Why Would Any American Need an AR-15? Zetas, That’s Why
The key rhetorical question that some who want to limit our Second Amendment rights, like Piers Morgan, keep asking is: “Why does any American need an AR-15?” They ask that question because they clearly cannot imagine any circumstances under which that would be necessary. Unfortunately, however, there are many Americans who live along the southwestern border of the United States who know the answer to that question.
Their answer is in part directly due to the enforcement and immigration decisions made by the very administration that is seeking to outlaw their right to own these types of weapons.
In 2010, I met former Arizona Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever. He talked about the many problems he faced in his county with illegal border crossers and drug smugglers — Cochise County is directly on the Mexican border. Dever, who was tragically killed in an auto accident in 2012, knew many of the ranchers and others who own property along the border and have been attacked, burglarized, threatened, assaulted, and murdered by the dangerous predators crossing into the United States from Mexico.
Those include Robert Krentz. Krentz transmitted a radio message to his family about an illegal alien on his 35,000-acre ranch shortly before being murdered. Police reports said officers followed the trail of evidence 20 miles south, into Mexico, leading Dever to believe the shooter was a scout for a drug smuggling organization.
The ranch, which the Krentz family started in 1907, was within the congressional district represented by former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who testified recently in favor of the so-called assault weapons ban proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).
This is a problem all along the Arizona border, not just in Cochise County. One rancher in Arivaca, Arizona, Jim Chilton, told NBC News on January 25 about the dangerous drug smugglers that use his land “at will.” His home has been burglarized twice, and he and his ranch hands are constantly on the lookout for armed smugglers. He told NBC:
Can you imagine riding a horse through here on your own land and running into a guy with an AK-47 and 20 or 30 guys behind him dressed in camouflage and carrying drugs?
Chilton’s neighbor David Beckham told NBC that he finally moved his family away from his ranch because of the dangerous and numerous run-ins they’ve had with Mexican smugglers. Smugglers have even fired shots at him “while he walked his land with a U.S. Border Patrol agent.”
Both Chilton and Beckham complained about the lack of border enforcement by the Obama administration. According to the story, both the ranchers and Border Patrol agents say that the “smugglers crossing the border now are more heavily armed and confrontational than in years past.”
CBS News reported on January 13 about another Arizona rancher, John Ladd, who owns a 14,000-acre ranch along the Mexican border where his family has lived for five generations. His land is constantly crossed by drug smugglers because, as Ladd says, the southern side of the border “is all controlled by the cartel now.” At night, he and his family have to lock their doors:
You got guns laying around. You got guns in the truck. You worry about your mother, your dad, your wife. You want to live like that? I’m a rancher. I don’t want to live like that.
Oh, dear God, why can’t we learn to frame the argument correctly?
It is not, and has never been, a question of “why would anyone need” XYZ. It has ALWAYS been a question of “who the hell are you to tell me I can’t have” XYZ. This is not just a gun-control debate. It is a CONTROL DEBATE.
The Second Amendment was written, along with nine others, as sops to states who feared that the new national (NOT federal) government would behave pretty much as King George had been doing. The founders believed, and behaved accordingly, that the right to keep and bear arms was part of the foundation of a free people. They agreed to produce what has become known as the “Bill of Rights” in order to get the various states to OK the Constitution, but every evidence points to the fact that they considered the amendments as nothing more than a statement of rights already assumed and practiced — natural rights. The states felt exactly the same way, but they just wanted something in writing to back up those “natural” rights.
So, from the beginning, the Second Amendment — and the other nine in the Bill of Rights — has always been a matter of, “who the hell are you to tell me I can’t?”
Just sayin’…
U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald’s war against the truth
http://illinoispaytoplay.com/2013/02/06/u-s-attorney-patrick-fitzgeralds-war-against-the-truth/
And you “just said” everything that needs to BE said.
Except for this:
All the guns are belong to US.
None of the guns belong to THEM.
You want them?
Come and GET them.
Cuz were DONE talking about it
You have no chance to survive, make your time.
Sorry, couldn’t resist. Still, the above poster has the truth of it. We have a right, and do NOT have to prove “need” (ie, seek permission).
Everybody’s gotta die someday…
Been here longer than I planned already
And I HATE Commie/Socialist/Facists and the “beautiful people” who support them.
Whats not to love, going out the way you want to?
That’s it exactly.
“Need” is irrelevant. Rights are not based on need. Privileges are granted based on need. But we’re talking rights.
Rosa Parks didn’t need to sit in the front of the bus, there were plenty of seats in the back.
Americans are unique in that we do have a right to keep and bear arms, something that I believe no other country has. We have a right to defend what is ours, something that doesn’t exist outside the USA. In a lot of the rest of the “West”, you are for all practical purposes forbidden to defend yourself against criminals. For example, in England, you can be prosecuted for defending yourself against a criminal if you harm him in any way… Of course over there you are a “subject”, not a free citizen. Which has now also encouraged Muslims in England to behave aggressively against native Englishmen. Who are increasingly treated as non-Muslims are in the Middle East. And if you were confronted by a hostile gang that meant you harm, wouldn’t it be better to have a high capacity pistol than a six shot revolver? Or an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine? What is forgotten here is that criminals can run in “packs” like wild dogs, and in such a situation, you may very well need something more than just a five or seven shot weapon. Then in places like Arizona, ranchers are now encountering gangs with semi-military weapons smuggling both drugs and illegal immigrants. In such a case high capacity weapons are definitely necessary, not a luxury!
Mexico has a 2ndA equivalent, but it has a “very reasonable” limitation, saying the police can ban certain guns for law enforcement purposes.
They have effectively banned everything useful for self protection.
May chaos have mercy on you if you are arrested, in spite of the constitutional guarantees for speedy and fair trial.
Makes me wonder how many of those semi-automatic weapons were supplied by the DOJ. IE: Fast and Furious.
