look to the police or even divine providence to keep you safe. In either case I like my odds of protecting what is mine better than yours. Sorry if my choice of metaphors got off with you....but you got the point.

11) Comment by Protean - 28/12/2012

Whatnow: I'll have it any way I please, and I'm not your buddy. I don't "act" like I know you at all as a real person; you're merely a collection of curious words on an anonymous forum. But those words provide enough info for me to contradict your rhetorical pap in suitable style. So when you start chest-beating about how big your gun is and how mightily prepared you are, I can and will point out that bluster is not an element of preparedness, nor are fantasies about how criminals will conduct themselves according to your wishes. Yeah, I know that your arguments are, for the greatest part, little more than regurgitated Fox News cliches and talking points, as usual.. "The only thing that will stop a bad guy ...". Another vacuous sound-bite, the preferred tool of right-wing discussion. Here's another inconvenient crack in your argument: hysterics. Claim that themthar librulls (meaning anyone who challenges right-wing rants) are out to confiscate everything that goes bang. Claim that that anyone unconvinced by your backyard warrior testimony will simply give in to criminals. Ain't happening, bubba. Neither the confiscation nor the capitulation.

12) Comment by Whatnow - 28/12/2012

Protean, have at it buddy. You can act like you know me all you want. All your "intelligence" has already told me what you are. "Being prepared for a violent encounter doesn't correlate to having the biggest gun that can shoot the most bullets." Tell it to the criminals and the military. The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Oh, and by the way, since you claim to know me so well, I haven't watched TV in over 15 years. Being prepared seems to bother you. Then tell the criminals not to attack and I won't have to use my weapons and all is rainbows and sunshine.

13) Comment by agagent - 28/12/2012

Not so new look at guns: Chicago, a city with the strictest gun laws in the country, just reported its 500th murder. Let’s talk about how criminals will have guns when government ban guns from law-abiding citizens.

14) Comment by nimby? - 28/12/2012

half of the country doesn't trust the other half . there is little confidence in the government . crime is moving out of it's usual pockets , many feel the police cannot "protect and serve" . words can comfort , but they cannot protect ...

15) Comment by Protean - 28/12/2012

Whatnow: The "smart alec"(seemed to bother you, huh) accent is a tribute to ignorance, which isn't limited to the South. It's a portable trait that usually tracks the bearer. Thanks for the demo. Your claims of military skills aren't supported by your on-line bluster. You see, real encounters with violence don't go smoothly like you've learned from the many episodes of NCIS LA you've apparently studied. The bad guys don't jump out in the open, fire wild shots that always miss and then fall when one of the good guys fires in their general direction. Perhaps you know all that but don't want to appear "sissy-like to your wingnut peers. So I'll be kind and tell you once more (now pay attention and pretend your buds aren''t reading). Being prepared for a voilent encounter doesn't correlate to having the biggest gun that can shoot the most bullets. Nor does it mean completely disarming -- the strawman argument the likes of you reliably invoke when you get frustrated. And since you seem to be as confused about "rights" as you are about preparedness, I must point out that I have the right to tell you anything I wish, and you also have the right to whine about it.

16) Comment by ScotB - 27/12/2012

We had an assault weapons ban in effect for 10 years. It had no impact on homicides with those type weapons, in fact, they slightly increased.

17) Comment by Whatnow - 27/12/2012

Okay, OMK, I'll give on that one, but my sentiments are the same. And Protean, I am not from the South so your smart alec fake accent doesn't pertain to me. You are just showing your bigotry for Southerners. If you don't like them, go away. And do you think I'm just going to shoot one at a time? I learned in the military how to shoot and with purpose. I don't play with guns. I practice to stay ready. You can cower on the ground begging all you want like a sissy but, I won't. And no sissies in Washington is going to make me do that, either. Whether or not I'm attacked by a bunch, one or none, at least I am prepared and not a coward. I just hope that if you are ever attacked, you won't be sorry that you weren't prepared or dead. And you have no right to tell me that don't have rights.

