Super Bowl massacre averted at last minute

[RamboLiberal]

Source: East Valley Tribune

A distraught Tempe man was within sight of the Super Bowl on Sunday with an assault rifle, but a change of heart kept him from unloading 200 rounds of ammunition on the crowd, court records show.

Kurt William Havelock, 35, turned himself in Sunday to Tempe police and the FBI at the urging of family and confessed his plan, which he hatched in retaliation for the Tempe City Council rejecting a liquor license application for a restaurant and bar he owns.

According to court records, Havelock is charged with mailing threatening communications in the mailing of eight copies of a “manifesto” explaining the planned massacre.

“I will test the theory that bullets speak louder than words ... I will slay your children. I will shed the blood of the innocent,” Havelock wrote. “No one destroys my dream. No one.”

Magistrate Judge Edward V. Ross said in a hearing in U.S. District Court on Tuesday: “I haven’t read more chilling words, and I’ve been doing this a long time.” Ross found Havelock was a danger to the public and ordered him held without bail.



Read more: http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/108361

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. I wonder which radio programs he listens to?

I find it surprising that we're not even more batshit crazy than we are.

[DS1]

2. That would be pretty intense

imagine the gun threads in GD if he'd gone through with it :wow:

[villager]

3. and the inevitable comments on how guns are never a factor in gun crimes?

n/t

[EnviroBat]

16. Hold on a sec, I'll go and fetch your soap-box...

:eyes:

[villager]

32. no need -- you're already standing on one!

n/t

[EnviroBat]

33. Oh, you got me there...

[struggle4progress]

101. Gun in Super Bowl plot was banned, now popular

February 9, 2008 - 3:07AM
Gary Grado, Tribune

... Havelock bought an AR-15 at Scottsdale Gun Club and 250 rounds of ammunition Jan. 29 in preparation for the planned slaughter.

The AR-15 was one of 19 guns banned under the 1994 Crime Bill, which expired on Sept. 13, 2004.

FBI Special Agent Philip Thorlin testified at Havelock’s detention hearing Tuesday that the gun is the weapon of choice for the U.S. military.

But Rathner said the rifle is actually a semiautomatic version of the U.S. military’s fully automatic M-4 ...

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/108553

[Pavulon]

102. AR-15 was not Banned. Only a collapsing stock and bayonet lug

were impacted. The AR-15 was legal and manufactured CONTINUOUSLY under the toothless ban.

This weapon would have had to have its collapsing stock fixed in place. The flash arrestor would not have been there.

Other than those items this would be LEGAL under the cosmetic ban. Mechanical function of the weapon was not changed.

[struggle4progress]

104. Bullshit, Pavulon. The AR-15 was banned BY NAME in the 1994 law.

IIRC, you tend not to accept legal analyses produced by folk you disagree with, so here's a contemporary gun-nut analysis of the law:

VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994 ...
Kristine R. DeMay ...

IV. THE CRIME BILL AND THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN ...

D. Assault Weapons under the 1994 Crime Bill

The assault weapons provision of the Crime Bill makes it unlawful for a person to "manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon." ... The provision bans 19 semiautomatic weapons by name ... The guns banned by name are: "Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Automat Kalashnikovs-"AK-type" (all models); Action Arms Israeli Military Industries Uzi and Galil; Beretta Ar70; Colt AR-15; Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC; SWD M-10, M-11/9, and M-12; Steyr AUG; and INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 AND TEC-22 and revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12" ...

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/DeMay1.html

[slackmaster]

107. Yes, and Colt responded by renaming the exact same rifle the Sporter

With a couple of minor modifications, namely using a plain (unthreaded) muzzle and deleting the bayonet lug.

Not only that, but because the name "Colt AR-15" was itself an offending feature, the market for other manufacturers to make the exact same rifle (less offending features) flourished. Olympic Arms' early entry was called the PCR for Politically Correct Rifle. There are now dozens of companies making complete rifles of the AR-15 pattern not just in spite of, but because of the AW ban.

In common parlance, the term "AR-15" refers to any semiautomatic rifle of the same basic pattern. Most of the parts are completely interchangeable between rifles made by different manufacturers. If a news report refers to a rifle as an AR-15, there is only a very small probability that it was an original, genuine Colt AR-15. (The original manufacturer, BTW, was ArmaLite, which is still in business.)

BTW s4p, the truncated quote in your post is misleading. Possession of an AR-15 that was lawfully acquired before the 1994 ban went into effect was not illegal. Nor was buying or selling one that was manufactured before the ban.

Gun owners viewed the ban as both an inconvenience and a slippery slope. A lot of people, myself included, bought that type of rifle because of the ban.

[gorfle]

109. So did I

Gun owners viewed the ban as both an inconvenience and a slippery slope. A lot of people, myself included, bought that type of rifle because of the ban.

I could not afford an M-16 variant (typically start around $800 today), so I went out and bought an SAR-1, an AK-47 variant for about $300 at the time. I was afraid there would be even more restrictions and it was time to buy one while I still could.

[Pavulon]

114. Ban Economics

if these idiots do happen to ever be in a position to ban anything be sure to buy them legally in MASS before the ban takes place. The ATF made millionaires of many with its 1986 ruling. If you held say 20,000 legal m16 sears in 1985, (for the ignant this is not a drop in "auto sear" but a part that the ATF regulates) value $1000 those were worth 12,000 a piece by the mid 90's.

Buy up, sell later. Get rich.

[struggle4progress]

110. Bullshit, slackmaster. Under Title XI Subtitle A Section 110102(b)

semiautomatic assault weapons are defined to include copies or duplicates of the ... (iv) Colt AR-15

So anyone who made the exact same rifle was breaking the law.

The position you adopt, namely, that Colt "Sporter" was the exact same rifle as the AR-15, was widely held; in fact, in a number of jurisdictions, no essential legal difference was recognized between the AR-15 and the Sporter, which was therefore often simply called the "Colt AR-15 Sporter." The (natural and obvious) conclusion is that the ban, insofar as it was actually enforced, applied equally to the Sporter, notwithstanding your attempt to muddle together the (30)(A) and (30)(B) additions to 18 USC 921(a) effected by XI A 110102(b)

[Pavulon]

116. No bayonet lug..

As a person who makes a living in the machine shop they could alter a part the smallest bit and still sell a ar-16. The same as the morons in CA banning the Barret .50 cal, so someone necks down the case to .498 and calls it a CA SUCKS type 1. Perfectly legal.


I mean lets ban a gun that is a criminals choice. Barely man portable. But it makes the dumbasses look like they care and are keeping the public safe.

[struggle4progress]

118. Read Title XI Subtitle A Section 110102(b)

[Pavulon]

120. XM-16

your knowledge of this topic is google deep. I am familiar with the weapon in its civilian and military make. I lived thought the ban and am aware of the legal implications that it actually had.

None of which impacted FUNCTION of a weapon. The ban might as well have said all scary black rifles and communist looking ak's be painted pink.

Same difference.

[struggle4progress]

124. Thread (#0) concerns Havelock's planning a massacre. Subthread (#101) concerns his purchase

of AR-15 in pursuit of plans, with discussion whether the AR-15 was actually banned by Congress in 1994, you claiming (#102 and subsequent) AR-15 was not, I pointing out (#104 and subsequent with support by link and/or statutory language) that AR-15 was in fact banned by name

In subsubthread (#110) I responded to a claim (#107, to that the effect of banning the AR-15 by name was simply that Colt changed the name) by citing Title XI Subtitle A Section 110102(b) language banning knock-offs and copies. Your repeated claims (#116 and subsequent) regarding bayonet lugs &c convince me you never actually read the statutory language

[Pavulon]

125. Have you

it was two part. It banned products by name. Like the MAC-10 renamed the MAC-11. So the manufacturers renamed them.

It also banned cosmetic features like bayonet lugs and folding/collapsing stocks.

Sheer stupidity.

There were MILLIONS of "assault weapons", a fake word, made during the ban.

Banned grenade launchers. Wow, what great lawyering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Large capacity ammunition magazines
Folding or telescoping stock
Conspicuous pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

[struggle4progress]

127. This is pointless: we're going around in circles. The "two part" to which you refer

are the (30)(A) and (30)(B) additions to 18 USC 921(a) I referenced in my post #110

As I already remarked in that post #110, to demand to know whether (say) bayonet fittings were the criterion by which a weapon (banned by name under the statute) was banned, is to muddle these two parts together. Thus, your insistence on such questions (in #112 or #116, say) suggests a lack of attention to the statute or a failure to read the post to which you are responding

The same post #110 of mine cites the statutory language against copies or duplicates of the banned-by-name weapons, which clearly means that manufacturers were non-compliant with the law if they simply renamed banned-by-name weapons before resuming sales. So your assertion the manufacturers renamed them cannot be a critique of the statute, though it may actually reflect the attitude of various corporations towards compliance with the law

There would be no point in me saying this a fourth or fifth time

Good day!

<edit:typo>

[Pavulon]

129. Lawyers are great

they took a toothless stupid law and figured out how to continue making millions of firearms, probably more than if there were no law at all, that complied with the law and still looked all black and scary.

The companies DID make weapons like the XM-15. These were LEGAL. If they were ILLEGAL the ATF would seize them and charge the owner with a felony.

I linked you to the wiki on this. I lived through the ban and saw exactly what was sold.

This was legal under the ban. No flash hider, no folding stock. Still a scary black rifle that accepts a stanag magazine..

Just because you say the same shit ten times does not mean it is correct.