In one of the Scandanavian countries all 16 year olds are issued an “assult” rifle and are directed to train with it to be come proficient. Those people are always part of the line of defense for the country. Funny though it may be, they have an exceptionally low crime rate. I wonder why that might be???
Bingo.
The minute we put ourselves on the ground of, “I can PROVE I have a need!”, we have put ourselves on the ground of, “You are the master, and have the right to decide if my need is enough to persuade you to grant me permission to own such weapons.”
I’m sure the author means well, but he’s doing the enemy’s work.
The very idea of the likes of a busy-busy-busy Diane Feinstein holding forth on anything like gun “control” is just plain silly.
The self defense “experts” Feinstein, Schumer, Cuomo, Nadler, Durbin….et al…..will tells us what we “need” and will be “allowed” for our self defense. All the while exempting themselves from every infringement on our Second Amendment rights. Its obvious that 1) they could care less if we become victims instead of survivors and 2) they no longer believe that they work for the people, they are the rulers and we are the rabble. King George redux. What deeply disturbs me is supposed conservatives like Coburn, who seem to be on board with further infringement.
It’s a right, based upon the idea of “self ownership” and the right to defend yourself from those who wish you harm. Note that those politicians who want to take away our rights have their own security. Whereas any “security” we have has to be done ourselves. Remember when seconds count, the police are minutes away. For all practical purposes, the police act not as “protectors”, but more as agents of the justice system. Which is their proper task under the law.
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear shall not be infringed.” Well regulated being well trained and well armed. A free state being a state of freedom. Please see your Webster’s Unabridged.
We hear a lot from Constitutional “scholars” that the rights we have under the Bill of Rights are not absolute. “……shall not be infringed.” sounds pretty absolute to me.
None of the gun control advocates will accept any justification provided. The real question to ask is: Just who the hell do these anti-self-defense activists and demagogues think they are? By what possible authority do they get to decide what someone – everyone – else “needs”? Who told them American Citizens have to justify what they own? Personally, I don’t give a tinker’s damn what any collectivist boob thinks about anything whatsoever, and don’t plan to justify anything to them.
Or, we can play the same game, just for entertainment value. Why do anti-self-defense advocates NEED Underwear?
Are they afraid their outer clothing will just shoot off of its own accord?
Do their thong and red book clinging ideological fantasies make them think they should be allowed to keep something likely to cause visual injury to innocent people?
They shouldn’t be allowed to own that – even with the concealed drawers permits issued by subversive Blue State State Governments!
Their bleating about cleanliness is really lame. After all, this is not the 18th Century! We have washing machines that wash clothes for us in the 21st century!
Northern anti-self-defense advocates tend to whine pitifully about the cold. what insecure nonsense. Buy a jacket for crying out loud!
All the blockheads who want to determine what other people NEED must be called before Congress immediately to justify themselves and why they think they are ENTITLED to own underwear.
No, of course I won’t accept any of their selfish claims, but they Must Be SHAMED Publicly for their insecure selfishness!
They claim not to know about that guy in Newark who thought he was qualified to use his own BVDs to protect himself from wet Public Bus benches. He was mugged, and the assailants took the BVDs from his under-skilled backside and strangled him with it! BVDs only give these blockheads a false sense of security!
What is being proposed to ban the individual right to own a gun or many guns?
What is being proposed to ban individuals the right to defend themselves with a gun or many guns?
Seems to me. that if there is to be any debate, that debate should address the factual issues being proposed and not some delusional and irrelevent issues not even being proposed.
Whether or not the current proposals succeed or not, to ban ‘certain types’ of weapons and accessories from individual onwership, it is long held constitutional that the government CAN regulate guns without disturbing the tenants of the second amendment. Thats just what it is unless, any of you can file a brief providing an ample showing of unconstitutionality before the Supreme Court in which it would concur with.
” it is long held constitutional that the government CAN regulate guns without disturbing the tenants of the second amendment.”
On what planet?
They cant even ban Machine Guns, they HAVE to have a process in place…class 3, paperwork, tax stamps, inspections, impossibly complex rules in some states requiring a judge to declare in writing the “public benefit” of your personal SMG….
but nothing I repeat NOTHING has ever been BANNED at the federal level prior to Mr. Bills Cheesy “ugly gun ban” and the Supreme Court never got involved because it EXPIRED before it made its way up to them.
“Shall not be infringed” means just that.
My STATE constitution backs up the Fed version, except it says says “shall not be QUESTIONED” because they PLANNED IN ADVANCE for a**holes like Obama.
Only Liars (claim they) dont know what the Second Amendment means.
They know what it means. They’re just playing dumb, waiting for the Political Opportunity (like another Commie Justice on the bench?) to have it their way.
Heres a hint: The Constitution is just six pages long.
It says what it says in simple, clear language.
The only reason people like Obama “study” it for as long as they do, is to find ways AROUND it.
I would simply invite you to take a look at the very long list of federal and states gun regulations ‘enacted’ in the United States. You will find many very interesting ones in which the ‘average’ citizen is most likely not aware of. I posted recently, one from Texas of all places, in which there is a clause that has unknowingly been debated on here with some pretty vile opposition. The point is simply that gun regulation by both the federal and states have long been in place and have been, without any constitutional challenge. On the other hand you can almost count on one hand, the number of constitutional challenges brought before the supreme court. Likewise, I have posted some of the long history of the NRAs support of federal gun regulations up until most recently. I will grant you repect for all your rights of disagreement but not, for your denial in the face of the facts as they stand today.
“you can almost count on one hand, the number of constitutional challenges brought before the supreme court”
Yes thats my point.
No ‘BAN” has ever “stuck”
Miller in 1939 and the recent DC decision are it for the Second Amendment, both IN FAVOR of gun ownership, Miller actually seemed to imply “military weapons” ARE specifically protected, if you read the decision.
