PRODUCER NOTE - usmcdiorio served as a combat correspondent in the U.S. Marine Corps. He felt compelled to respond after reading about former Marine Joshua Boston's open letter on CNN iReport to Sen. Dianne Feinstein saying that he would not register his weapons with the government even if a ban on assault weapons was passed in his state. Boston's letter gained mass attention online and he appeared on CNN to explain his position.
This iReporter said of Boston's letter: 'Marines or anyone who has served should always strive to uphold the law. He outright said that he would disobey the law if gun-control legislation passed. This could be misconstrued by readers to assume that many or all Marines share this kind of attitude towards the law, that we follow it only when it suits us. It's embarrassing because it makes it seem that all Marines think their service justifies special treatment of some sort.
'Second, his letter seemed to disregard or not address the real concerns of gun violence and the horrible recent tragedy in Newtown. This is embarrassing because he makes Marines seem insensitive and uncaring. I was devastated when I heard about Newtown and devastated when I heard of Aurora, and all he could talk about was his right to own a semi-automatic weapon.'
This iReporter believes that the semi-automatic, assault style rifles used in the Newtown, Connecticut, and Aurora, Colorado, massacres should be banned, as should high-capacity magazines. That said, he is pessimistic that 'meaningful' gun legislation will actually get passed. 'There are so many guns that banning new sales may not make much of an impact. We would have to follow Australia's lead and enact a retroactive ban, but I don't see that happening in today's political climate.'
Also, one reason these shooting spree scenarios are effective at killing lots of people is because the victims are defenseless. It doesn't matter if a lunatic has a 5 round magazine or a 50 round magazine. Shooting unarmed people means no one is shooting back. Taking the time to reload doesn't really matter.
Hey dudeman, I did hear that the Arizona shooter (rep. Giffords) was tackled as he was reloading after shooting off 30+ rounds. Had the limit been 10-12 rounds a few years earlier, there's a chance lives could have been saved in my opinion... just a though. I know, I know, he could've went out and found 4 guns...but at least its no 30+ constant rounds.
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
The thing to remember here is that the aforementioned Marine swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and to protect our country from all enemies, foreign and domestic. From his perspective, a domestic enemy, (Feinstein) is threatening a critical component of the Constitution. There is a reason it is the Second Amendment, not the 10th, 50th or whatever. In his defense, any law infringing the rights protected by the Constitution is invalid, hence the ".....shall not be infringed" part.
PRODUCER NOTE - usmcdiorio served as a combat correspondent in the U.S. Marine Corps. He felt compelled to respond after reading about former Marine Joshua Boston's open letter on CNN iReport to Sen. Dianne Feinstein saying that he would not register his weapons with the government even if a ban on assault weapons was passed in his state. Boston's letter gained mass attention online and he appeared on CNN to explain his position.
This iReporter said of Boston's letter: 'Marines or anyone who has served should always strive to uphold the law. He outright said that he would disobey the law if gun-control legislation passed. This could be misconstrued by readers to assume that many or all Marines share this kind of attitude towards the law, that we follow it only when it suits us. It's embarrassing because it makes it seem that all Marines think their service justifies special treatment of some sort.
'Second, his letter seemed to disregard or not address the real concerns of gun violence and the horrible recent tragedy in Newtown. This is embarrassing because he makes Marines seem insensitive and uncaring. I was devastated when I heard about Newtown and devastated when I heard of Aurora, and all he could talk about was his right to own a semi-automatic weapon.'
This iReporter believes that the semi-automatic, assault style rifles used in the Newtown, Connecticut, and Aurora, Colorado, massacres should be banned, as should high-capacity magazines. That said, he is pessimistic that 'meaningful' gun legislation will actually get passed. 'There are so many guns that banning new sales may not make much of an impact. We would have to follow Australia's lead and enact a retroactive ban, but I don't see that happening in today's political climate.'
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
Do you think that times have changed so much that we as free citizens shouldn't have the right to defend ourselves? Does that right expire? Ever?