Once certain combinations of features were banned, manufactures complied with the law by removing such combinations of features. For example, the AB-10 was a legal version of the TEC-9, with barrel threading, and barrel shroud removed; the XM-15 was a legal AR-15 without barrel threading, or a bayonet mounting lug; post-ban semi-automatic AK-47s were also sold without folding stocks, bayonet lugs, and with standard or "thumbhole" stocks instead of pistol-grips. As the production of large-capacity magazines for civilians had also been prohibited, manufacturers sold their post-ban firearms either with newly-manufactured magazines with capacities of ten rounds or less, or with pre-ban manufactured high-capacity magazines, to meet changing legal requirements.

[slackmaster]

132. I believe I was clear that simply changing the name was not sufficient

The Colt Sporter, which went on the market after the AW ban took effect, had no threaded muzzle and no bayonet lug.

Of course it was not "exactly" the same rifle, but it was functionally the same rifle.

Nobody ever got busted for violating 18 USC 921(a) for manufacturing or possessing a Colt Sporter.

The (natural and obvious) conclusion is that the ban, insofar as it was actually enforced, applied equally to the Sporter...

To quote a former DU literary wizard, that's a steaming pantload.

[struggle4progress]

137. No: Fresno Rifle v. Van de Kamp (1992) shows "Colt AR-15 Sporter" available before 1994 federal ban

In fact, state of California had banned AR-15 Sporter in 1989, rather prior to federal ban. Thus, not only is it incoherent to claim that the AR-15 is distinct from the Sporter, it is also incoherent to claim that the Sporter (under that name) appeared on the market only after the Federal ban

The state ban was subject of rifle club's suit:

FRESNO RIFLE AND PISTOL CLUB, INC. v. VAN DE KAMP
965 F.2d 723 (9th Cir. 1992)...
No. 91-15466 ...
Decided May 22, 1992 ...

RYMER, Circuit Judge:

Several .. clubs which sponsor shooting competitions .. and .. gun manufacturers who make .. "assault weapons" .. regulated by California's .. Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 ("AWCA") .. seek a declaration that the AWCA is preempted by the Civilian Marksmanship Program ("CMP"), 10 U.S.C. sections 4307-4313 ...

... The plaintiffs claim that the Colt AR-15 Sporter, which is listed as an assault weapon under AWCA section 12276(a)(5), is a valid commercial equivalent of an M16 under 32 C.F.R. section 544.52(c), but that the AWCA deprives them of the opportunity to use it even though it is one of the three rifles authorized for use in the CMP.

Assuming that the Colt AR-15 Sporter rifle qualifies as a commercial equivalent of the M16 for purposes of the CMP, the CMP and the AWCA do not "actually conflict." ... At most, the AR-15 Sporter is but one of the weapons authorized for use in the CMP. It is not required for use in the CMP ...

The plaintiffs argue that even if they are allowed to use army M16 issues at CMP shooting matches, the state has effectively abrogated their right to compete in the CMP by prohibiting them from practicing with the AR-15 Sporter. They are free, however, to persuade the army to let them practice with the army issues that are available at competitions, or to compete with the MI or M14 rifles. The AWCA therefore does not make competing, in or complying with the CMP a "physical impossibility" ...

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/fresno_club_v_vandecamp.txt

[slackmaster]

139. That's state law, not federal

Massive goalpost move.

BTW, the California AW ban didn't ban AR-15 pattern rifles outright either. I own two fully functional ones that I bought here in 1999 and 2000.

[struggle4progress]

147. Quoted only to disprove your claim in #132 that Colt Sporter went on market after 1994 federal ban

The Fresno rifle club could scarcely have lost a Federal suit in 1992, arguing that California legislation affecting the "Colt AR-15 Sporter" was unconstitutional, if (as you claim) Colt responded to 1994 Federal legislation by slightly modifying the AR-15 and renaming it the "Sporter"

<edit:grammar>

[benEzra]

151. This photo may help you understand...

it's a 2002 model civilian AK (non-automatic, like all civilian AK's have ever been). This rifle was made, imported, and sold during the Feinstein law.


Romanian SAR-1, 2002 model (non-automatic civilian AK)

The 1994 Feinstein law DID NOT BAN ANY GUNS WHATSOEVER. It banned the marketing of civilian guns under any of 19 banned names, and required newly manufactured civilian guns to pass a features-count limit. Hence, civilian AK's and AR-15 type rifles were just as legal in 1997 or 2002 as they are now, they just could not have more than one Feinstein-despised feature (pistol grip, threaded muzzle, bayonet lug, flash suppressor, folding or adjustable-length stock).

BTW, that's my rifle in the photo above; I shoot recreationally and competitively (USPSA competition) with it. Here it is in competition configuration, with an optical sight and lightweight 20-round magazine:

[struggle4progress]

154. Bullshit, benEzra! Consider reading PL 103-322 before making a claim such as

"The 1994 .. law DID NOT BAN ANY GUNS WHATSOEVER. It banned .. marketing ..."

In #154, I provide an excerpt from PL 103-322 showing that your claim is untrue

[Pavulon]

156. You need an attorney,,They is what the firearms manufacturers

used to be sure this was legal. Actually the ban probably made them tens of millions by creating demand that did not exist before.

YOu could buy THIS weapon through the entire ban..Note the lack of flash suppressor or bayonet lug..

[benEzra]

157. It banned NAMES and FEATURES. The "copies or duplicates" verbage was meaningless

since a ban-era AR-15 type rifle with a nonthreaded muzzle and no bayonet lug was neither an "AR-15" (Colt trademark) nor was it deemed by the BATFE to be a "copy or duplicate" thereof, since the features were different. At least a million, probably far more, AR-15 type rifles were manufactured between 1994 and 2004, by Colt, Olympic Arms, Bushmaster, Rock River Arms, Eagle Arms, DPMS, and many others. Several of the now-biggest names in the industry got their start during the Feinstein law era, which drove demand for AR-15 type rifles through the roof.

I have long since thrown away most of my ban-era gun catalogs, but I did find a Shotgun News from May 24, 2004 just now, and have it in front of me. On the cover are ads for civilian FN-FAL derivatives (DSA SA58) and a DSA AR-15 type carbine (DS-AR), and the cover story is a review of Rock River Arms' LAR-15 series of civilian rifles that it had been making continuously since 1997 (Fortier, David, "Black Rifle Fun from Rock River Arms," Shotgun News 58:14 (May 24, 2004), pp. 14-16. On page 57, there is a full-age ad for Colts; a Colt Match Target (ban-era Colt AR-15) model no. MT6601 (HBAR model, 20" barrel, carry handle upper receiver) for $929.99 to your local FFL, and a model CR6724 (accurized model, flattop upper receiver with Picatinny optics rail, 24" heavy barrel) for $1149.99 to your local FFL. And so on.

I posted a photo above of my 2002 model civilian "AK-47" (Romanian SAR-1), which was not in any way a copy or duplicate of the Chinese AK derivatives (Norinco, Poly Tech) named by the Feinstein law, so it was just as legal to manufacture and import 1994-2004 than it is now. I have the dated receipt, for pete's sake.

As I said, FAR more AR-15 type rifles, civilian AK lookalikes, FALs, CETME's, etc. were sold under the Feinstein law than in all the previous years combined, thanks to the huge demand that was the law's main effect.

If you don't believe me, would you believe the gun-ban lobby?

http://www.vpc.org/press/0409aw.htm

Or Wikipedia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban

Compliance and avoidance

AWB advocates and opponents alike stated that the AWB allowed firearms manufacturers to make minor changes to make their affected firearms legal, and they both described the features affected by the ban as "cosmetic".<2><3> Supporters pointed to the ability to fire a large capacity magazine without the need to reload as frequently; the ability to fire from the hip with a pistol grip; and greatly reduced chances for detection when using a silencer in the perpetration of a crime (silencers were already regulated by federal law prior to the AWB); and felt that the final wording of the bill watered down the legislation making the ban much less effective. Opponents claimed that the features did not increase the likelihood of criminal use or function, and pointed out that the features banned had little record of impact in past criminal use.

Critics also noted that many of the defining features included in the ban did not necessarily make a weapon more dangerous or more desirable to a common criminal (for example, bayonet lugs and barrel shrouds.) A common comparison drawn was between the M16/AR-15, which was banned, and the Ruger Mini-14, which (in most versions) was not. Both weapons fire the same cartridge with similar ballistics, both can accept high-capacity magazines, and they are of similar size and weight. Thus, critics said, one could logically conclude that they were equally lethal weapons in the hands of a criminal and that the differences between them had no bearing on the weapons' respective danger to society. Detractors say that the banned weapons were essentially targeted for falling under an arbitrary definition of "military appearance" and not according to function, lethality, or actual threat to public safety.

Once certain combinations of features were banned, manufactures complied with the law by removing such combinations of features. For example, the AB-10 was a legal version of the TEC-9, with barrel threading, and barrel shroud removed; the XM-15 was a legal AR-15 without barrel threading, or a bayonet mounting lug; post-ban semi-automatic AK-47s were also sold without folding stocks, bayonet lugs, and with standard or "thumbhole" stocks instead of pistol-grips. As the production of large-capacity magazines for civilians had also been prohibited, manufacturers sold their post-ban firearms either with newly-manufactured magazines with capacities of ten rounds or less, or with pre-ban manufactured high-capacity magazines, to meet changing legal requirements.

The BATF technology branch determined in 1994 that muzzle brakes were not impacted by the AWB, and that muzzle brakes on threaded barrels were not an assault weapon feature, so long as they were welded or soldered in place.