Just because a bunch of local turd-laws havent gotten “challenged” all the way to the Supremes does NOT make them “long held [as]constitutional”
That is an inaccurate statement, often used facetiously by Gun-grabbers to imply there is already a “Supreme Court Precident” vis a vis The Second Amendment, to support the BAN of certain types of firearms and/or Magazine capacities.
They pretend they have “constitutional” approval for some existing (bad, unconstitutional IMHO) LOCAL laws, when they in fact DO NOT.
In other words, they LIE.
They try to “invent momentum” for their position by suggesting prohibitions that HAVE NOT BEEN ARGUED BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, HAVE BEEN, AND WERE FOUND IN THEIR FAVOR.
When NO SUCH THING has (yet) occurred.
Its a LIE, please stop repeating it as if its fact
Root83
Nice ‘diversion’ from the point being discussed!
“Yes thats my point.
No ‘BAN” has ever “stuck”
Seems I was addressing *gun regulatory laws* being passed from a historical perspective with virtually none challenged as unconstitutional. And what do you attempt to do? You attmept to divert from the point being discussed, offering up the same old delusional fear mongering mantra. Take a good look at the severe Class II NFA restrictions and the fact that NY and CA ban Class II NFAs. See or hear of anybody challenging the unconstiutionality of those severe restrictions?
“Nice ‘diversion’ from the point being discussed!”
Seriously?
YOURE the one who said
“it is long held constitutional that the government CAN regulate guns without disturbing the tenants of the second amendment”
And that statement is FALSE.
The only ones who can rule on that are the Supreme Court,
and they have yet to do so.
Whoever you are Trolling for, they’re not getting their moneys worth from you.
You are clearly in over your head, child, go back to MSNBC.
The question is… why does zeke think these bans are ok when he knows that they won’t work?
“They cant even ban Machine Guns,”
Nor should they. No one has ever so much as held up a liquor store using a tripod mounted water cooled machine gun.
Using a tripod mounted water cooled machine gun to rob a liquor store would be quite silly, I agree.
The liar has returned.
Zeke, its already been done in the Heller and McDonald decisions in the supreme Court, or were you asleep?
What the posts I’ve read here seem to say is that the law abiding citizens of the country are going to be placed in a position that is untenable. They will be limited with the type of weapons they can have and they will be limitied by the type and/or quantity of ammunition they possess.
The real story is that the law abiding citizens are not the issue, the issue is with the criminals. Regardless of laws and bans criminals will have access to any kind of weapon they want. You seldom hear of a gun owner that has protected his family by using a weapon he has access to, but you always hear about the criminal that kills indescriminately.
Recently I read a story in an Oklahoma paper that described an attack by a group of kids, not gang members but a group of kids, that were “paying back” a bunch of gang members. There were no guns involved by either side and the papers reported it, the TV news media showed up and found there was no gun play and they left without turning on the cameras. Bias???? Blindly supporting ‘der leader’?
Ooops! hit the submit button somehow.
Anyway, I would think that there is a great deal of legitimate debate to be had in the areas of ‘access’ to weapons by those not eligible for gun ownership. There are somehow about 500,000 plus guns stolen from legal individual owners and licensed retailers each year. Over my many years, I have lived in several places around the country and have ben burglarized more times than I can count. Not is a single instance was any of our guns stolen. We try to be responsible and make it near impossible for a burglar to 1) find them and 2) successfully steal them. Is this not a legitimate area to be debating, ‘responsible’ securing of weapons, since 500,000 or more are stolen each year making their way to the streets and used in crimes by otherwise, unlawful gun owners?
It would also seem reasonable for legitimate debate, the issues of gun access in homes where there are mentally disturbed and out of control teens, etc. Should not there be some debate of ‘responsible’ securing of weapons in such homes?
So which part of ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed’ is proving so hard to understand?
None of it for me Mr. Grant! Not a single effort has ever been made on behalf of the federal government or any state to collect the arms of the citizens, thus, denying or repealing the second amendment. I have a number of weapons that serve our purposes and we live in no fear of the government coming to take them.
My point was simply that if gun ‘accessablity’ to unauthorized person was responsibly and rationally addressed some time agao, there would most likely, not be the current debate and delusional fears I’m witnessing. The fact that some 500,000 guns are stolen each year, made presumably, accessable to unauthorized persons, might well indicate an alarming degree of irresponsibility on the part of lawful gun owners.
You still seem to be having some difficulty.
How can there be ‘unauthorized persons’ when ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed’?
Back before 1920, anyone in the UK could walk out of jail to the nearest gun store, buy any gun they wanted, and walk out, no questions asked. Gun crime was lower than today. Then the government announced that they were going to ensure only ‘authorized persons’ could have guns to reduce gun crime and, no, obviously they were never going to prevent decent, law-abiding Britons owning them.
Now guns are pretty much banned, because that was the goal all along.
Okay, Mr. Grant.
Lets, for the sake of not ‘infringing’ on the right to bear arms, we let criminals, kids and mentally inparied all have guns of any types manufactured, too walk the streets. Afterall, the right to bear arms extends to ‘citizens’ of which all of them are.
Problem solved! See, I’m not so hard to get along with.
Mr. Zeke: “…Not a single effort has ever been made on behalf of the federal government or any state to collect the arms of the citizens, thus, denying or repealing the second amendment…”
“Denying and repealing”? The question asked of you was about “infringing”.
“Definition of infringe
verb (infringes, infringing, infringed)
[with object]
actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.):
making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:
his legal rights were being infringed
[no object]:
I wouldn’t infringe on his privacy”
Suppose I want to travel to another state of the U.S. If the Fed. government made a law that I had to travel using only a specific vehicle, say an electric auto, to go to Texas, would that be infringing on my right to interstate travel? Mind you, I am asking about a Federal, not state, law.