I certainly don't want to lose the right to own guns, even semi-automatic ones. The absolute best case scenario is that I will never have to use them except for target shooting. I really don't see how it's bad to be prepared for the worst case scenario, though.
I have hurricane shutters for my home in Florida. I bought them so they would be available to me before the storm hits. I have food and water stored, too. Does that make me paranoid or well prepared?
Yes, times change. People had the right to own other humans at one point in this country's history too.[/quote]
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
Sound the bells... some nutbar just purchased two Glock handguns, a shotgun and an AR-15 rifle, along with 6,295 rounds of ammunition, targets, body armour and chemicals.
Nice system. Where else can you just go buy such an arsenal and go to work with it?
* If you read the link... tell me you don't think Holmes' antics during the interview weren't a really elementary tactic to convince people he is mentally ill (saving his sad ass).
After all his careful planning and the execution of his sick plan... the former neuroscience student was suddenly reduced to a simple moron trying to poke a staple into an electrical outlet and using gun residue bags as puppets? Nice try. Now die.
"Regular occurrence of gun massacres".....love that phraseology. Makes it sound so dramatic. :roll:
Yep, because 21 primary school children being mown down with an automatic weapon isn't in any way dramatic. I mean, they weren't your children after all.
How about for DWI related deaths people start referring to it as the "systematic extermination of the innocent"?
Because it's nothing of the sort.
Are you denying that gun massacres in the U.S are a regular occurrence? Go on, deny it. Remind us again how you're completely cut off from the real World.
They were my children. They were US citizens and I don't want this to happen at all. But thinking banning assault rifles to people legally purchasing them is insane. Concentrate on the problem...the criiminals...not the innocent.
I wonder how many people were exterminated by drunk drivers this evening that will never make National headlines. :(
They were my children. They were US citizens and I don't want this to happen at all. But thinking banning assault rifles to people legally purchasing them is insane. Concentrate on the problem...the criiminals...not the innocent.
I wonder how many people were exterminated by drunk drivers this evening that will never make National headlines. :(
the number of deaths resulting from drunk drivers has reduced significantly over the last 20 years. we have lowered the bac to .08, we have dui checkpoints where cops actually look for drunk drivers, we have breathalizers and very good field sobriety tests, we draw blood to determind bac, we have very stiff penalties for convicted drunk drivers. it is going to be a felony one day.
do you want to know why?
because we enacted new legislation to curtail the problem. the same can happen with gun control.
the drunk drivers were against the common sense strengthening of the laws while the regular people supported it. the same way the gun crowd opposes common sense strengthening of gun laws.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Sound the bells... some nutbar just purchased two Glock handguns, a shotgun and an AR-15 rifle, along with 6,295 rounds of ammunition, targets, body armour and chemicals.
Nice system. Where else can you just go buy such an arsenal and go to work with it?
* If you read the link... tell me you don't think Holmes' antics during the interview weren't a really elementary tactic to convince people he is mentally ill (saving his sad ass).
After all his careful planning and the execution of his sick plan... the former neuroscience student was suddenly reduced to a simple moron trying to poke a staple into an electrical outlet and using gun residue bags as puppets? Nice try. Now die.
I just read the article 3 times, it's too bad that the insanity provision is the way it is. Anybody that is caught doing anything illegal can play that card, just act nuts:we all can do it. Something is wrong with the system man.
People like this do not deserve the right to a trial and waste good money in court and hen more money in a mental hospital. My opinion of it all anyhow.
That whole operation he had going is just crazy though. Truthfully scares me.
Ban all weapons!! Close all weapons shops and quit making ammo
They were my children. They were US citizens and I don't want this to happen at all. But thinking banning assault rifles to people legally purchasing them is insane. Concentrate on the problem...the criiminals...not the innocent.