The law prohibited detachable magazines with a capacity to hold more than ten rounds manufactured after enactment of the law from sale, transfer, or importation. One effect was the increased importation of large quantities of magazines manufactured before the ban from other countries. Former Warsaw Pact countries had large quantities of AK-47 magazines of various capacities that could fit a variety of both pre-ban and post-ban AK-47 variants. Existing stocks of pre-ban American-made magazines were likewise exempt from the ban; this resulted in a brief surge in domestic manufacture of high-capacity magazines before the law took effect.

With the ten-round limit on magazine capacity in effect, and some form of concealed carry of firearms legal in over 38 states, manufacturers had an added incentive to design smaller frames at or below the ten-round capacity, thus replacing the previously popular 9mm and .45 ACP "high capacity" pistols. Since they could no longer manufacture the popular 15- and 17-round magazines to consumers, continuing to market the large frames designed for such made less sense. Glock introduced their 10-round capacity 9mm semi-automatic pistol, the Glock 26, in August 1994, in apparent anticipation of the legislation. In 1995, the Kahr Arms company was founded; they debuted their ultra-compact 9mm pistol, the K-9. In the years that followed, all manufacturers of semiautomatic pistols followed suit, developing a large array of concealable ten-round pistols in various calibers, including 9mm, 10mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP.

In March 2004, Kristen Rand, the legislative director of the Violence Policy Center, criticized the soon-to-expire ban by stating "The 1994 law in theory banned AK-47s, MAC-10s, UZIs, AR-15s and other assault weapons. Yet the gun industry easily found ways around the law and most of these weapons are now sold in post-ban models virtually identical to the guns Congress sought to ban in 1994."<4>

[struggle4progress]

173. This is pointless. I precisely debunked certain of your claims, and clearly so indicated,

with links, which is followed by continual repetition of the same claims, together with a pretense that I have attempted some vague unspecified more general argument

Good day

[struggle4progress]

111. If you know that Havelock purchased a grandfathered AR-15, feel free to post a link

[Pavulon]

112. So which feature, the bayonet lug or birdcage flash hider

made this weapon banned. There was NO MECHANICAL modification by any of the DOZEN or so manufactures who make black rifles based on the stoner design during the toothless ban.

So if he purchased a rifle with a bayonet lug or without is relevant here how?

You are obviously talking in an area where you knowledge is google deep.

I lived through the ban, qualified on an m16a2, carried an m4 and know a bit about this weapon.

I do not own a civilian model but can tell you it was available during the bogus ban.

If you live in the crime free state of california you may have had to pay more but you could still find this weapon.

[struggle4progress]

117. Perhaps you should reread my #104 and #110, both noting the AR-15 was banned by name

So any discussion of "bayonet lugs" or "birdcage flash hiders" is irrelevant, unless you can cite appropriate language from a committee report on the legislation to establish otherwise. My #110 provides the legislative language showing knock-offs were similarly banned.

I have no difficulty locating examples (even predating the ban) that clearly indicate many jurisdictions were not much inclined to distinguish between various versions and knock-offs of the AR-15

The post, to which you responded, addressed an issue implicitly and speculatively raised by a earlier post -- namely, that Havelock could conceivably have purchased a weapon manufactured prior to 1994, in which case the newspaper assertion (that he purchased a weapon that would have been banned prior to the expiration of the ban) would be incorrect. I simply asked whether any evidence supported that speculation. Your reply doesn't seem to shed further light on that question

[Pavulon]

119. Irrelevant. The ban made no altercation to

the function of any black rifle sold to civilians. Colt was one of MANY manufacturers. The term "AR-15" is like Xerox. A trade name. So a machine from lanier that does the EXACT same thing would not be covered under a Xerox ban.

So bushmaster, olympic arms, DPMS, rock river, and olympic to name a few sold semi automatic rifles that fired 5.56 nato rounds from weapons based on the stoner design during the toothless ban.

You are full of shit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban

[struggle4progress]

121. Thread (#0) concerns Havelock's planning a massacre. Subthread (#101) concerns his purchase

of AR-15 in pursuit of plans, with discussion whether the AR-15 was actually banned by Congress in 1994, you claiming (#102 and subsequent) AR-15 was not, I pointing out (#104 and subsequent with support by link and/or statutory language) that AR-15 was in fact banned by name.

In subsubthread (#111) I have attempted to understand why another poster (#107) regards the grandfathering clause relevant to the facts of the case, in which Havelock, allegedly furthering plans for a massacre, apparently bought a weapon (that is now available but would not have been available under the expired ban). As far as I can tell at present, the grandfathering clause has essentially no relevance

<edit:clarity>

[Pavulon]

122. You are correct the firearm

is in no way relevant to this story.

[struggle4progress]

123. What I actually said: "The grandfathering clause has essentially no relevance"

[slackmaster]

133. What difference would that make?

Your reason-o-babble aside, the federal AW ban expired in 2004.

[struggle4progress]

138. You yourself raised the grandfathering clause in your #107, to which I was replying

You are of course entirely free to hold the grandfathering clause immaterial to the news report that Havelock purchased an AR-15 in pursuit of plans to massacre innocent civilians -- but then why did you raise it originally?

[slackmaster]

141. I mentioned grandfathering in response to your misleading out-of-contaxt quote in #104

Which suggested that possession of the rifles in question was banned outright. Except where affected by state laws (which started in the late 1980s), AR-15 pattern rifles have been continuously available in the USA since they first hit the market in 1959. Even rifles that were subject to the federal AWB were available as used firearms, and the ban spurred both widespread interest in the AR-15 and the development of many new makes and models that complied with the ban. One unintended result of the federal AW ban was a huge increase in the number of AR and AK pattern rifles.

Yes, the grandfather clause of the expired federal AW ban is completely irrelevant to the non-incident under discussion here.

:eyes:

[struggle4progress]

148. Thread (#0) concerns Havelock's planning a massacre. Subthread (#101) concerns his purchase

of AR-15 in pursuit of plans, with discussion whether the AR-15 was actually banned by Congress in 1994, another poster claiming (#102 and subsequent) that The AR-15 was legal .. under the .. ban. In response (#104 and subsequent), I demur that Congress actually banned the AR-15 by name in 1994.

Responding to my #104 you (#107) claim Colt responded by renaming the exact same rifle the Sporter, a claim which I address in #110 (showing that the statutory language forbade such knock-offs) and in #137 (showing that the Fresno Rifle Club in 1992 lost a Federal lawsuit over California's regulation of the "Colt AR-15 Sporter").

Also in response to my #104, you object that my post does include the grandfather clause language of the 1994 Federal legislation. Presumably you meant that Havelock may not have bought a weapon that would have been illegal under the 1994 law (as claimed by the news account in #101) because he might have bought a weapon falling under the grandfather clause: accordingly, I invited you (#111) to provide any evidence that such was the case; you, however, responded (#133) that the grandfather clause was irrelevant; I then asked (#138) why you yourself raised the grandfather clause if you considered it irrelevant; and now in #141 you claim my #104 was misleading.

The question seems to be whether Havelock in purchasing a AR-15 actually bought a weapon that would have been illegal under the 1994 law (as claimed by the news account in #101). Since the 1994 law banned the AR-15 by name, his purchase would have been illegal before expiration of the 1994 unless it fell under one of the law's limited exemptions such as the grandfather clause. The news report asserts the purchase would have been illegal before expiration of the 1994; if you have any evidence showing that Havelock's purchase actually fell under such an exemption, you should certainly feel free to provide it counter to the news report; but unless such evidence appears, there seems no good reason to doubt the veracity of the news report

[benEzra]

163. I've seen no evidence that it was specifically a Colt AR-15(TM)...

rather than an AR-15 type rifle in the generic sense. i.e., a Rock River Arms LAR-15 or a Colt Match Target M4 is an AR-15 in the generic sense, but is not an "AR-15(TM)". Very few AR-15's are AR-15(TM)'s, because Colt's share of the civilian market is quite small.

For example, here's a Rock River Arms LAR-15 CAR Elite A4, my favorite AR-15 type rifle:


http://www.rockriverarms.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=category.display&category_id=219

It's an AR-15 generically, but it is not an "AR-15(TM)" because it is not a Colt. It's a LAR-15, which is Rock River's designation, but the media would call this an AR-15. This was a popular rifle during the Feinstein ban as well, with a smooth muzzle, non-adjustable stock, and truncated front sight base as required by the "scary features" limit.

This may help you understand the different uses of the term "AR-15":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

[struggle4progress]

170. This is pointless. The manufacturer is identified as Colt in the article:

see my #169

Good day!

[slackmaster]

172. No, the article cites Colt's Web site as a source of information about AR-15 rifles in general

It does not say the rifle not used in the non-massacre was actually manufactured by Colt.

It's very unlikely that the rifle was actually a Colt.

As a matter of fact, Colt is not currently producing, for the civilian market, any rifle branded as "AR-15".

http://www.coltsmfg.com/cmci/rifles.asp

[struggle4progress]

175. Bill banned Colt AR-15; article says man bought previously banned AR-15 & cites "manufacturer Colt"

I'm not interested in speculation without evidence. Good day

[slackmaster]

176. My, you have a great deal of faith in the writer of the story

Much more than would be warranted by any objective assessment of the accuracy of news reports when it comes to technical aspects of firearms.

It's pretty clear to me what most likely happened:

1. The police described the rifle as an AR-15.

2. Reporter Googled "AR-15" and went to Colt's Web site and other places for information.

3. Reporter, not understanding that AR-15 in common parlance means any civilian semiautomatic rifle, including both ones covered by the expired AW ban and ones not covered by the expired AW ban, assumed that it was a Colt rifle, and took it from there.

Good day indeed.