“Not a single effort has ever been made on behalf of the federal government or any state to collect the arms of the citizens, thus, denying or repealing the second amendment.”
Not true Zeke, and we are moving further in that direction. I give you “…turn them all in Mr. and Mrs America” Dianne Feinstein, and Governor Cuomo’s open suggestion that he might outlaw and collect “assault” weapons in NY State. Did he? Not yet but….he has taken the first step by requiring registration. The next step will be confiscation, at the point of a police weapon, if necessary.
Isn’t going to happen? I offer you California. They passed registration of assault weapons, with the promise that they would never be outlawed. Then they turned right around and outlawed them. Not many Californians complied, but they are now subject to arrest and jail, should a California law enforcement officer catch them with an assault weapon. The real world examples are out there Zeke, you just chose to gloss over or ignore them.
Notice how the terminology has changed also, from assault rifle to assault weapon. That allows the gun grabber to include handguns in the mix. That 17 round Glock, or 15 round Sig are now subject to their anti gun whims. And make no mistake about it, the agenda is not just anti gun, it is anti self defense, using the techniques the British used to accomplish those goals.
Ain’t gonna happen here in America? It’s already happening.
Sorry, that anonymous post was mine.
Zeke, did you forget about what the jack booted thugs did in New Orleans during Katrina, or what the union army did at the slaughter at Wounded Knee? you must not read any of the history of this country.
Zeke
Okay, Mr. Grant.
Lets, for the sake of not ‘infringing’ on the right to bear arms, we let criminals, kids and mentally inparied all have guns of any types manufactured, too walk the streets. Afterall, the right to bear arms extends to ‘citizens’ of which all of them are.
Problem solved! See, I’m not so hard to get along with.
In response to your post Zeke:
The issue in the U.S. is currently that felons are restricted from owning weapons. Considering they are already criminals there is really nothing prohibiting them from obtaining weapons. Criminals will have no compunction to obey the laws. As for the mentally impaired, once diagnosed it would be easy to limit their access to weapons. My question to you would be that if you had a son/daughter that was mentally impared/disturbed would you lay your weaponry around so it would be accessible for him/her? I wouldn’t.
I’ve had weapons and have always kept them secured so visitors and our kids did not have access to them. Owning a weapons places great responsibility on you as the owner for the safety of those around you.
Zeke said: “There are somehow about 500,000 plus guns stolen from legal individual owners and licensed retailers each year.”
Wow, thats a lot of guns . . . oh wait 500,000/300,000,000 equals 0.00166 percent of all guns in the United States. Wwould have to have a hundred years of thefts and a stable number of guns befor we even get to a tenth of a percent.
Good job Zeke.
Opps, explanation is off. It’s at .16% now. It would take a hundred years to get to 16.6% of all guns in America being stolen.
yeah, but only IF that preposterous “half million stolen” figure holds water.
Given the dudes inability to make a convincing rational argument on ANY topic I’ve seen him comment on, I’d say it came out his ass, or from the Huff Po.
So, you’re all okay with 500,000 being stolen *each year* and presumably going to the streets and in the hands of criminals? Okay!
As far as the data, anybody who knows how and where to access official government data, can find it. Its certainly not classified information. Some of it is not gathered and reported on an annual basis in which case, it nearly always is represented on a five or ten year trend line, as is the complete data on stolen weapons.
No Zeke. I’m pointing out your amazing ability to laser focus on something that is only .16% as the major problem which justifies passing laws that will only affect the 99.84% that is not the problem.
This is the problem with gun control advocates. They alsways focus on the wrong thing. I guess its because they dont want to talk about how badly their policies have failed when it comes to “social justice.” You know those policies which have led to a situation where Blacks are 4 times as likely to be murdered than whites and 5 times as likely as Asians. But hey, to you since blacks are killing each other at very high rates compared to whites and asians, we must restrict everyone’s rights, so we can ignore the failures of Liberal social policy. Good job. You go Zeke, you will never fail to disappoint.
Zeke, this post is intended as a general response to your line of argument above. You do make some good points, but let me note that for many years liberal constitutional scholars stoutly maintained that the Second Amendment was about the states’ right to maintain a militia and conferred no individual right to have guns. That issue was never definitively resolved until the Heller decision just a few years ago. It would take just one appointment by Obama to the seat of one of the conservatives or the swing vote on the high court to overrule Heller or distinguish it away.
It behooves gun owners and defenders of the Second Amendment to maintain a political backstop to the amendment in case subsequent jurisprudence weakens the precedent, and make it politically risky to attempt further limitations on the right to bear arms. Part of that is fighting against useless but nevertheless dangerous gun control laws at every level.
Another point if I may. While there are few laws and only a small number of jurisdictions which ban guns outright, the network of registration laws, limitations of the type and design of guns that may be legally owned, re-importation requirements in case you hunt internationally as I used to do, and so on, can make it so difficult to know the law and so risky to move around with a gun that for all practical purposes they are banned everywhere but your own backyard.
Let me cite an example. The “Guns Free School Zone Act” forbids the knowing possession of a gun within 1000 feet of a school. Drive around your hometown, or any urban area and see just how many schools there are. And the statute doesn’t say “public school”, it says “school”. You have to assume they mean the business college in the second floor of a building you never noticed before as well as the elementary school along the main highway with crosswalks, etc.
There are some exceptions which were adopted after the ridiculous overreach of the statute was recognized, but if you drive the public streets and roads with a gun in the vehicle you’d better qualify for one or you might be busted when — not if — you pass within 1000 feet of a school. The risk may seem remote and probably is but a federal felony is not to be taken lightly if there is any risk.
I’d certainly recommend that anyone who owns and uses firearms to look up this statute and memorize it. A few more laws like that one and I will have to bury my guns in the back yard.