I wonder how many people were exterminated by drunk drivers this evening that will never make National headlines. :(
the number of deaths resulting from drunk drivers has reduced significantly over the last 20 years. we have lowered the bac to .08, we have dui checkpoints where cops actually look for drunk drivers, we have breathalizers and very good field sobriety tests, we draw blood to determind bac, we have very stiff penalties for convicted drunk drivers. it is going to be a felony one day.
do you want to know why?
because we enacted new legislation to curtail the problem. the same can happen with gun control.
the drunk drivers were against the common sense strengthening of the laws while the regular people supported it. the same way the gun crowd opposes common sense strengthening of gun laws.
Ding ding ding....it was all legislation AGAINST the criminals...not the innocent. Thank you for inadvertently proving my point. There was no alcohol legislation saying someone can not purchase this alcohol...there was no legislation saying no one can consume a certain alcohol or limit that consumption. They are all acts of legislation...targeting and enforcing against the criminals. Nothing there targets the innocent or takes away their rights. Thank you.
the number of deaths resulting from drunk drivers has reduced significantly over the last 20 years. we have lowered the bac to .08, we have dui checkpoints where cops actually look for drunk drivers, we have breathalizers and very good field sobriety tests, we draw blood to determind bac, we have very stiff penalties for convicted drunk drivers. it is going to be a felony one day.
do you want to know why?
because we enacted new legislation to curtail the problem. the same can happen with gun control.
the drunk drivers were against the common sense strengthening of the laws while the regular people supported it. the same way the gun crowd opposes common sense strengthening of gun laws.
Car
An automobile, autocar, motor car or car is a wheeled motor vehicle used for transporting passengers, which also carries its own engine or motor.
Gun
A gun is a weapon,a weapon, arm, or armament is a tool, device, or instrument used in order to inflict damage or harm to enemies or other living beings, structures, or systems.
Alchohol
An alcoholic beverage is a drink containing ethanol, commonly known as alcohol. Alcoholic beverages are divided into three general classes: beers, wines, and spirits.
Fart
Fart is an English language onomatopoeia, most commonly used in reference to flatulence. The word "fart" is generally considered unsuitable in formal situations as it may be considered vulgar or offensive.
Drugs
A drug is a substance which may have medicinal, intoxicating, performance enhancing or other effects when taken or put into a human body or the body of another animal and is not considered a food or exclusively a food.
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
the number of deaths resulting from drunk drivers has reduced significantly over the last 20 years. we have lowered the bac to .08, we have dui checkpoints where cops actually look for drunk drivers, we have breathalizers and very good field sobriety tests, we draw blood to determind bac, we have very stiff penalties for convicted drunk drivers. it is going to be a felony one day.
do you want to know why?
because we enacted new legislation to curtail the problem. the same can happen with gun control.
the drunk drivers were against the common sense strengthening of the laws while the regular people supported it. the same way the gun crowd opposes common sense strengthening of gun laws.
Car
An automobile, autocar, motor car or car is a wheeled motor vehicle used for transporting passengers, which also carries its own engine or motor.
Gun
A gun is a weapon,a weapon, arm, or armament is a tool, device, or instrument used in order to inflict damage or harm to enemies or other living beings, structures, or systems.
Alchohol
An alcoholic beverage is a drink containing ethanol, commonly known as alcohol. Alcoholic beverages are divided into three general classes: beers, wines, and spirits.
Fart
Fart is an English language onomatopoeia, most commonly used in reference to flatulence. The word "fart" is generally considered unsuitable in formal situations as it may be considered vulgar or offensive.
Drugs
A drug is a substance which may have medicinal, intoxicating, performance enhancing or other effects when taken or put into a human body or the body of another animal and is not considered a food or exclusively a food.
And..................
This says nothing. But thanks for the definitions. :?
Sound the bells... some nutbar just purchased two Glock handguns, a shotgun and an AR-15 rifle, along with 6,295 rounds of ammunition, targets, body armour and chemicals.
Nice system. Where else can you just go buy such an arsenal and go to work with it?
* If you read the link... tell me you don't think Holmes' antics during the interview weren't a really elementary tactic to convince people he is mentally ill (saving his sad ass).