[slackmaster]

182. Correction

3. Reporter, not understanding that AR-15 in common parlance means any civilian semiautomatic rifle of the basic AR-15 pattern, including both ones covered by the expired AW ban and ones not covered by the expired AW ban, assumed that it was a Colt rifle, and took it from there.

(In any case, it really makes no difference whether the reporter's weakly supported claim that the rifle would have been banned from 1994 to 2004 is correct, since both "banned" rifles and non-banned ones that were functionally identical to the banned ones were always available except where affected by state-level laws.)

[benEzra]

178. It appears that most current Colt rifles are not branded "AR-15(TM)"...see Colt's page...

http://www.coltsmfg.com/cmci/rifles.asp

in fact, it appears that no Colt AR-15 type rifles in their non-LEO line has used the the AR-15(TM) name since 1994; Colt switched to the Match Target name in 1994 for their civilian AR-15 type rifles and never changed back. So if this guy bought a Colt, it's likely not an AR-15(TM), so the police department was apparently using AR-15 generically to mean the platform, not the trademark.

Your basic contention upthread--that all AR-15 type rifles, not just the name "AR-15(TM)," were somehow illegal 1994-2004 and became legal to manufacture and sell in 2004--is entirely and demonstrably false. The AR-15 platform (generically speaking) became the most popular civilian rifle in America during the Feinstein law.

The only difference between a 2007 Colt Match Target and a 1997 Colt Match Target would be that the 1997 had a smooth muzzle (or integral brake, not screw-on), no bayonet lug, and a nonadjustable stock. That's it.

Here's a current-production Match Target Competition HBAR (e.g., Heavy BARrel), the MT6700:


Colt MT6700

That rifle, as shown, was just as legal to manufacture and sell as-is 1994-2004, with no alterations required.

[slackmaster]

168. Your equine companion animal is deceased

Continuing to pummel it will not make all those AR-15s go away.

The question seems to be whether Havelock in purchasing a AR-15 actually bought a weapon that would have been illegal under the 1994 law (as claimed by the news account in #101).

Why? What difference would it possibly make one way or another?

Since the 1994 law banned the AR-15 by name, his purchase would have been illegal before expiration of the 1994 unless it fell under one of the law's limited exemptions such as the grandfather clause. The news report asserts the purchase would have been illegal before expiration of the 1994;

That's nonsense, s4p. As I have already mentioned, the term "AR-15" in common usage refers to any semiautomatic rifle of the basic AR-15 pattern, not just Colt AR-15s. The article did not mention the manufacturer of the rifle that was not used in a massacre that didn't happen. Statistically, it's very unlikely that the rifle was actually manufactured by Colt.

The grandfather clause, BTW, was in the federal ban. Some states like California and New Jersey enacted their own AW bans. California's has no grandfather clause.

In any case, even rifles that were covered by the 1994 ban WERE AVAILABLE as used firearms during the ban. The federal AW ban made no difference whatsoever in the availability of AR-15 pattern rifles.

[struggle4progress]

169. Bullshit, slackmaster. The article DOES identify Colt as the manufacturer of the weapon:

Gun in Super Bowl plot was banned, now popular
Gary Grado, Tribune
A semiautomatic weapon a Tempe man bought for $899 to commit mass murder at the Super Bowl was banned until three years ago ... The AR-15 was one of 19 guns banned under the 1994 Crime Bill ... According to manufacturer Colt’s Web site, the rifle’s effective range is 600 meters ..."
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/108553

So your claim "The article did not mention the manufacturer of the rifle" is simply false

[slackmaster]

171. Your logic is weak

The article quotes Colt's Web site, but it does not say the rifle involved in the non-incident was manufactured by Colt.

The writer may have done what you appear to be doing, i.e. using Google to look up information based on a police report that the rifle was an AR-15.

[struggle4progress]

174. Unsupported speculation against the clear sense of the text. Good day

[benEzra]

177. Colt also makes AR-15 type rifles not called "AR-15(TM)"...

http://www.coltsmfg.com/cmci/rifles.asp

...and that's assuming that the reporter didn't hear "AR-15" and assume it was being used specifically rather than generically.

[slackmaster]

179. In fact none of their currently manufactured rifles are branded as "AR-15"

So obviously there is a disconnect somewhere in the article, and struggle4progress has mistakenly taken what was written as gospel.

[benEzra]

180. Is the Colt 6920 "MT6920" or "LE6920"?

I know some people who own Colt 6920's (they're highly thought of), and was wondering if those are branded "AR-15(TM)" or not.

[slackmaster]

181. I don't believe it is marked that way, and the retail price is about $1,400!

EEEEK! I'd say that further decreases the likelihood that our almost perp bought a genuine Colt rifle for this non-massacre.

[benEzra]

149. The law merely restricted the marketing of civilian guns under the trademarked name "AR-15"...

the AR-15 platform was never banned, and two or three times as many AR-15 type rifles were sold 1994-2004 than in all the previous decades since 1961. "AR-15" is a trademark of Colt, anyway, and most AR-15 type rifles are not Colts.

It was between 1994 and 2004 that the AR-15 platform became the most popular civilian target rifle and defensive carbine in the United States, FWIW.

The only difference between ban-era AR-15 type rifles vs. preban or postban rifles was that the stock on ban-era had to be nonadjustable for length, muzzle brakes had to pin on or be integral with the barrel instead of screwing on, flash suppressors (flame dampers) were not allowed, and the bottom of the front sight assembly could not have the little protrusion on it.

[struggle4progress]

152. Bullshit, benEzra! The 1994 ban did not "merely restrict.. marketing .. under the .. name 'AR-15'"

as you might see by actually reading the former law:

H.R.3355 <PL 103-322>
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate) ...
SEC. 110102. RESTRICTION ON MANUFACTURE, TRANSFER, AND POSSESSION OF CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS
... (a) RESTRICTION-
(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon ...
(b) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON ...
(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means--
(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as-- ...
Colt AR-15 ...

[Pavulon]

153. Lawyers are great

you see the name was changed as well as cosmetic features. See no scurry birdcage flash hider or bayonet mount.

This law made the ar-15 the MOST POPULAR civilian rifle in the US. Pretty funny.

[benEzra]

159. And NONE of the AR-15 type rifles sold 1994-2004 were "copies or duplicates"

of the "Colt AR-15." They were similar, but they lacked bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, and adjustable stocks, and came in different barrel lengths (the old Colt AR-15 had a 20" barrel), different barrel profiles, different gas system lengths (rifle length, midlength, carbine length), different handguard lengths and types, etc.

Ditto for civilian AK's. My SAR-1 isn't a copy of a "Poly Tech (Chinese) AK-47"; it's a Romanian civilian AK derivative patterned on the AKM's made by Romarms at the Cugir facility in Romania, IIRC, and has no connection whatever with preban Chinese civilian AK's. The barrel lengths are different, the receiver thickness is different, the stocks are different, and the ban-eras didn't have bayonet lugs or screw-on muzzle brakes, so they weren't "copies or duplicates."

I suggest you get informed on the BATFE regulations and rulings that implemented the Feinstein law, as well as the ambiguities in the law itself, before you accuse me of BS'ing you. I posted a photo of my legal ban-era rifle above, but I'll post it again. Look at it closely; no bayonet lug (bottom of the gas block is smooth) and no muzzle threads; it's ban era just by looking at it, even if you don't believe me on the date.



What else do I need to do, PM you a scan of the dated receipt?

[gorfle]

39. Unlikely...

I don't see how anyone can say with a straight face that guns are not a factor in gun crimes. Obviously a gun crime is committed with ... a gun!

The question is do we surrender our liberties in the hope of gaining a little temporary safety by getting rid of guns.

My answer to this has always been "no".

[villager]

40. I guess more specifically, the DU gun crowd can't possibly see any reason guns

...should be registered/traceable to the degree, oh, cars are.

Or are you -- sly Libertarian that you are -- driving around without a license?

[gorfle]

45. Guns should be like cars!

I guess more specifically, the DU gun crowd can't possibly see any reason guns...should be registered/traceable to the degree, oh, cars are.

I'd love for guns to be treated just like cars.

1) No paperwork required to buy one for use on private property
2) No paperwork required to operate one on private property
3) No restrictions or paperwork on usage on private property

I wish guns were as hassle-free to buy, own, and operate as cars!

[TheDoorbellRang]

46. So, do you have a little putt-putt you drive in circles around your yard?

I'd love for guns to be treated just like cars.

1) No paperwork required to buy one for use on private property
2) No paperwork required to operate one on private property
3) No restrictions or paperwork on usage on private property

I wish guns were as hassle-free to buy, own, and operate as cars!

Me, I'd rather do the paperwork so I can drive to work.

[villager]

48. As for the "hassle-free" part, it kinda makes you wonder whether he's ever owned a car at all...

n/t

[benEzra]

150. Compared to guns, the law on cars is more straightforward...

to get a license to carry a firearm, I had to pass a Federal background check, state background check, have my fingerprints run by the FBI (clean), pass a mental health records check, take a course on self-defense law using a state-approved curriculum, pass a written test on same administered by the sheriff's office, demonstrate competence with a handgun on a shooting range (live fire), pay a lot of money in fees, and take multiple days off work to accomplish all the above. Getting my NC driver's license was a lot easier.

You also don't have to wonder if putting shiny wheels on a 1959 Chevrolet (as opposed to a 1957) is a felony, but putting a scope on a 1959 SKS carbine (but not a 1957) may be a felony...

[gorfle]

57. No, but nor do I use my guns in public.

So, do you have a little putt-putt you drive in circles around your yard?

No, I drive my car on public roads, where they require licensing, registration, and insurance.

But if I drove my car like I use my guns, that is, only on private property, I would not need licensing, registration, or insurance.