Finally, recognize that the exercise of liberty, including gun ownership, entails some risk. If we are forbidden to engage in any risky conduct, we will have lost our liberty.
zeke said:
The “wiki weapon” concept has rendered your point obsolete.
@ Songdog
First, thanks for a mature response! I have payed attention to all the arguments framework as posed on PJM on the discussions of gun control. Of course, theres all the normal and expected rhetoric around the constitutions second amendment. That however, doesn’t give address too the real problem or attempt to problem solve the real problem(s). So, it seemed to me, putting aside all the constitutional diversions, the real problem is one of ‘access’ of guns to those who should not be in possession of them. Identifying who shouldn’t have guns in their possession seems to be a rather moot point. Now, how do we go about ‘preventing’ those who shouldn’t have ownership and or access to guns from doing so?
Data accumulated from convicted felons indicates that they access guns from two predominate sources. 1) from theft and 2) from street sales. I would consider #2 to be synonomouse with #1. It would seem logical, that when on average, a half millions guns per year are stolen, presumably from lawful gun owners, going into the hands of unlawful gun owners, that identifies a major ‘access’ problem. For this component, I was simply suggesting that maybe, as a lawful gun owner, there might well be justification for establishing some pertinent lawful ownership and secure control responsibilities. Some rather stiff responsibilities with some rather stiff consequences for being irresponsible.
As for point of sale access, that becomes far more complex. Homicide data aside, the numbers of annual crimes committed in which guns are involved presents some interesting data. Intersting fom the point of how law enforcement and the courts deal with them. A signficant majority of them committed by lawful gun owners who recieve a starkly different response from law enforcement and the courts as opposed to those who turn out to be unlawful gun owners. I think this is yet another area of which needs some serious review and action reforms. Now, back to the point of sales issue. I think that anybody who has record of a certain class of psychological drug treatment protocols, alcohol and drug record and all misdemeanor records involving assaults and other forms of violence should be barred from point of sales purchases and lawful gun ownership.
Access of guns by those not warranted lawful and constitutional protections (a moot issue) should be the discussion — not the constitutions second amendment.
zeke said:
A mature debater isn’t intellectually dishonest. You know that nothing will prevent bad guys from getting guns because you admitted so after being shown the technological progress in desktop fabrication. Then, when you think the coast is clear, you jump to another thread repeating things you don’t actually believe in.
zeke,
When a criminal can just print out his gun parts, what’s the point? If you are an old man that you claim you are, then I guess your senility prevents you from understanding the concept of the “wiki weapon”. However, your earlier comments denigrating the right of the 99% to defend themselves suggests something else.
This response is to Zeke above.
Once again a major failure in math and any preto approach to the problem. Again a major distraction from the actual problem to avoid the complete failure of Liberal policies.
Assum that the 500,000 figure is correct for thefts. There are approximately 12,000 homicides involving firearms per year in the U.S.
12,000/500,000 = 2.4%. I know that Zeke is in love with big numbers, because they are BIG *does three point snap* but the fact of the matter is that if Zeke’s big number is true it still means that only 2.4% of all stolen firearms are used in a homocide (we will assume all stolen firearms are confiscated in a year to make Zeke’s numbers even bigger and scarier). Way to go after a small problem in order to ignore the big ones. If Zeke wasnt so consistant I might think he was a racist.
Since you ignore, intentionally or unintentionaly, that 500K guns stolen on average per year, progressively means even bigger numbers of stolen guns out there (500K + 500K + 500K….) in the hands of those unqualified for ownership and committing multiple crimes with those guns, it becomes a signficant problem. Next, it IS a problem of ‘accces’ to guns by those not qualified for ownership! IF, ACCESS of guns too those not qualified for ownership was signficantly reduced or reduced to zero from theft alone, you wouldn’t have any basis for which to be discussing any gun ownership issues! Gun crimes by felons and mentally deranged of record, would be signficantly reduced as would massacres.
That said, its quite obvious that the pro-gunner extremists have NO interest in rational adult problem solving but rather, use a diversion from the real problem, too perpetuate their anti-government, hate and fear objectives.
STOP MAKING IT EASY FOR YOUR GUNS TO BE STOLEN!!
It should be added that Arizona District Court Chief Judge John Roll was shot and killed at the same time as Giffords. He was the madman who ruled in favor of illegal immigrants who sued an American rancher in Vincente v. Barnett. Even with weapons, you can’t use them, or even talk mean.
In an ideal society we would tie people like Feinstein to a stake within 3 feet of the border and allow them to experience the consequences of their stupid ideology.
It’s a Bill of Rights, not a bill of needs.
The Zetas, other criminals, wild boar (a growing problem in many states), coyote, whatever…the argument has been framed, scary looking weapons must be controlled because nobody “needs” them.
You don’t need to go anywhere near the southern border to encounter Mexican narcotics gangs: they operate with impunity at least as far north as Chicago.
Sen. Feinstein and others of her ilk are not concerned that people in the country defend themselves because they want to herd us all into cities where we can live more “efficiently”.
Diaaaane Foinstoin and her ilk thinks that the 1% should only have armed protection, and think the peons of the 99% should not. Too bad that technological advances are putting an end to their senile rule.
Gun rights are civil right, period. The right to free speech is worthless unless a person has the right to defend themselves.
The anti rights groups are nothing but racist control freaks who think that the average person is too stupid to think for themselves. I have seen these people face to face and they have no right to tell anyone what they need or don’t need. Life’s really sweet in your quaint town of Palo Alto or Atherton. That’s a long way from Hayward, Oakland, or East San Jose where gangs run the show and the police lay offs means they don’t come when you call 911.
Honestly, if I was dealing with that sort of mess, I would probably look to get a Title III select fire M-16, rather than a semi-auto only AR-15.
At about 25 THOUSAND dollars apiece, I would not…
Aimed Fire is better than Sprayed Fire 99.9 times out of 100 with a RIFLE.
All youre doing is wasting precious rounds and heating up the barrel .