After all his careful planning and the execution of his sick plan... the former neuroscience student was suddenly reduced to a simple moron trying to poke a staple into an electrical outlet and using gun residue bags as puppets? Nice try. Now die.
so unsung and ds, you think it's perfectly sane to allow even law abiding citizens (which this guy was, at the time of his purchase) to buy an arsenel like this?
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Ding ding ding....it was all legislation AGAINST the criminals...not the innocent. Thank you for inadvertently proving my point. There was no alcohol legislation saying someone can not purchase this alcohol...there was no legislation saying no one can consume a certain alcohol or limit that consumption. They are all acts of legislation...targeting and enforcing against the criminals. Nothing there targets the innocent or takes away their rights. Thank you.
wrong. they have limits of how much people can consume in public. there are laws possibly infringing in the right of the innocent to get hammered out of their skull. It's called getting cut off. Will the guy drive drunk or cause anyone else harm? Maybe, maybe not. But the bartender has a legal obligation (he can get sued if he serves too much and something happens) to make sure it doesn't happen, even if the possibility is there that nothing will happen.
just like limiting the arsenal of the gunner buying from a private enterprise, you limit the amount of alcohol one can consume at a privately owned establishment. can one be controlled in their own home or left to their own devices? nope. but you can do what it is you CAN control and stop them from hurting themselves and others where you CAN. no one NEEDS that much booze. No one NEEDS that much guns and ammo.
common. FUCKING. sense.
there's your fucking fork. it's DONE.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Ding ding ding....it was all legislation AGAINST the criminals...not the innocent. Thank you for inadvertently proving my point. There was no alcohol legislation saying someone can not purchase this alcohol...there was no legislation saying no one can consume a certain alcohol or limit that consumption. They are all acts of legislation...targeting and enforcing against the criminals. Nothing there targets the innocent or takes away their rights. Thank you.
wrong. they have limits of how much people can consume in public. there are laws possibly infringing in the right of the innocent to get hammered out of their skull. It's called getting cut off. Will the guy drive drunk or cause anyone else harm? Maybe, maybe not. But the bartender has a legal obligation (he can get sued if he serves too much and something happens) to make sure it doesn't happen, even if the possibility is there that nothing will happen.
just like limiting the arsenal of the gunner buying from a private enterprise, you limit the amount of alcohol one can consume at a privately owned establishment. can one be controlled in their own home or left to their own devices? nope. but you can do what it is you CAN control and stop them from hurting themselves and others where you CAN. no one NEEDS that much booze. No one NEEDS that much guns and ammo.
common. FUCKING. sense.
there's your fucking fork. it's DONE.
Also DUI laws target the criminals and the law abiding. It can deter both. I've driven with a buzz before. I dont do it anymore because I know its stupid and risky. I was the criminal. I am not anymore, but the DUI laws are my deterrent. And if I AM driving, I am able to have two beers in the course of three hours and stay under a .08 BAC. These are regulations in place...just like magazine capacities and the like.. that deter some criminals and some law abiding folks.
Ding ding ding....it was all legislation AGAINST the criminals...not the innocent. Thank you for inadvertently proving my point. There was no alcohol legislation saying someone can not purchase this alcohol...there was no legislation saying no one can consume a certain alcohol or limit that consumption. They are all acts of legislation...targeting and enforcing against the criminals. Nothing there targets the innocent or takes away their rights. Thank you.
wrong. they have limits of how much people can consume in public. there are laws possibly infringing in the right of the innocent to get hammered out of their skull. It's called getting cut off. Will the guy drive drunk or cause anyone else harm? Maybe, maybe not. But the bartender has a legal obligation (he can get sued if he serves too much and something happens) to make sure it doesn't happen, even if the possibility is there that nothing will happen.
just like limiting the arsenal of the gunner buying from a private enterprise, you limit the amount of alcohol one can consume at a privately owned establishment. can one be controlled in their own home or left to their own devices? nope. but you can do what it is you CAN control and stop them from hurting themselves and others where you CAN. no one NEEDS that much booze. No one NEEDS that much guns and ammo.
common. FUCKING. sense.
there's your fucking fork. it's DONE.