This is why I'm all for treating guns like cars. You'd only need government oversight when you take them out in public.

[villager]

47. Deal! We'll license 'em and register 'em and make you carry insurance!

You, Sly Libertarian, can keep all of yours on your own property.

[gorfle]

56. Just like my guns!

I don't have to license, register, or carry insurance on cars that I keep and/or use on private property. Since this is where I also keep and use my firearms, I would be all-for treating firearms just like cars. On private property, I don't need any paperwork or government oversight of my firearms - just like a car. But on public property, then I would need government oversight - which we have, in the form of concealed carry permits. Since I only use my firearms on private property, I wouldn't need the hassle.

Oh, and I'm not a libertarian, I'm a Democrat.

[villager]

71. well, you riff off faux-Libertarians, with your NRA-provided "liberty" gobbledegook

equating your handgun collection with society-wide freedom.

And, of course, you misread my previous post.

Absolutely -- keep your guns on your own property, and leave home without 'em!

And yes, let's make them like cars -- registration and licensure in all 50 states!

[gorfle]

75. God help us

God help us all the day "liberty" is considered "gobbledegook"

equating your handgun collection with society-wide freedom.

Bear in mind my firearm collection consists of more than just handguns. And the collective firearms collections of all the millions of us who have them is indeed a large part of our society-wide freedom.

Absolutely -- keep your guns on your own property, and leave home without 'em!

I always do. So consequently there should be no need to register or license them, just like cars, right?

And yes, let's make them like cars -- registration and licensure in all 50 states!

But only when they aren't on private property, like cars, right? Or in legitimate temporary transfer between private properties.

Because that's what we have today. If you want to carry your weapons in public you have to have a concealed carry permit, which is essentially registration and licensure. But if I keep my weapons at home, or am merely transferring them in a vehicle from one place to another, no such paperwork is required.

[CanSocDem]

106. To clarify your metaphor...

...comparing your vehicles to guns. Your vehicles have to meet a certain standard of safety before they are allowed onto and into the public road system. I don't feel handguns meet 'public safety standards' so you know where I stand. But I am getting tired of the comparison...


.

[gorfle]

130. But only if they are used on the public road system.

...comparing your vehicles to guns. Your vehicles have to meet a certain standard of safety before they are allowed onto and into the public road system. I don't feel handguns meet 'public safety standards' so you know where I stand. But I am getting tired of the comparison...

Yes, my vehicles have to meet certain standards of safety if I use them on public roads. Likewise they have to be registered, insured, and I have to have a license to operate them - on public property.

None of this is true for using vehicles on private property, which is how I use all my firearms. So I agree - firearms should be treated like cars - no registration, licensing, standards, or any other governmental oversight provided I am using them on private property or transporting them from one private property to another. For example, if I put my farm vehicle on a flat bed trailer I can tow it from one farm to another on public roads without having to license, insure, register, or otherwise have government oversight over the vehicle being towed.

If I want to operate or carry my firearm in public, like a car, then I can see perhaps requiring some government oversight, and in fact, we have this today - concealed carry permits.

But on private property, guns should be just like cars. No registration. No Licensing. No government interference of any kind.

[Paladin]

135. "...farm vehicle on a flat bed trailer..."???

Try some Ben-Gay on that strain, I'm sure it hurts like hell......

[gorfle]

136. It's not a strain at all!

I see it as the perfect analogy.

If I want to use a car on private property without registration, licensing, or other oversight, I can't drive it on public roads - I can only use it on private property. If I want to move it from one private property to another, I can't drive it there, because it isn't licensed or registered. I would have to tow it from one place to another in order to legally transport it.

Likewise this is the way guns should be. I can and do use them on private property with no government oversight. If I want to move them from one private property to another, say from my home to the shooting range, then I have to "tow" them from one place to another, like, say, put them in the trunk of my car or otherwise unloaded and out of reach of the driver. In other words, you can't use it when out in public, but you can still transport it from one place to another without registration or licensing, just like a car.

[Paladin]

145. The Car Analogy Never Works For You Gun Activists.....

....and the unlicenced cars on private property thing has never been convincing, and God knows it's turned up repeatedly around here. I don't expect you to believe me, but it's the truth.....

[gorfle]

160. Funny, I thought it was the anti's mantra

I've always heard it from the anti-gun crowd. "Guns should be treated just like cars! You should have to license them, register them, and have a license to operate them!"

Once they find out that you don't actually have to do any of that for cars not operated on public roads, it takes the wind out of their sails.

[Taverner]

55. So if he started smashing people in the head with a baseball bat that would be better?

Or hurling moltovs into the venue....

You can always hurt someone if you really want to. It's the "want to" part we need to fix.

[villager]

72. yes, like the six dead in L.A. today, and the six outside of St. Louis -- all with baseball bats!

The NRA needs to provide you with more rhetoric. The current stuff -- in light of the actual news followed by us in the reality-based community -- is getting pathetic.

[Taverner]

76. I don't support the NRA

But thanks for playing - the NRA is nothing more than an overly funded group of trial lawyers paid by gun nuts and firearm manufacturers.

If you used your brain for logic, you'd see that guns are tools. Not symbols of freedom, nor are they the end of civilization as we know it.

My question to you is: who would you rather have the guns - these guys?



Or us?

[villager]

78. but inadvertantly, only their positions? listen, join me in some nuance here

cause the black n' white stuff *is* what the NRA is all bout.

We need to do something about handguns, about the proliferation of guns, and about the ease (a la Virginia) with which the mentally unbalanced obtain guns.

Unconcealable rifles, maybe okay. Yes, I realize some of then will be used to murder other people (but again, you say the same about baseball bats -- been watching "Untouchables" too much lately? ;-)

But were looking for a more balanced policy than we have now, not just the usual gun apologist stamping of feet and whining and sputtering whenever some kind of common sense gun proposal is up for a vote.

But I would also ask if you really think we're going to defeat "them" --with their surveillance/electronic abilities -- with the gun(s) in your dresser drawer?

Really?

[Taverner]

79. Yes we can defeat them

The Viet Cong defeated the greatest army on earth with the equivalent of duct tape and chicken wire. The insurgents in Iraq are beating us with same said determination. What's the similarity? Both countries were invaded by a group they didn't want. Now take the US under martial law for too long...and you'll see the same thing.

As for guns, it's pretty easy to get a gun in Switzerland. In fact, everyone has one. They have much less crime than we do. Gun control has nothing to do with crime, either way (keep in mind the NRA argue that proliferation of guns actually reduces crime.)

If you want to stop the killing, look for root causes (yes, I know that term has been rendered 'antiquated' and useless by the GOP) - reduce poverty, create jobs. East Palo Alto, until the 90's, was a very violent part of the Bay Area. Then the 90's came, and Michael Moore can say there wasn't any change - but there was. Jobs were all over the place, and people were working and guess what - the crime rate went DOWN. Big time.

If you want to stop crime and violence, give people something to do and something to live on. Don't take away guns from people who wouldn't normally commit crimes anyway.

And of course there's always the red herring of the abusive spouse killing the other in anger. "If x didn't have a gun, they wouldn't have killed their spouse!" Wrong. If someone is angry, they will look to anything as a weapon. A broken bottle can kill just as easily. Should we all live in paddded rooms and in straitjackets? Should we go all Harrison Bergeron?

[villager]

80. I, of course, could cite all the other countries that *aren't* Switzerland

Though indeed, Switzerland has its "well regulated militia" -- these aren't citizens who mythologize guns, nor want to walk around with weapons concealed under their flak jackets.

So much for the nuance -- you're an absolutist (hence, would be very welcome in the NRA, as much as you resist the notion)

Are there other factors *besides* guns in the crime argument? Of course?

Do you resist an honest look at the role of guns in violent crime in America? Absolutely.

[Taverner]

81. Guns play a role. So do lots of other things.

Pot - meet kettle...

[villager]

82. But the gun apologists want to do something about every other factor... except guns

Denial, as they say, ain't a river in Egypt

[Taverner]

83. That's because we've already had way too many gun laws thrown on us

And gun laws usually come as an emotional response, rather than a rational one. Like the Brady Bill, the ban on "assault weapons"

[villager]

84. Hah! The gun apologists don't thrive on "emotional responses?"

Every emotion that is, except empathy for the victims, or their survivors.

[gorfle]

95. There is no lack of empathy

There is no lack of empathy for the victims and survivors of firearm crimes.

It's just that we, the law-abiding majority of firearm owners, are not willing to allow their losses to become the alter upon which our freedom is sacrificed.

In my present now-rational state of mind, I can honestly say that were it my loss I would not expect them to do so, either. Of course I can understand how anyone wrapped up in the throws of such an emotional loss would respond irrationally and lash out at the tool used to bring about their loss.

[gorfle]

93. And why would that be?

But the gun apologists want to do something about every other factor... except guns

And why would that be? Could it be because we have witnessed the attempts at incremental "reasonable" gun control, and see it's obvious end?

Could it be because we know that the entire purpose of having the people be armed was to resist tyranny, and is completely unrelated to crime?

Yes, yes I think it could be.

[benEzra]

164. And rifle bans make absolutely no sense from that standpoint...

But the gun apologists want to do something about every other factor... except guns

And rifle bans make absolutely no sense from that standpoint...

2005 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,860.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,543......50.76%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....1,954......13.15%
Edged weapons.............................1,914......12.88%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,598......10.75%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................892.......6.00%
Shotguns....................................517.......3.48%
Rifles......................................442.......2.97%

2006 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,990.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,795......52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....2,158......14.40%
Edged weapons.............................1,822......12.15%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,465.......9.77%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................833.......5.56%
Shotguns....................................481.......3.21%
Rifles......................................436.......2.91%

Note that figure is for all kinds of rifles combined...compare that number to the number of people murdered with shoes and bare hands, for a little perspective.