They put a 3-shot burst limit on the M-16 A2′s in the early 80′s because they figured out jack-hammering a 30 round clip, no matter HOW much fun it is (and it IS!), you gain nothing TACTICALLY by doing that.
Unless giving away your position AND running out of ammo a whole lot sooner, is on your “to-do” list.
Semi-auto cyclic rates provide more “rapid” firepower than most people (including soldiers and Marines) can effectively hit multiple targets with.
Been there, done that.
The bolt cycles and puts the next round in faster than I could think, acquire, aim and squeeze.
I was never waiting on the gun to get rounds out,
the gun was always waiting on ME.
A rifle is a rifle.
A sub-gun is a sub-gun.
A machine gun is a machine gun
If I could only have ONE, in the flat open expanse of a Texas Ranch, it would be the Rifle.
Semi auto is just fine.
One M-16?
Or THIRTY AR-15′s?
My money is with the semi auto!
Except in urban combat, from time to time. Entering rooms sometimes calls for a liberal application of lead to the interior, without much aiming. Only done when there is adequate backup, of course.
As for “jack-hammering a 30 round clip”, uh, there is no such thing. The last military weapon to use a clip was the M1 Garand, and that held only 8 rounds.
Modern weapons use magazines.
As for jack-hammering a 30 round magazine, yes, that’s a blast! Especially when some other GIs are loading them as fast as you can empty them, and you’ve lost count of how many you’ve blasted at pop-up targets from 25 to 300 meters, and you know some other poor sucker is going to have to clean the weapon, while your own issued weapon is safely locked up where it’s NOT getting dirty.
Ask me how I know that.
Your tax dollars being well spent, as usual.
An AR-15 would only make them mad. Put a bounty on them, lay a mine field, and round up a bunch of good snipers.
why would any American possibly need an ar15?
why does homeland security need billions of hollow point rounds? who they plan on shooting?
why would obama/holder sell thousands of ar15 type weapons to mexican drug dealers and get hundreds/thousands killed? silence?
why would obama need to claim executive privilege to keep us from knowing the answer? keeping state secrets secret? along the mexican border? please.
why would obama leave our people under attack for 7-8 hours when they could have easily been saved? why send us an idiot to fumble about saying nothing?
why would anybody pay millions to keep their past secret?
why would intelligent people ever listen to this bunch of halfwits?
dave – Yes, 1/2 of the people are below average or not intelligent.
AR-15? Why .223 REM? Why not .30-06? M1 Garand should be the ticket but our Lord and Master, Good King Obungler forbids the CMP from importing 1 million of them back into the country from Korea. They are American owned arms and he forbids?
Truth is the Feral Govt. has lost the consent of the governed.
“AR-15? Why .223 REM? Why not .30-06?”
Buddy, I LOVE my M-1 Garand.
Buy my AR is light weight, easy to carry, faster to employ in “reactive” shooting, less recoil gives me better speed on multiple targets, and a shit-ton more magazine capacity, all while still giving me decent “man size target accuracy” out to 300+ meters.
If I’m heading out for fun, its my M-1
If I REALLY think trouble is out there, its my AR.
Agreed.
Yes, the Ought-Six can hit hard at 1000 meters, and the 5.56 has run out of steam.
So what?
There are VERY few riflemen who can hit past 300 meters with either one, and all the braggadocio in the world won’t change that.
And notice, the government calls those DHS weapons, “Personal Defense Weapons”, while if a law abiding citizen owns one, its and “Assault Weapon”. Seems to me that terminology should be reversed, because its the feds that will be doing the “assaulting” while the civilians will be using them for defense.
Although I know that law enforcement and civilians buy AR-15′s because these rifles are useful for defense against more than one attacker. Let’s assume the leftist position that AR-15′s are “for killing lots of people” in the hands of a civilian, what sort of “police officer” needs to kill a lot of people? After all, the left thinks its ok for police to have them.
Perhaps I should be asking this question to zeke.
Why now? The residents and ranchers along the Mexican boarder from CA to TX have every right to own real assault weapons in order to defend themselves. HSA and local law enforcement can only react, too often after there are casualties.
Why wasn’t the plight of American boarder state dwellers presented on day one as a major defense against the campaign to disarm US citizens?
Obama and his minions will sacrifice as many Americans as it takes to promote their destruction of the 2d Amendment. Wake up, arm yourself and buy pleanty of ammunition. The worst is yet to come.
I think the ranchers on our southern border NEED government issued water cooled machine guns and all the ammo they need.
I agree with Ted Nugent: 2nd Amendment or no 2nd Amendment, who the hell in the government has the right to disarm us? If we have no right to self defense, then any of the other rights are of no use.
– why didn’t you mentor your protege Dan White?!
A few years ago, the Zetas came into Phoenix and assaulted a house killing the occupant. The police arrived and the Zetas fled, setting up an ambush in an alley. Only spotting by the police helicopter prevented a massacre of cops.
These guys were armed with military weapons and wearing body armor.
Meanwhile, if we drive 50 miles south of town, we encounter signs warning us that our own government cannot protect us and we should enter sovereign US territory only at risk of death.
“Assault rifles?” Hell, we also need an army!
Zeke, pay attention to the above comment. Our federal govenment refuses to take back control of American territory. A government like that is inconpetent to tell americans what kind of firearms to own.
If the federal government would enforce the laws that prevented or punished felons from having weapons they would have some standing. They do not. Obama’s “Justice” department has prosecuted 35% less gun crimes than previouse administrations. New laws obviously aren’t about criminals having guns.
Why do we need AR-15s? Because of people like politicians Feinstein, Frank, Moran, Durbin, Obama, et al. Their authoritarian kind have always afflicted mankind, like cockroaches and mosquitoes.
Exactly, marsouin. For me, the only argument we need to make about the right to bear arms is that it is a safeguard against tyranny. That’s what the Founders believed, and that’s what I believe.