18) Comment by Old Man Kensey - 27/12/2012

Whatnow, Jefferson didn't say that. He did scribe on the remark that it was a, "false idea of utility." http://mixermuse.com/blog/2011/03/20/guns-and-false-quotes/

19) Comment by Protean - 27/12/2012

Whatnow: Read the latest Scrooge comment. You will do nothing more with your hi- capacity semi-auto than intimidate beer cans and get other people -- including yourself and not necessarily the attackers -- killed. You'll bluster in a comments forum and work yourself up into a delusion of righteous might, a fantasy that will fall apart as soon as the first shot is fired. Unless, of course, those mean old attackers do what they're supposed to do. They must tell you they're coming in plenty time for you to grab your toy and some extra magazines, then they'll be sure to advance one at a time, and slowly, so that you can empty all thirty into each one, pop in a fresh mag and do a nice little right-wing victory dance before the next one presents himself for you to dispatch. Yep. That's how it'll work, just as long as themthar "libs" don't let reality intrude.

20) Comment by dday198 - 27/12/2012

im out man

21) Comment by Whatnow - 27/12/2012

It depends on how many are attacking you.

22) Comment by dday198 - 27/12/2012

is anyone going to die because they can't buy a gun that can spit out 30 shots in a few seconds ?

23) Comment by Whatnow - 27/12/2012

I just wonder if the criminals are going to register or give up their weapons? How many new government jobs will be created to enforce `victim disarmament' the ban is passed? "The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose." ~James Earl Jones. "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." ~Thomas Jefferson

24) Comment by dday198 - 27/12/2012

Attila got the expected answer from you, whatnow you sound like easy pickings. i think the 90 round barrels or drums and the 30 round clips will be gone soon along with some toothless hick selling an ar or an ak at a gun show without paper work will soon end. so head down to your local gun shop and stock up with end of the world snacks and ammo. even conservative politicos with 100% rating with the nra know that something will and needs to be done.

25) Comment by Whatnow - 27/12/2012

dday198, it's not only my home, it's my neighbors, too. We live not too far from a drug infested neighborhood. Plus, the cops don't even search for stolen stuff anymore. And rest assured, I am stocked up and gun educated. I just hope they see me practicing my expertise with my weapons on my land. I'm sure they hear it.

26) Comment by Scrooge - 27/12/2012

Attila to be sure the criminals who read the comments on theadvocate online will now be quite frightened by your bluster and bravado, kudos. A stint in combat might have reduced the luster of that glory you seek while a neon sign in your front yard advertising your fearlessness might be more effective. It is, to paraphrase, not so much the weapons we should fear as it is the person wielding them; an obsessive fascination with a weapon supported primitive ethos to compensate for the fear of the dark expressed in an anonymous forum reveals more than some apparently understand. After all it is quite evident that people can kill people and tend to do so with some regularity. Personally, I believe that anonymously telling total strangers that you think you have the psychological means to kill them is an exercise of the absurd.

27) Comment by Whatnow - 27/12/2012

Proposal on gun control just in. ( http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons )

28) Comment by Attila - 27/12/2012

@dday198: Big Mike is spot on. You ask "is there no line when it comes to defending one's home?" What is your suggestion? Should we be limited to slingshots and rocks? My response to your doltish question is there is no line when it comes to protecting my family and home. I will do it by any means necessary....even it that requires a bazooka.

29) Comment by Whatnow - 27/12/2012

Land mines?? Now why didn't I think of that when every chained bike I bought my kids for Christmas were stolen off my porch before they could even ride them. And when two riding lawnmowers that were chained were stolen. And my German Shepard puppy was stolen before he could become my guard dog. Or how about when my water pump was sawed off my pipes and stolen. Or when someone broke into my house and stole my wife's purse. Or when they broke into my shed to steal my electric tools. I finally had a security system put in, but it doesn't protect anything that I have outside of my home. Land mines... where can I buy those??? Anything it takes. But, someone needs to tell the criminals that assault weapons aren't allowed when they take them away from the good guys.

30) Comment by [e-mail] - 27/12/2012

Noel Hammatt needs clarification on what the second amendment means to the individual; yes, the constitution stipulates that the individual is free to make his own choices and decisions about arms. It's not nor should it ever be up to a bureaucrat, a leftist activist, or those who want to punish gun owners to decide what he can have.

31) Comment by [e-mail] - 27/12/2012

BigMike is attempting to use sarcasm to point out just how idiotic the gun control arguments really are, but I think that those who want to punish gun owners are beyond any attempt at reasonable debate, else they would have to concede that their argument is less about a desire for gun control than it is for a denial of the constitutional right of an idividual citizen to keep and bear arms.