[gorfle]

92. The role of guns in violent crime in America

Do you resist an honest look at the role of guns in violent crime in America? Absolutely.

I do not think you will find anyone, pro-gun or otherwise, who will say that guns don't play a role in violent crime in America.

What we will say is that we are not willing to sacrifice our right to bear arms on behalf of the wrongdoings of criminals committing violent crime with guns.

To me, it was and continues to be a mistake to allow the firearm debate to be framed in terms of crime.

The founding fathers intended the people to be armed so that they could resist tyranny if necessary. It does not matter how bad firearm crime ever gets, this founding principle is unchanged - and unrelated.

I am not giving up my right to bear arms on behalf of criminals, regardless of how heinous or numerous their offenses. In fact, the more heinous and numerous their offenses, the more resolutely I adhere to my right, not only for defense against the state, but against the criminal element, also.

[gorfle]

91. On revolution

We need to do something about handguns, about the proliferation of guns, and about the ease (a la Virginia) with which the mentally unbalanced obtain guns.

I can understand your reservation about handguns. In 2005, some 7500 murders happened with handguns as opposed to only some 450 murders by rifle.

My reservations concerning banning handguns are the following:

1) Their effectiveness as a force multiplier for criminals also makes them effective force multipliers for citizens wishing to defend themselves. Handguns are quite effective at what they do an so I hesitate to remove them from the hands of good people wishing to defend themselves.

2) I strongly suspect that no "reasonable" measure would be content stopping with the ban of handguns. The allowing of banning of any class of firearm would be opening the door to the next ban on whatever other firearm is deemed "bad".

3) I enjoy target shooting with a pistol over a rifle, as it is more challenging.

But were looking for a more balanced policy than we have now, not just the usual gun apologist stamping of feet and whining and sputtering whenever some kind of common sense gun proposal is up for a vote.

There would be a lot less stamping of feet, whining, and sputtering if you could convince us that you were not engaged in a war of incrementalism, with the end objective of banning all firearms. That is going to be a difficult task.

But I would also ask if you really think we're going to defeat "them" --with their surveillance/electronic abilities -- with the gun(s) in your dresser drawer?

Absolutely. First, there are historical examples of highly inferior armed forces winning over a technologically superior adversary. Vietnam is a classic example. Mogadishu is another. Iraq will soon be another.

Also remember that for a regime to be overturned traditional military victory is not required. All that is required is sufficient economic disruption to destroy the tax base, and consequently the income, of the tyranny. Make no mistake, I have no "Red Dawn" or "Rambo" illusions of the prettiness of a revolution. It would destroy life in this country as we know it. But I have no doubts that if required, it could be done.

[Goblinmonger]

86. You are getting your meme's mixed up

"trial lawyers" is evil speak for those attorneys that are plaintiff's attorneys in civil cases. That would NOT be the case with the NRA. Those attorneys would be defense attorneys. Keep your talking points straight next time.

[primavera]

100. My answer to you is: why is that the question?

Gun propoents are always doing this, suggesting that the choice to be made is between only two alternatives they've defined. "Who would you rather see holding a canister of Sarin gas, me or a deranged psycho?" Excuse me, but they're both pretty scary images and who says those are the only two options? How about no one holding a canister of Sarin gas? Now there's an image worth working for.

[Telly Savalas]

134. Why are you worried about them having guns? You can defend yourself with a baseball bat.

It's just as lethal as a gun, isn't it?

[gorfle]

90. The question then becomes:

yes, like the six dead in L.A. today, and the six outside of St. Louis -- all with baseball bats!

The question then becomes, "Do we sacrifice our means to secure freedom by force of arms in the hope of preventing future tragedies like you reference above?"

My answer is an unequivicol no.

To quote Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

I am unwilling to give up my essential liberty of firearm ownership on behalf of criminals, in the vain hope of gaining a bit of respite from their wrongdoings.

[Paladin]

94. Stated Another---And More Honest---Way:

You're perfectly OK with the ongoing slaughter of individuals in this country by gun-wielding thugs and psychopaths. You think it's inevitable, irreversable, and, most important of all, an acceptable trade-off for your unfettered access to as many as as varied selection of firearms as is possible.

Thanks so much for your contributions to a more civilized society......

[gorfle]

96. Not quite.

You're perfectly OK with the ongoing slaughter of individuals in this country by gun-wielding thugs and psychopaths. You think it's inevitable, irreversable, and, most important of all, an acceptable trade-off for your unfettered access to as many as as varied selection of firearms as is possible.

I am not "OK" with the ongoing slaughter of individuals in this country by gun-wielding thugs and psychopaths. And we should do something about the thugs and psychopaths. I'm all for punitive and preventative measures aimed at gun-wielding thugs and psychopaths, as long as they don't affect law abiding citizens like me.

I do, however, think that gun-related crime is inevitable, irreversable, and an acceptable trade-off for our unfettered access to as many varied selection of firearms as is necessary for the preservation of freedom and the vision of our founding fathers.

[Paladin]

99. I'll Give You A Few Points For Honesty

That puts you ahead of most of the gun apologists that hang out around here.

Let me be equally honest: if we're going to do something effective and proactive about the gun violence problem in this country, law abiding citizens like you and me will be affected, without a doubt. Do you own any machine guns? Do you go to sleep at night dreaming of owning one? Do you believe the general public ought to have machine guns, because Dick Cheney's sleep is sure to be troubled by the thought of an armed and aroused public? The fact is, machine guns are heavily regulated in this country, and guess what? The murder rate from the use of legally owned machine guns in this country is essentially zero. As you probably know, you can acquire a machine gun, but you have to pay a huge amount of money, and you have to go through a review and registration process that's sure to put you on every nutcase list the government maintains. All of which is a rather long way of saying this: Gun control works. Law abiding citizens are affected by it, but it works.....

[gorfle]

108. So where do you draw the line?

Let me be equally honest: if we're going to do something effective and proactive about the gun violence problem in this country, law abiding citizens like you and me will be affected, without a doubt. Do you own any machine guns? Do you go to sleep at night dreaming of owning one? Do you believe the general public ought to have machine guns, because Dick Cheney's sleep is sure to be troubled by the thought of an armed and aroused public? The fact is, machine guns are heavily regulated in this country, and guess what? The murder rate from the use of legally owned machine guns in this country is essentially zero. As you probably know, you can acquire a machine gun, but you have to pay a huge amount of money, and you have to go through a review and registration process that's sure to put you on every nutcase list the government maintains. All of which is a rather long way of saying this: Gun control works. Law abiding citizens are affected by it, but it works.....

No, I do not own a machine gun, because I cannot afford one, nor could I afford to shoot it, as you'd burn through $15 of ammo about every minute. As it is every time I go to the range for an afternoon of shooting it costs me about $80 in ammo for the afternoon.

You have a good point about the crime rate of machine guns being virtually zero due to the ban and high cost.

However, I very much doubt machine guns were never in large circulation before the ban - it was an easily controllable situation, and this ban has been in place since around 1934, I think - 74 years. Even if you could ban all pistols today I imagine it would be a couple hundred years before they worked out of circulation. But I think you would be up against a massive, massive resistance if you tried to do it. There are some 80 million gun owners out there. My own collection of firearms probably values in the neighborhood of $5000-$10,000. If we assume every firearm owner has a $5000 collection (your typical firearm is about $400), you are looking at $400 BILLION dollars worth of property to be confiscated and outlawed. If we assume that every firearm owner only has $1000 worth of firearms (about 2 weapons) you still come up with $80 BILLION dollars worth of property.
That's going to be a lot of pissed off voters, I can tell you that much. Not to mention non-compliance. Some of the firearms in my collection go back 3 generations or more in my family. There is no way ever I will give them up. I will bury them in the back yard in water-tight storage containers and claim them lost or stolen before that happens. And if pushed beyond that point - well I'll just say that that would qualify as tyranny in my book. I don't know if I'd have the guts to act on it or not.

I am somewhat torn on the issue of regulating machine guns. On one hand, I feel it is a restriction on the right to bear arms and thus unconstitutional. However, I am not too worked up about it because I believe revolution could be achieved if necessary with the use of semi-automatic firearms. Machine guns tend to not be terribly accurate; when used in fully-automatic mode they are usually used for suppressing fire. Any numerically and technologically inferior force is going to need to rely on more precise attacks for effective resistance - there will be little suppressing fire needed to be laid down against superior forces - such suppression attempts would simply draw the attention of air support, artillery, or armor. Machine guns are thus not essential for securing a free state. It is also true that keeping them out of the hands of maniacs means that they cannot go into a McDonalds and hose the place down with a machine gun, though frankly anyone skilled with a firearm could do just as much damage with a semi-automatic version. If you told me to walk into a restaurant and kill as many people as possible with 30 bullets and I had to choose a machine gun or a semi-auto, I'd pick the semi-auto where I could virtually guarantee one kill per bullet. With a machine gun you'd be lucky to hit more than a few people and possibly not all fatally.

So I have resigned to accept the line being drawn at restricting machine guns. But I am against any further restrictions against any semi-automatic, revolver, or single-shot projectile weapons. It is essential that the people have a fighting chance against oppression should the need arise - this was the vision of the founding fathers and the intent behind the 2nd Amendment. I believe the people are adequately armed for that frightening scenario as it stands today - but I would not want to risk any further restrictions putting the people at an even further disadvantage.