I wish that everyone would familiarize themselves with the occurrences of violence along the border. IT SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS. I spent thirteen years living within ten miles of the US-Mexico border in McAllen, TX (1998-2011). For the first four years my wife and I would travel over to Reynosa or Matamoros without a care in the world. Hell, my wife would conduct medical tours for university students in THE poorest neighborhoods in North America there in Matamoros with impunity. And she knew only enough Spanish for it to be hilarious.
Towards the end of those four years, things began to change. Of course, the violence in Mexico was increasing. It became usual fodder to read about shootouts with automatic weapons within three hundred yards of the US Customs inspection stations. What they don’t tell you is that the violence began to increase THIS side of the border. Kidnappings, murders in parking lots, home invasions, shoot-outs on highways. It’s not mentioned often that corruption also began to spread. Not only the border patrol and immigration agencies. But small town police departments, county sheriff departments up to and including actual sheriffs ASSISTING in the smuggling of drugs and aliens. They don’t mention that, much.
The whole of border area ten miles north of the cities is rural. I mean desolate. When you have thousands of smuggled people crossing your lands, you’re a fool if you don’t go around armed ON YOUR PROPERTY.
There are NO security measures being taken that are being fully enforced. There are no cautions being taken beyond the lip service we’re being given. They say “The border is more secure than it’s ever been.” Well, that may be true technically, but it’s not stopping anything. Can anything more be done? Oh Hell Yes! The border walls have never been installed as was promised. We’ve pissed away five or six years and untold billions fighting this security need. Hell, there have been lawsuits because the walls were not esthetically attractive! The work E-verification has been undermined by both political parties. And now, they’re racing each other to make amnesty more attractive. I could go on and on but the rage is beginning to build. I am sick of it.
Just a side note, but a national E-verify system is only as good as the administration enforcing it. Which means that under the current regime it is worth exactly squat. As good as Congressman Lamar Smith’s intentions are, he just doesn’t seem to get what we’re up against. It’s time for the states to protect their citizens and ignore federal law when public safety is at issue in the same way that the feds ignore federal law when it suits them in their quest to exact maximum chaos and fear among law-abiding citizens.
Terry Turner and David Truman. Between these two men, everything you need to know about second amendment rights is there.
Reading these reports of the situation in the border lands….caused me to have a bit of an epiphany.
In a momment of pique, Piers Morgan blurted out something about owning a tank…
I would deem that owning a tank(fully operational and armed) by those US citizens dealing with the Mexican smugglers and gangsters is very rational. Just the ticket to safely check out yer back 40 or whatever…..
That Morgan fellow is quite a fountain of ideas, don’t ya reckon?
There’s a rancher on the border outside of San Diego that uses a surplus WW2 Wiite half-track to patrol his land. Been doing it for years. Robert Krentz could have used something like that to stay alive. What has become of the country when we are not safe from armed foriegn invasion in our own land? Time to put the U.S. military on the borders with orders to shoot anyone who crosses the border anywhere other than an entry point. For those who think that is too severe, check out Mexican immigration law.
Having lived on the border w/ Mexico, you certainly need an AR-15 out defending property all by yourself in the middle of nowhere– whether from coyotes, drug smugglers, human “coyote” people smugglers, general armed criminals, wolves, etc.
Career politicians do whatever it takes to remain in power even if it means putting us at risk by not being able to defend ourselves. What do they care? If they ever retire, they are rich enough to afford personal body guards. We can throw our free obamaphones at the bad guys as they kick down our doors armed with weapons so thoughtfully provided to them by our attorney general’s henchmen.
But I thought Janet Napolitano said our southern border was already “secured?” You mean, she and Obama lied about that? Go figure.
There are many reasons why the American people need weapons. But there will be a point when they will need them not only to protect themselves from external threats (like Mexican drug smugglers), but internal ones as well (from people like Obama and Napolitano). This isn’t going to end well, forcing the American public to choose between the Second Amendment and Washington. Trust me, folks, the Second Amendment will win.
I am from Arizona. She was Governor here I am sorry to say. The only thing consistent about her is that she lies for her liberal agenda. Ev Mecham was a saint and a glorious governor compared to her.
it is secure.
people can securely cross over and invade/vote with no issues.
oh wait…
Kill one and terrify 1,000.
That’s why liberals love crime, at least in the commoner’s districts while the elite are protected. Murder and crime terrifies the people, especially if they are unarmed, breaks their spirits and fosters a sense of hopelessness and dependence. The people then vote for candidates who promise salvation but settle for free stuff and hope to make it through the night.
Besides, does anyone really think the liberals will close the border? They need illegals to skew the demographics in their favor and their constituencies are the main demand for drugs the gangs bring into the country. Neither closing the border, seriously tackling the drug problem, nor effectively fighting crime serve the liberal elite’s goals.
I’m a 60 year old grandmother with osteoarthritis in my hands.
AR 15 is the first weapon I bought. It’s light, and my accuracy
at 50 yards is excellent and at 100 yards, it’s very good. And, it has
virtually no “kick.”
We live in the country and I hope I never have to use it to defend
our home. But I will if I have to.
The Battle of Athens was an armed rebellion led by WWII veterans and citizens in Athens and Etowah, Tennessee, United States, against the tyrannical local government in August 1946.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5ut6yPrObw&feature=player_embedded
John Stossel – Texas Vs California Gun Laws
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKv2TNdDc4E&feature=player_embedded
I’m thinking that with plenty of trained military snipers, we should be placing them on the border. Anyone crossing the border, carrying a weapon, should be shot dead, period, no questions asked. This is a war.
Why do i Need a AR-15? Ever come upon a momma Boar? when she starts running you better have more then 10 shots . You are going to miss a bunch and she is going to take a dozen shots before she stops.