Also DUI laws target the criminals and the law abiding. It can deter both. I've driven with a buzz before. I dont do it anymore because I know its stupid and risky. I was the criminal. I am not anymore, but the DUI laws are my deterrent. And if I AM driving, I am able to have two beers in the course of three hours and stay under a .08 BAC. These are regulations in place...just like magazine capacities and the like.. that deter some criminals and some law abiding folks.
you know...there is something else...
you can choose to drink a little...not much and over the level...
but you cant choose to kill ...a little...there is no such thing..
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
Also, one reason these shooting spree scenarios are effective at killing lots of people is because the victims are defenseless. It doesn't matter if a lunatic has a 5 round magazine or a 50 round magazine. Shooting unarmed people means no one is shooting back. Taking the time to reload doesn't really matter.
Hey dudeman, I did hear that the Arizona shooter (rep. Giffords) was tackled as he was reloading after shooting off 30+ rounds. Had the limit been 10-12 rounds a few years earlier, there's a chance lives could have been saved in my opinion... just a though. I know, I know, he could've went out and found 4 guns...but at least its no 30+ constant rounds.
Because too many assailants have AR-15s and Bushmasters. If they could only get shotguns or handguns with 10-12 capacity magazines, its likely less people would die in places like Colorado, AZ, etc...its a numbers and statistics game, and its obvious that if something can shoot off 30 rounds in 30 seconds, its likely to kill more people than something that can shoot off 10 rounds. Common sense..
The thing to remember here is that the aforementioned Marine swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and to protect our country from all enemies, foreign and domestic. From his perspective, a domestic enemy, (Feinstein) is threatening a critical component of the Constitution. There is a reason it is the Second Amendment, not the 10th, 50th or whatever. In his defense, any law infringing the rights protected by the Constitution is invalid, hence the ".....shall not be infringed" part.
PRODUCER NOTE - usmcdiorio served as a combat correspondent in the U.S. Marine Corps. He felt compelled to respond after reading about former Marine Joshua Boston's open letter on CNN iReport to Sen. Dianne Feinstein saying that he would not register his weapons with the government even if a ban on assault weapons was passed in his state. Boston's letter gained mass attention online and he appeared on CNN to explain his position.
This iReporter said of Boston's letter: 'Marines or anyone who has served should always strive to uphold the law. He outright said that he would disobey the law if gun-control legislation passed. This could be misconstrued by readers to assume that many or all Marines share this kind of attitude towards the law, that we follow it only when it suits us. It's embarrassing because it makes it seem that all Marines think their service justifies special treatment of some sort.
'Second, his letter seemed to disregard or not address the real concerns of gun violence and the horrible recent tragedy in Newtown. This is embarrassing because he makes Marines seem insensitive and uncaring. I was devastated when I heard about Newtown and devastated when I heard of Aurora, and all he could talk about was his right to own a semi-automatic weapon.'
This iReporter believes that the semi-automatic, assault style rifles used in the Newtown, Connecticut, and Aurora, Colorado, massacres should be banned, as should high-capacity magazines. That said, he is pessimistic that 'meaningful' gun legislation will actually get passed. 'There are so many guns that banning new sales may not make much of an impact. We would have to follow Australia's lead and enact a retroactive ban, but I don't see that happening in today's political climate.'
I also dont particularly think that having someone register a deadly weapon is exactly infringing on their 2nd amendment rights. They still get to keep their guns, its simply registering them, isnt that what the point was?
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
Alex Jones is the biggest idiot iver ever heard. As soon as he heard there were only 35 gun deaths in the UK (a country with a gun ban)last year, he shouldve have given up.