[Paladin]

126. Let's See What Happens......

....after we've had a few hundred more multi-victim public shootings in this country, maybe throw in a political assassination or two---do you have any doubt that all of that is going to happen in the next few years? I sure as hell don't. Public sentiment is already strongly in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of various wetbrains, and if the tide of conspicuous gun violence keeps growing, that sentiment is only going to grow stronger. I don't think you'll ever have to bury your guns (unless that makes you feel better), but it isn't going to be the free-and-easy situation that it is now. I'll wait for a Supreme Court decision on all this, rather than venture a guess about what the Founding Fathers views were.

As I've mentioned from time to time, I used to be quite active in shooting sports and hunting; I still own a few firearms, I know how to use them and I know what kind of damage they can do. But I walked away from all of it years ago because I didn't like the kind of company I had to keep, either personally or politically. You seem like a decent sort, but my daily participation here at DU gives me constant supportive evidence that my leaving the arms behind and taking up trout fishing was the correct decision......

[gorfle]

131. Time will tell...

....after we've had a few hundred more multi-victim public shootings in this country, maybe throw in a political assassination or two---do you have any doubt that all of that is going to happen in the next few years? I sure as hell don't. Public sentiment is already strongly in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of various wetbrains, and if the tide of conspicuous gun violence keeps growing, that sentiment is only going to grow stronger.

You may be right, perhaps not. We have already seen the hysteria-induced gun control efforts shot down in Virginia recently after the VT shootings. Saner minds prevailed. It may be that after enough gun violence or sufficiently large violent acts people will sacrifice their right to bear arms in pursuit of safety. I hope not.

[Drunken Irishman]

65. DS1, when did you come over to the dark side?

[aquart]

4. How did he think he would get in?

[RamboLiberal]

6. I imagine he planeed on doing it outside the stadium

You'd have some big crowds just around the stadium.

[Xithras]

20. With the AK-47 I assume.

Any sidearm bearing security guards could have been quickly dispatched with his AK. At short range, even police grade kevlar would have been useless against that thing.

I know there was heavier security available, but it would have taken some time for them to reach him. He could have done an incredible amount of damage in that time.

That's why those "bag checks" they have at events like these are kind of lame. If someone REALLY wanted to pull something like this off, they'd just shoot the people doing the checks and walk on in.

[slackmaster]

23. Article says it was an AR-15

A civilian sporting semiautomatic and NOT "the U.S. military’s weapon of choice" as described by FBI Special Agent Philip Thorlin.

[Xithras]

24. Misread, but irrelevant.

My brother in law owns a Colt AR-15. I don't consider it to be a weapon equal to the AK, but it's still capable of everything I mentioned in my OP. So is a semi-auto deer rifle for that matter.

[monktonman]

5. Is it terrorism yet?

Or is he a white guy?

[nxylas]

35. Well, he's obviously a Muslim

Because not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims (no sarcasm emoticon, because I HOPE I don't need it).

[rodeodance]

7. I hope he gets some psychological help.

[postulater]

8. See, Terrrrists ARE Everywhere

And that's why they need to listen to all your phone calls, You are probably the next one.
:sarcasm:

[LisaM]

9. You don't have to get inside to have access to the large crowds

There were probably tens of thousands of people tailgating. Just walking from their cars to the gates, there are a ton of people milling around.

[Lex1775]

42. No tailgating was allowed at this one.

[Island Blue]

10. The article says that he had "mental health evaluation"

after his arrest and they "found no mental defects". Hmmm, I think maybe they didn't look hard enough. Anyone who would contemplate doing something like this (to the point of writing a manifesto, buying ammo, driving to the stadium, etc.) probably has one or two "mental defects".

Edited to say, I hope he gets help, but it's becoming more and more difficult to get proper mental health care these days thanks to g.w. bush and friends.

[truthisfreedom]

13. No mental defects? Must be a terra-ist. Terra-ists don't have mental defects, right?

Now I'm confused.

[bigworld]

11. Havelock's Myspace page

http://www.myspace.com/scarizona

[slackmaster]

14. Jeez, even his music list screams out as a cry for help

In case the site gets taken down, check this out.

Arizona Horror Bands

American Psychos, The
Astrocreep2000 (Rob/White Zombie tribute)
Awaken The Nightmare
Boxcar Stranglers
Burglary, The
Calabrese
Cannibals, The
Casket Snatch
Chapter 23
Creature Feature
Creepsville
Cross and Skullbones
Curse of the Pink Hearse
Cursed, The
Dead End Dragstrip
Dead Tones, The
Demon City Wreckers
Desade
Everybody Gets Laid (Rocky Horror Punk Tribute)
Facilities, The
Frightfuls, The (RIP)
Grave Danger
Green Lady Killers, The
Hellacoasters
Hollow Bodies, The
Hour of the Wolf
Limit Club, The
Mission Creeps, The
Native American Psycho
Nitemare: The Demon's Head (horror rap)
R.A.B.I.E.S.
Redeadening, The
Route 66 Killers, The
Shadow Army (RIP)
Shadowcasters
Sinfinger
Some Kinda Hate (Misfits tribute)
Stitch Hopeless and the Sea Legs
Toomstoners
Unmarked Grave
Young Princes of Darkness, The (RIP)
Zombeast

If my kid or friend or lover was into stuff like that, I'd be very concerned.

[Aquigoth]

34. Why?

I listen to a couple of those bands, and some similar not on the list, but I also have a good grip on reality vs. fiction. I don't own a gun and would never even begin to contemplate something like this let alone plan it. Seems like empty justification of his mental state to me.

[slackmaster]

36. No offense to Goth people, but that's a rather narrow range of musical taste IMO

And I am very interested in a wide variety of music.

[Aquigoth]

49. Variety is the spice of life and all

But poor taste or limited taste isn't a sign of mental instability. It's also a MySpace page. Hardly the be all and end all of any person's likes and dislikes.

[LanternWaste]

73. an additional window into the man's psyche...

However, his MySpace page is an additional window into the man's psyche, as are his musical tastes, favorite movies, favorite books etc...

For example, if all he listed in his favorite books were klan literature, I think that would be a telling sign... not an absolute nor an actual proof, yet still a rather dramatic advertisement of part and parcel of who he is.

[Chovexani]

59. Your local friendly neighborhood Tempe Goth says

None of those bands are remotely Goth. They're Death Metal to a one, and Goth != Death Metal. The two subcultures have dressing in black in common, but that is about it. Goths around here are an endangered species, honestly. I've met maybe five others in the nearly two years I've lived here, and not for lack of trying. There just isn't much of a scene here (one of the many, many reasons I can't wait to GTFO).

I won't generalize, because Goddess knows we're a rather independently thinking lot, but while Goths may be many things--we are not violent people. About ten years ago the media decided that the Marilyn Manson-worshipping spooky kids who were shooting up their schools were Goths (and maybe this is the fault of some of those kids, who claimed the label without knowing anything about it), and this laughably persistent myth has gone unchecked ever since. It really is laughable, too. Ask your local club owner for incident statistics and I guarantee you the Goth night is the quietest. We're too busy angsting to want to hurt others (not to mention the average Goth can barely lift our shiny metal purses let alone an assault rifle :P).

[slackmaster]

61. Thanks for the clarification

Death Metal music seems pretty violent to me.

[Chovexani]

63. It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't so shitty

Of course these things are subjective, YMMV, yadda yadda. :P

It's like they take turns trying to outgross each other. There's screaming of random German words, and lots of umlaut abuse involved.

[heliarc]

43. The cry for help is that he has a year round Halloween themed restaurant!

I mean please people. Halloween is a retarded holiday at best, but year round? You gotta be kidding me.

[Aquigoth]

50. So

by that logic should I report the owners of the 50's themed restaurant for being likely to engage in violence against African Americans?

[slackmaster]

52. No, but they might be closet cross-dressers

If my boy was into 50s music I'd search his stuff for poodle skirts.

[Chovexani]

60. I think your post is a cry for help, personally.

[RadiationTherapy]

85. 'retarded' as an insult is primitive. nt

[Alexander]

69. Actually Zombeast is pretty much just a Misfits tribute band.

I can't speak for the other bands, but Zombeast isn't that weird.

[slackmaster]

12. This is a good example of a way that many horrible crimes could be prevented

We need to watch out for each other. When someone in a state of duress makes a threat, we all need to take it seriously.

[uppityperson]

15. Good thing we have all these anti-terror things in place.

:sarcasm: I hope the guy gets the help he needs, for a long time.

[Xithras]

17. He needs mental help, not prison time.

I doubt that there's anyone over the age of 20 who, at some time in their life, hasn't become so depressed over something that the thought of striking out at the world seemed at least briefly attractive. Luckily for human civilization, we almost always get over it and recognize it as a simple angry fantasy. Our humanity keeps us from acting on those impulses.

While this guy may have taken his angry fantasy a little further than most, he still stopped himself. His humanity kicked in, he aborted his plan, and he never harmed anyone.

This man needs mental help to deal with the angry depression he's obviously suffering from, and he needs anger management therapy to learn more constructive ways to deal with those impulses. He doesn't need to spend time in jail.

[Make7]

18. This won't look very good when he reapplies for a liquor license. ( n/t )

[Blue_Tires]

19. he's a nutbar, but i do give him credit for coming to his senses

and not going through with it

[frog92969]

21. Alcohol IS a dangerous drug.

Sounds like he needed a bong hit or five.

[sinkingfeeling]

22. 'Havelock' doesn't sound Arabic to me. Will he be charged as a 'terrorist' or for making

'terroristic threats'?

[endarkenment]

26. *jinx*

[endarkenment]

25. Odd, Kurt William Havelock is not a muslim sounding name.

And as we know, all terrorists are muslims.