32) Comment by agagent - 27/12/2012

Let’s have a conversation on the influence of violent video games, violent music, and movies that glorify violence. At least a couple of the mass murderers were addicted to violent video games and some even dress as their favorite movie character. It is time for parents to monitor and control what their children watch and for Hollywood and the entertainment industry to own up to their share of the blame.

33) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 27/12/2012

What an interesting comment by @rgeraldwallace: putting aside the silly comment about "leftists," would you have each person making his or her own decisions without respect to laws and the constitution? Wasn't his called anarchy? Please advise.

34) Comment by agagent - 27/12/2012

An “assault weapon” is an ambiguous legal term (Maybe the ban was dropped because firearms were banned based only on how they looked.). A typical “assault” rifle is usually lower powered than a typical hunting rifle. Some such rifles use pistol cartridges. However, carbine rifles are short rifles that are handy for self defense, target shooting, or hunting. They are used for varmint or shorter range hunting. As for those “high capacity clips,” you need a larger magazine for shelf defense or target shooting than for hunting. Capacity of the magazine might be an individual choice as a magazine that is too large will make a firearm unwieldy and a small magazine is not desirable for target shooting or self defense.

35) Comment by [e-mail] - 27/12/2012

The legitimate argument is that it's up to the individual citizen to decide what he wants or thinks he needs, not a bunch of leftists.

36) Comment by dday198 - 27/12/2012

There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights.[5] One version was passed by the Congress,[6] while another is found in the copies distributed to the States[7] and then ratified by them. As passed by the Congress: 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. As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State: 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.[8] The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and resides in the National Archives.

37) Comment by dday198 - 27/12/2012

from one gun owner to another,one man's defense weapon is another man's assault weapon. i would hate to live in big mike's world, in wait for some bad guy to hit me. do you pack the ar when you drop the kids off at school? is there no line when it comes to defending one's home? land mines in the yard maybe?

38) Comment by BigMike - 27/12/2012

Its amazing how so many "intelligent" people can't understand "shall not be infringed". When it comes to defending my family, home or property, I want maximum firepower. My AR is not an "assault" weapon, it is a "defense" weapon. But thats not what the 2nd Amendment is about & everyone knows that. Gun control is not about "guns", its about "control". I have weapons & a CWP. I am no threat to anyone unless they threaten me, or whats mine. Its absolutely mind-boggling how many of my so-called "countrymen" would rather die on their knees, begging some lunatic for mercy & praying that they get it than defending their self & family. This sudden outbreak of hoplophobia is amazing & pathetic. I cannot understand why any man would not want every available resource to defend his wife & kids. Why not put a "Gun-Free Zone" sign in your front yard. It seems to be good enough for our kids....

39) Comment by Corvette Racer - 27/12/2012

Please explain to me which "military weapon" is in civilian hands. No one here has a machine gun, a rocket launcher or a bazooka. These AR-15s are merely semi-automatic rifles modeled to resemble an M-16. Do you think a soldier would actually go into battle with one of these? He would be at a severe disadvantage. When I was a youngster (1965), I had a Sears-Roebuck .22 semi-automatic rifle that held between 15 and 20 cartridges in a tube beneath the barrel (depending on whether you used Short, Long, or Long Rifle cartridges) rather than in a magazine. That is twice as many rounds as the California approved model of any AR-15, but it looks like a "regular" rifle rather than a "military" rifle. Would this rifle be outlawed under the proposed "assault weapons" ban? No, even though it is clearly capable of killing many people without reloading. Why? Because some liberals have a view in their mind of what an "assault rifle" looks like, and will not be happy until all weapons that look like this are no longer available. Then the mentals and nutcases will just use plain jane semi-automatic rifles to do their bidding.

40) Comment by swinham - 27/12/2012

Surely there is a common-sense solution to this. Most things taken to the extreme become dangerous. If it was possible for everybody to have equal weaponry would the cold war concept of mutually assured destruction become a day-to-day reality and deter crime? It is equally impossible to disarm everybody and there is no evidence legislation attempting to do so will ever be seriously introduced. I strongly agree with agagent's comments. If we are going to ban anything, we need to first take a look at these things that clearly allow people addicted to them to objectify and devalue human life. Then we need to take a look at whether the ban on assault weapons should be reconsidered. Unfortunately, the horse is already out of the barn in both cases and it will be a lot harder to put it back in than to have kept it there to begin with. One thing for sure: Allowing every citizen the right to do whatever they want whenever they want is not the answer.