Ding ding ding....it was all legislation AGAINST the criminals...not the innocent. Thank you for inadvertently proving my point. There was no alcohol legislation saying someone can not purchase this alcohol...there was no legislation saying no one can consume a certain alcohol or limit that consumption. They are all acts of legislation...targeting and enforcing against the criminals. Nothing there targets the innocent or takes away their rights. Thank you.
wrong. they have limits of how much people can consume in public. there are laws possibly infringing in the right of the innocent to get hammered out of their skull. It's called getting cut off. Will the guy drive drunk or cause anyone else harm? Maybe, maybe not. But the bartender has a legal obligation (he can get sued if he serves too much and something happens) to make sure it doesn't happen, even if the possibility is there that nothing will happen.
just like limiting the arsenal of the gunner buying from a private enterprise, you limit the amount of alcohol one can consume at a privately owned establishment. can one be controlled in their own home or left to their own devices? nope. but you can do what it is you CAN control and stop them from hurting themselves and others where you CAN. no one NEEDS that much booze. No one NEEDS that much guns and ammo.
common. FUCKING. sense.
there's your fucking fork. it's DONE.
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
Registering, limiting magazine capacity, type of stock options.........there is a lot more on the table than just registration. Registration failed horribly in Canada; so much so that they just pulled the plug on the program after wasting around a billion dollars on it. Guess what?: no benefit to reduction in crime.
Furthermore, I don't want the government telling me what I can own or not, just like I don't want them telling women that they can"t have abortions or denying same-sex couples the right to marry. It's not for them to decide. Gun ownership is a personal choice that one makes when they realize that they should take responsibility for their own protection and the protection of their loved ones.
Giving the government the authority to make decisions regarding (and specifically) limiting your personal freedoms is a dangerous game. Personally, I don't trust the government to do the job that best serves the people without first covering their own asses. Trust the government to do right by people, be fair, just and not trample an individuals right to freedom? Ask Damien Echols how well that worked out for him.
The thing to remember here is that the aforementioned Marine swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and to protect our country from all enemies, foreign and domestic. From his perspective, a domestic enemy, (Feinstein) is threatening a critical component of the Constitution. There is a reason it is the Second Amendment, not the 10th, 50th or whatever. In his defense, any law infringing the rights protected by the Constitution is invalid, hence the ".....shall not be infringed" part.
PRODUCER NOTE - usmcdiorio served as a combat correspondent in the U.S. Marine Corps. He felt compelled to respond after reading about former Marine Joshua Boston's open letter on CNN iReport to Sen. Dianne Feinstein saying that he would not register his weapons with the government even if a ban on assault weapons was passed in his state. Boston's letter gained mass attention online and he appeared on CNN to explain his position.
This iReporter said of Boston's letter: 'Marines or anyone who has served should always strive to uphold the law. He outright said that he would disobey the law if gun-control legislation passed. This could be misconstrued by readers to assume that many or all Marines share this kind of attitude towards the law, that we follow it only when it suits us. It's embarrassing because it makes it seem that all Marines think their service justifies special treatment of some sort.
'Second, his letter seemed to disregard or not address the real concerns of gun violence and the horrible recent tragedy in Newtown. This is embarrassing because he makes Marines seem insensitive and uncaring. I was devastated when I heard about Newtown and devastated when I heard of Aurora, and all he could talk about was his right to own a semi-automatic weapon.'
This iReporter believes that the semi-automatic, assault style rifles used in the Newtown, Connecticut, and Aurora, Colorado, massacres should be banned, as should high-capacity magazines. That said, he is pessimistic that 'meaningful' gun legislation will actually get passed. 'There are so many guns that banning new sales may not make much of an impact. We would have to follow Australia's lead and enact a retroactive ban, but I don't see that happening in today's political climate.'
I also dont particularly think that having someone register a deadly weapon is exactly infringing on their 2nd amendment rights. They still get to keep their guns, its simply registering them, isnt that what the point was?
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
The solution is to prevent someone from becoming an "assailant" in the first place. Teach young people the difference between right and wrong, good and evil. Lead by example. Take responsibility for your actions and be aware of the influence those actions have on others. Educate youth about the dangers of the world and help them to seek out avenues of resolution before violence even enters their minds.
The problem isn't the tool used to commit crimes, it's the criminal wielding it.