[Aviation Pro]

27. The most chilling comment....

“No one destroys my dream. No one.”

Sounds like an Amway distributor to me......

[slackmaster]

37. A very close friend of mine damn near went ballistic when his business plans were crushed

By a corrupt city government that soaked him for tens of thousands of dollars in fees, then told him flat out they would not issue him a conditional use permit.

He had applied to open a beer and wine bar in a spot where the previous business had been a beer and wine bar.

Having your life plans disrupted and your money stolen by corrupt public officials can be a very frustrating experience.

[liberal N proud]

28. They you have it...

They are keeping us safer.

[mihalevich]

29. WOW, it was almost true

I had a dream that someone would unload a assault rifle at either the green bay game or the super Bowl. In my dream 1-2 of the players were hit, and then he turned on the crowd.

[Aristus]

30. When do we invade Tempe? They're harboring terrorists.

Blow 'em off the map of Arizona. That'll teach 'em.

[xxqqqzme]

31. turned himself in - that's interesting - the government

is peeping into every oriface, account, grocery bag, shopping habits, knows who you call, which groups you belong to, every email sent but somehow managed to miss this guy? He TURNS himself in??

Doin' a great job Brownie!

[olddad56]

38. probably a Republican dirty trick.

[Lex1775]

41. He would've never gotten close...

I live ten minutes from University of Phoenix Stadium, and anyone trying to sneak an AR-15 anywhere near there would've been dropped pretty damn quick. They had Blackhawks doing security sweeps over our neighborhood for three days prior to the game. Every road near the stadium, except the two that lead directly to the parking lots, were shutdown, and the only people getting past those checkpoints were cars with Super Bowl parking passes. Last week the HIGHWAY that runs past the stadium had big "No Stopping On Shoulder" signs posted two exits north and south of the highway. I watched an AZ DPS cruiser escort a car with a flat tire down an off ramp before they would let him stop.

[slackmaster]

53. Isn't that sort of near where there is a prison south of I-10?

Signs that say "DO NOT PICK UP HITCHHIKERS" everywhere?

[Lex1775]

66. There are two prisons in the same general area...

One is about 30 minutes south of I-10, which makes it about 45 minutes away from the stadium (at highway speeds). The other is just off I-10 but it is about 15-20 miles west of the Stadium, say, 25-35 minutes at highway speed. The stadium is built right in the middle of a bunch of old farm fields, lots of flat, wide-open terrain for at least three quarters of a mile in every direction.

EDIT: The "Don't Pick Up Hitchikers" signs don't start appearing around either prison until you are within two or three miles of them.

[paparush]

89. Another Candidate for the Gitmo Inner Sanctum - The Prison within the Prison

Wonder if Cheney will authorize "enhanced interrogation" for this poor slob?

/freedom tickles

[kestrel91316]

44. Best to lock that one up and throw away the key.

Oh, and don't grant any future liquor licenses he asks for, either.

[The Backlash Cometh]

51. Hmm...sounds like he could live in my neighborhood.

[slackmaster]

62. 1581 East Kirkland Lane in Tempe

According to public records.

[pinniped]

54. Ya, that will teach those Superbowl patrons for denying his permit.

which he hatched in retaliation for the Tempe City Council rejecting a liquor license application for a restaurant and bar he owns.

Stupid dumbass.

[pinniped]

58. Here's the nutcase:

[Lex1775]

67. I really hope he didn't go in front of the City Council looking like that...

I can't imagine that would have ANYTHING to do with them denying his license. :eyes:

[Chovexani]

70. Because bar owners have to wear button down suits at all times

Attitudes like this are why I have little respect left for the human species.

[sheelz]

115. .

[hollowdweller]

64. Mass murder over a rejected liquor license?

From a selfish point of view it hardly seems hardly worth getting killed in a hail of bullets or taking your own life for.

[slackmaster]

74. At the end of the day, he didn't do it

This was one big cry for help.

[Infinite Hope]

68. Weird he'd turn himself in for a crime he decided not to commit. n/t

[AlinPA]

77. His statement that “I will test the theory that bullets speak louder than words"

is part of America's culture going back to the "wild west".

[CreekDog]

87. So, you can't bring a lighter on an airplane, but any idiot can own on assault weapon

what is it about this that I don't get???

:dunce:

[gorfle]

97. An interesting analogy!

I would point out that banning lighters on airplanes is about as effective an anti-terrorist measure as banning assault weapons is an anti-gun crime measure.

Attempts at banning the tools of crime seldom deter the determined.

[slackmaster]

98. How about proposing a workable solution to this problem you perceive?

Let's see the plan.

[benEzra]

165. You can't carry an "assault weapon" in your carryon baggage, either...

but I don't see what that has to do with my right to lawfully and responsibly own them.

[ljm2002]

88. Wow that's scary...

...but I must take issue with the headline (which you are just reporting on): when an action is "averted" it implies that someone else stopped the first person from doing the action. In this case, the man had a change of heart and turned himself in. Good on him, I hope he gets the help he needs. It is terribly frightening of course -- I'm sorry he felt so pressured as to come up with the plan, but very very thankful for everyone concerned that he stopped short.

[all.of.me]

103. This man does NOT need a liquor license! nt

[pandaexpress]

105. Thank GOD they stopped this man:

Why can't people control themselves?
If you let your emotions control your actions, you're destined for prison!

[pitohui]

113. he did control himself

nobody stopped this man, he turned himself in

i doubt he ever had the gonads to do a damn thing, this is his only way to get attention is to claim that he mighta, coulda, woulda one day done something rilly rilly bad

he's sick and pathetic and now he's going to be locked away forever thanks to his own big mouth

but we are no more or less safe than the day before he turned himself in -- seems obvious on the face of it that the danger was to himself

[Political Heretic]

128. Soapbox: I don't care about the gun debate, but I hate our gun obsessed culture.

America would be a better place if we didn't have this crazy obsession with guns and gun ownership.

That's my opinion. I understand others disagree. That's fine.

[OKthatsIT]

140. AMERICANS better hold onto their guns

[Political Heretic]

155. Yeah yeah yeah.....

:eyes:

[Trajan]

142. In case any DU newbies didn't understand why this issue is relegated to the 'Gungeon'

This is a perfect example : A bunch of dogmatic 'enthusiasts' twisting and turning in EVERY possible way to express why their right to own ANY gun imaginable is the only right that should exist ....

FUCK anyone else: My gun is god .....

I swear: It's as bad as religion ....

PUSH the thread where it belongs: The Gungeon ....

[slackmaster]

143. Come and see the Straw Man argument often used by gun grabbing enthusiasts

...twisting and turning in EVERY possible way to express why their right to own ANY gun imaginable is the only right that should exist ....

:D

[Trajan]

144. It's good enough for most of us ....

The level of extremism becomes a moot point when it reaches the fever pitch that is usual for Gungeonites ...

We dont go there for this reason ..... It is full of this crap ....

Let it be there once more .....

[Paladin]

146. Actually, It's Worth A Visit To The Gungeon To See That Poll

Last time I looked, 48% of our resident guncentric "Democrats" have expressed a willingness to vote Republican on the basis of gun policy. I personally think that percentage is much higher, probably at least 75%....

[Missy Vixen]

158. I'd like to know why the term "gun grabber" is even permitted on DU

The only times I've ever heard it is emanating from the lips or keyboards of the far right wing members of the NRA.

It's also a right-wing talking point.

Julie

[slackmaster]

167. I believe calling an individual a gun grabber would violate the rules

Talking about gun grabbers, or even gun-grabbing monkeys, in general is not a problem.

:D

[gorfle]

161. And why would that be?

This is a perfect example : A bunch of dogmatic 'enthusiasts' twisting and turning in EVERY possible way to express why their right to own ANY gun imaginable is the only right that should exist

And what could possibly have driven us into such a defensive position?

Could it be because the dogmatic 'haters' twist and turn in every possible way to incrementally restrict the right to bear arms? Could it be because we've watched the slippery slope of "reasonable gun control" take us from the days where I could order a gun out of the Sears and Roebuck catalog to today where I have to go pick it up at the local gun store and pay an extra 30 bucks for the privilege of picking up my merchandise?

The right to own guns is not the only right that should exist, but it is the one right that secures all the others. A man with a gun is empowered to resist any who would oppress him.

[benEzra]

162. No, just non-automatic, NFA Title 1 civilian firearms...

you know, those that have been considered suitable for responsible adults with clean records to own ever since the National Firearms Act first distinguished between restricted military/police weapons and ordinary civilian firearms 74 years ago.

An AR-15 isn't a military automatic weapon, it's a non-automatic civilian rifle, and a very small-caliber one at that (it's a centerfire .22, for pete's sake). Not to mention that it's the most popular centerfire target rifle in America...

[SlavesandBulldozers]

166. wow. that's crazy

not the thread. well that's crazy too, but the OP.

[LanternWaste]

183. And there are those who still wonder why...

“I will test the theory that bullets speak louder than words ... I will slay your children. I will shed the blood of the innocent..."



And there are those who *still* wonder why I do my best to avoid anyone with firearms. :eyes:

[dropkickpa]

184. Kudos to the kid

Sounds like he recognized that he needed help and was able to ask for it, as so many are unable/unwilling to do because of the stigma of mental illness in this country.

He didn't hurt anyone, he stopped himself and sought help. That's a pretty brave thing to do. I hope that counts in his favor a bit and they don't try the whole "tough on crime" bullshit in favor of appropriate treatment.

What's scary is that there are MANY people out there with the same sort of resources who, given a potent enough stressor, wouldn't hesitate to carry out their deadly plans.