Get a heavier gun. That .223 is not going to break down a bear fast enough. (Do not go with a handgun for this purpose unless it’s all you have.)
Smells like islam (criminal extortion dressed up in God Says So) to me! You have no right to self-defense; you must learn to be better victims; SUBMIT!
This is a very informative article and makes it crystal clear that folks living along the Southwest border are facing an entirely different set of circumstances and risks than the rest of us. I agree that a rancher that has encountered groups of heavily armed smugglers should not be restricted to owning a shotgun, pistol, or rifle. However, should this same approach apply to everyone who does not face his risks? Perhaps border states have different restrictions than non-border states.
There are many details to be worked out, but the main initiative is to limit the amount of mass killing weapons where they are not needed. This is simple reality, we have too many gun related deaths and we need to do something, so lets find a restriction that works. The example above is the first to provid a good answer to my article,
Who Needs More Than 10, and For What?
http://gravitysailor.com/government-politics/gun-control/
The Admiral
I’m a woman with a small child, and my husband sometimes goes away on business. What if I were to be the victim of a home invasion? Home invaders often come in packs of two or three, and it often takes as many as three or four or more shots to put down a home invader by the time you factor in a miss or two. That’s going to make it very hard for me to take down three home invaders in 10 shots.
I remember reading an article recently where a man broke into a woman’s house, climbed up into the attic where she was hiding, and she emptied around 5 rounds into face and neck area, and he was still able to get to his car and try to drive off (although he later crashed). I don’t want to think what would have happened to her and her kid if there was more than one intruder.
” Many details to be worked out ” Yup.And of course,”Shall not be infringed” will be at the fore of every detail,right ?
Do you not understand that the weapons you wish would disappear,will not.
Any one with a murderous bent could walk into a classroom full of little kids with a piece of pipe or rebar,and do just as much murder with so simple a weapon.
“Many details to be worked out” Citizens are not required to justify their rights.Work that out.
Guns are not the problem.The less than sane,believing they have a right to control others are the problem.You,politicians,the insane booger just released from prison,not caring for anything but the world between your ears,Are the Problem.And there is no difference,creatures such as you,the politician,and the booger,are interchangeable.Chew on that for a while.
Validate your 2nd Amendment Rights.Carry.
Why do I need an AR 15? NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS! Same reply as if I asked why you drive the kind of car that your drive, same for clothes you wear, food you eat, etc. You don’t get to know and you don’t get to decide for me. If you wish that right move to North Korea and get out of my country.
– lives in all-gated and guarded communities.
Piers Morgan must be the administration’s favorite spokesman these days for ragging the Media and the people about the “need” for assault weapons. His mind is closed to the multitude of clear, logical and reasonable arguments given him against our need for what is our right.
Feinstein, Biden and Obama need to take turns riding fence or checking cattle with a border rancher and not taking any body guards or drones for back up. Let each one pack a six-gun, a 7 shot clip semi auto or for Biden a sawed-off shotgun. They can wear their Depends to absorb their bravado when they get to dodging the full auto fire coming at them, maybe, compliments of “Fast N Furious”.
“Why does any American need an AR-15?”
I don’t. I need an AK-47. Cheap pieces of junk, but you can throw them in a mud puddle, bang on ‘em with a hammer…and they’ll put out a hail of bullets. Perfect gun for a guy like me.
And, I need full auto weapons because the government has full auto weapons, and if I ever have to fight them, Concord Bridge style…I don’t want to be outgunned.
Duh.
5 Homeland Security ‘Bots Coming to Spy on You (If They Aren’t Already) By Robert Beckhusen 02.08.13
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/02/dhs-drones/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Top+Stories%29&pid=1804&viewall=true
The democrats trust Egypt with all kinds of sophisticated weapons and the Libyan rebels, contemplate arming syrian rebels, the democrats even trust Iranian leaders with atomic weapons. Yet they do not trust their own citizens to legally buy and keep the simplest firearm, such as the newly labeled Assault rifle the Ruger 10/22 squirrel and small game getter.
These folks trusted the ex cop Dorner, then when he goes rogue manage to shoot two or three people as well as shoot up their trucks which sort of resembled the one in the BOLO by accident, Blue on Blue in the streets of America.
American’s are being led by people who fear the same people that are trusted to vote for them honestly, only once, without an ID! The law abiding citizens cannot be trusted a .22 long rifle rim fire carbine with more than seven bullets in it’s magazine. Nor possess more than one brick of .22lr bullets.
A government that fears it’s citizens that much, is a dangerous kind of government. What’s a worse thought is a government that is confident it can take such rights away from the citizens without any protest made and does not care what happens if they meet resistance. Recall the DHS has millions of rounds of .40 S&W JHP bullets and more on order as well as delivery taken for M-4 assault rifles and 5.56×45 mm ammo, what exactly is the plan?
Heads up!
You Bikers, scuttlebutt says motorcycles are next on the list for banning, to save the earth, for the children of the future.
In the UK , an ISLAND country with tightly controlled BORDERS and one which has some of the strictest GUN CONTROLS in the world where handguns and ASSAULT WEAPONS are totally ILLEGAL, the trial is currently taking place of a CRIMINAL scumbag.
This guy was involved in the murder of a Father and Son , also CRIMINAL scumbags, and the callous murder of two Police women. He made a bogus 999 (UK’s 911) call to lure the UNARMED Police women in to an ambush where he opened up on them with an ILLEGAL AUTOMATIC weapon firing 31 rounds in 30 seconds and riddling them with bullets he then fled after throwing a HAND GRENADE (also totally ILLEGAL and his “Trademark”) at their lifeless bodies.
So tell us moonbats how are GUN CONTROLS and background checks on LAW ABIDING citizens are going to stop CRIMINAL scum from obtaining weapons.
February 11, 2013 Felons for Gun Control By William A. Levinson
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/felons_for_gun_control.html