Because too many assailants have AR-15s and Bushmasters. If they could only get shotguns or handguns with 10-12 capacity magazines, its likely less people would die in places like Colorado, AZ, etc...its a numbers and statistics game, and its obvious that if something can shoot off 30 rounds in 30 seconds, its likely to kill more people than something that can shoot off 10 rounds. Common sense..[/quote]
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
Comments
PRODUCER NOTE - usmcdiorio served as a combat correspondent in the U.S. Marine Corps. He felt compelled to respond after reading about former Marine Joshua Boston's open letter on CNN iReport to Sen. Dianne Feinstein saying that he would not register his weapons with the government even if a ban on assault weapons was passed in his state. Boston's letter gained mass attention online and he appeared on CNN to explain his position.
This iReporter said of Boston's letter: 'Marines or anyone who has served should always strive to uphold the law. He outright said that he would disobey the law if gun-control legislation passed. This could be misconstrued by readers to assume that many or all Marines share this kind of attitude towards the law, that we follow it only when it suits us. It's embarrassing because it makes it seem that all Marines think their service justifies special treatment of some sort.
'Second, his letter seemed to disregard or not address the real concerns of gun violence and the horrible recent tragedy in Newtown. This is embarrassing because he makes Marines seem insensitive and uncaring. I was devastated when I heard about Newtown and devastated when I heard of Aurora, and all he could talk about was his right to own a semi-automatic weapon.'
This iReporter believes that the semi-automatic, assault style rifles used in the Newtown, Connecticut, and Aurora, Colorado, massacres should be banned, as should high-capacity magazines. That said, he is pessimistic that 'meaningful' gun legislation will actually get passed. 'There are so many guns that banning new sales may not make much of an impact. We would have to follow Australia's lead and enact a retroactive ban, but I don't see that happening in today's political climate.'
Anyone see Lincoln?
Yes, times change. People had the right to own other humans at one point in this country's history too.
I certainly don't want to lose the right to own guns, even semi-automatic ones. The absolute best case scenario is that I will never have to use them except for target shooting. I really don't see how it's bad to be prepared for the worst case scenario, though.
I have hurricane shutters for my home in Florida. I bought them so they would be available to me before the storm hits. I have food and water stored, too. Does that make me paranoid or well prepared?
Yes, times change. People had the right to own other humans at one point in this country's history too.[/quote]
Sound the bells... some nutbar just purchased two Glock handguns, a shotgun and an AR-15 rifle, along with 6,295 rounds of ammunition, targets, body armour and chemicals.
No bells and... as fate would have it... Aurora:
http://news.ca.msn.com/world/officer-ba ... ed-puppets
Nice system. Where else can you just go buy such an arsenal and go to work with it?
* If you read the link... tell me you don't think Holmes' antics during the interview weren't a really elementary tactic to convince people he is mentally ill (saving his sad ass).
After all his careful planning and the execution of his sick plan... the former neuroscience student was suddenly reduced to a simple moron trying to poke a staple into an electrical outlet and using gun residue bags as puppets? Nice try. Now die.
What do the anti death penalty people have to say?
Sorry, off topic
Uhg
Fork, done
They were my children. They were US citizens and I don't want this to happen at all. But thinking banning assault rifles to people legally purchasing them is insane. Concentrate on the problem...the criiminals...not the innocent.
I wonder how many people were exterminated by drunk drivers this evening that will never make National headlines. :(
do you want to know why?
because we enacted new legislation to curtail the problem. the same can happen with gun control.
the drunk drivers were against the common sense strengthening of the laws while the regular people supported it. the same way the gun crowd opposes common sense strengthening of gun laws.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I just read the article 3 times, it's too bad that the insanity provision is the way it is. Anybody that is caught doing anything illegal can play that card, just act nuts:we all can do it. Something is wrong with the system man.
People like this do not deserve the right to a trial and waste good money in court and hen more money in a mental hospital. My opinion of it all anyhow.
That whole operation he had going is just crazy though. Truthfully scares me.
Ban all weapons!! Close all weapons shops and quit making ammo
Ding ding ding....it was all legislation AGAINST the criminals...not the innocent. Thank you for inadvertently proving my point.
Car
An automobile, autocar, motor car or car is a wheeled motor vehicle used for transporting passengers, which also carries its own engine or motor.
Gun
A gun is a weapon,a weapon, arm, or armament is a tool, device, or instrument used in order to inflict damage or harm to enemies or other living beings, structures, or systems.
Alchohol
An alcoholic beverage is a drink containing ethanol, commonly known as alcohol. Alcoholic beverages are divided into three general classes: beers, wines, and spirits.
Fart
Fart is an English language onomatopoeia, most commonly used in reference to flatulence. The word "fart" is generally considered unsuitable in formal situations as it may be considered vulgar or offensive.
Drugs
A drug is a substance which may have medicinal, intoxicating, performance enhancing or other effects when taken or put into a human body or the body of another animal and is not considered a food or exclusively a food.
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
And..................
This says nothing. But thanks for the definitions. :?
so unsung and ds, you think it's perfectly sane to allow even law abiding citizens (which this guy was, at the time of his purchase) to buy an arsenel like this?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
wrong. they have limits of how much people can consume in public. there are laws possibly infringing in the right of the innocent to get hammered out of their skull. It's called getting cut off. Will the guy drive drunk or cause anyone else harm? Maybe, maybe not. But the bartender has a legal obligation (he can get sued if he serves too much and something happens) to make sure it doesn't happen, even if the possibility is there that nothing will happen.
just like limiting the arsenal of the gunner buying from a private enterprise, you limit the amount of alcohol one can consume at a privately owned establishment. can one be controlled in their own home or left to their own devices? nope. but you can do what it is you CAN control and stop them from hurting themselves and others where you CAN. no one NEEDS that much booze. No one NEEDS that much guns and ammo.
common. FUCKING. sense.
there's your fucking fork. it's DONE.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Also DUI laws target the criminals and the law abiding. It can deter both. I've driven with a buzz before. I dont do it anymore because I know its stupid and risky. I was the criminal. I am not anymore, but the DUI laws are my deterrent. And if I AM driving, I am able to have two beers in the course of three hours and stay under a .08 BAC. These are regulations in place...just like magazine capacities and the like.. that deter some criminals and some law abiding folks.
you can choose to drink a little...not much and over the level...
but you cant choose to kill ...a little...there is no such thing..
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
Because too many assailants have AR-15s and Bushmasters. If they could only get shotguns or handguns with 10-12 capacity magazines, its likely less people would die in places like Colorado, AZ, etc...its a numbers and statistics game, and its obvious that if something can shoot off 30 rounds in 30 seconds, its likely to kill more people than something that can shoot off 10 rounds. Common sense..
I also dont particularly think that having someone register a deadly weapon is exactly infringing on their 2nd amendment rights. They still get to keep their guns, its simply registering them, isnt that what the point was?
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Alex Jones is the biggest idiot iver ever heard. As soon as he heard there were only 35 gun deaths in the UK (a country with a gun ban)last year, he shouldve have given up.
Furthermore, I don't want the government telling me what I can own or not, just like I don't want them telling women that they can"t have abortions or denying same-sex couples the right to marry. It's not for them to decide. Gun ownership is a personal choice that one makes when they realize that they should take responsibility for their own protection and the protection of their loved ones.
Giving the government the authority to make decisions regarding (and specifically) limiting your personal freedoms is a dangerous game. Personally, I don't trust the government to do the job that best serves the people without first covering their own asses. Trust the government to do right by people, be fair, just and not trample an individuals right to freedom? Ask Damien Echols how well that worked out for him.
The problem isn't the tool used to commit crimes, it's the criminal wielding it.
Because too many assailants have AR-15s and Bushmasters. If they could only get shotguns or handguns with 10-12 capacity magazines, its likely less people would die in places like Colorado, AZ, etc...its a numbers and statistics game, and its obvious that if something can shoot off 30 rounds in 30 seconds, its likely to kill more people than something that can shoot off 10 rounds. Common sense..[/quote]