Columbine Dad Turned Away From NRA Event - Told to get a life. Wow

[NNN0LHI]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=716&e=5&u=/ap/20040418/ap_on_re_us/nra_convention_cheney

PITTSBURGH - A man whose son was killed in the Columbine High School shootings literally walked in his child's shoes to the National Rifle Association convention, where he hoped Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) would address the federal assault weapons ban set to expire in September.


Tom Mauser, whose son Daniel was killed with an assault weapon in the Littleton, Colo., killings five years ago Tuesday, said continuing the ban is common sense.


Assault weapons "are the weapons of gangs, drug lords and sick people," Mauser said before his three-block march to the convention, which runs through Sunday. "It is a weapon of war and we don't want this war on our streets." snip

Mauser entered the convention hall where the NRA was meeting, but was turned away by a security guard as several conventioneers applauded. A couple of conventioneers yelled "Get a life" and "Vote for Bush."


Mauser said the NRA "is an organization with a Field and Stream magazine membership, but a Soldier of Fortune magazine leadership."

more

[Wickerman]

1. Nice huh? I like this quote

the NRA "is an organization with a Field and Stream magazine membership, but a Soldier of Fortune magazine leadership."

[xray s]

2. we should take over the NRA

imagine if 1,000,000 people who want sensible gun laws joined the NRA and then packed their convention and gave these assholes a dose of democracy in action?

[drthais]

3. an EXCELLENT idea

thanks for that one
but I'm not joinin' till you guys do

[liberalhistorian]

4. In another time, I would have

disagreed with you, but not now. Not since the wingers, repukes, freepers, and other assorted repuke trash have done the same thing, or are attempting to do the same thing, to many liberal/progressive organizations such as the Sierra Club. And they've almost completed their takeover of AARP.

It's all part of their long-term strategy. So I say, fuck it, it's time for us to play them at their own game and do the same things with THEIR organizations!

[DoNotRefill]

5. Sorry....you've got to be an annual member for 5 years...

or a paid life member to be able to vote for the leadership. Even so, a million additional members "for sensible gun laws" would only be 20%...


And you'd want to be careful getting too rowdy in a convention full of people with guns... ;)

[PragMantisT]

7. That is the exact game plan of the NeoCons

Join liberal organizations and swing them right.

Also the Libertarians in New Hampshire.

It works better than boycotts.

[Lefty48197]

32. I'm game Xray. Let's get about a million of us...

...organize, and then take them over. We'll silence the right wing activists who have taken over the NRA and the entire gun issue.

[IronLionZion]

86. There are plenty of Democrats and liberals in the NRA

members include Michael Moore and General Wesley Clark.

The lunatics out-number the good guys.

[OneTwentyoNine]

6. Kansas usually the whipping boy for being backwards....

But our Dem Gov just vetoed the conceal/carry that Repugs running the State tried to get passed once again. Unbelievably this law would have made it legal to have a weapon on school property,in a bar,hell..just about anywhere. Funny though,they would be totally outlawed in Government buildings.

If people want their guns to go hunting,target shooting thats fine, buy all you want and knock yourselves out shooting them off. But I'll be damned if I want to be in a theater,restaurant,bar with people packing heat setting just a few feet from me.

One of the local gun-nut Representatives from around the Wichita area said he didn't care that it didn't pass,people who want will just carry them around anyway.

If one of those goes off and hurts or kills someone I don't think those people would have a clue of what kind of deep shit they'd be in.

[progressivebydesign]

8. He had a life... an assault rifle took it away. N/T

[Columbia]

9. You mean his son?

Strange enough, no rifles were used at Columbine high. Semi-automatic pistols, pump shotguns, and home-made bombs only.

[CannablissXXX]

43. Yeah,

i think that's what he meant. when a parent loses a child, that's gotta be the worst thing in the world...

this world's gotten ugly that people can talk to a father who lost his son like that, whatever the reason.

damn, my first post and it's so damned depressing...:D

[LeftCoast]

50. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

Check out the lounge if you get too depressed. :)

[progressivebydesign]

53. I consider handguns to be assault weapons..

They serve the same damn purpose. Kill a deer with a handgun or an AK-47? I think not. Having your child murdered takes your life away.. I could not even imagine the pain of that.

[TexasMexican]

57. but ofcourse, ignore the facts.

Pistols arent assault weapons.

The Assault Rifle Ban doesnt reduce crime, or are you going to try to convince me that banning bayonet lugs somehow makes the streets safer?

[DoNotRefill]

60. well, it DID put a stop to all those "random drive-by bayonetings"...

;)

[DoNotRefill]

59. lots of deer are killed with AK-47 clones.

they all come with 5 round magazines for that purpose, so that they're legal to hunt with.

Some people do hunt game with handguns, too. That's what the .454 Casull was designed for.

[jmowreader]

76. I think so

Up in the Northwest, probably 30 percent of all deer and a lot of elk are taken with .44 Magnum handguns. Put a scope on a Ruger Redhawk and it's a sweet little 150-yard deer gun.

Deer like to live in the brush, because that's what they eat. It's very hard to hunt in brush with a long gun, but less hard to hunt in brush with a .44 Magnum.

I have heard of bears being taken with the .44 Magnum. It's a good hunting gun. It's not a gangbanger gun because it's hard to hit anything with it, and most of them are revolvers. What homie wants to do a drive-by with a revolver? They'd call you Grandpa and worse.

I don't know if I'd hunt deer with the semiauto AK-47, but it would make a decent deer gun--it's about as powerful as a .30-30 Winchester and the gun is shorter than the Model 94.

[OpSomBlood]

78. AK-47 is a fine deer rifle.

Since when are things required to serve a "useful purpose" in order for us to have the right to own them? I thought this was America.

And the 7.62x39 is an excellent deer caliber. Some people need to spend an extra fifteen seconds on Google before spouting off about things they have no idea about.

[pinniped]

67. What about the Hi-Point 9mm POS?

That certainly qualifies as a rifle.

[DoNotRefill]

69. it's 9mm parabellum....

it's a carbine, not a rifle. Hey, I know it's a nit, but I'm picking it. ;)

[pinniped]

72. Ok, 9mm para and carbine...

for the sake of this post.

I don't like the Hi-Point 9mm para POS anyways. Junk IMO, I like quality.

Oh ya, by all pics I've see their Intratec appears to be a Tec-DC9 and not the AB-10 as you previously mentioned. Another nit?:)

Barrel shroud not present on this pre-ban gun but the threads are there:

[DoNotRefill]

73. Those aren't threads...

It's where the threads were, but they just no longer machine the threads into it. In other words, rather than retool, they just cut one step out of the manufacturing process.

[pinniped]

74. I've seen the AB-10 and it doesn't have any retooling whatever...

on the barrel portion that protrudes.

Are there two versions of the AB-10?

Not that it really matters because they are both low-class POS junk guns IMO.

[DoNotRefill]

84. Yes, there are different versions.

the AB-10s without the thread blanks are later production than the AB-10s with the blanks for the threads.

If you look closely at the picture above, you'll notice that the blank is intact, not threaded. Remember, the DC-9 has a very large thread twist rate.

[OpSomBlood]

79. Carbine = rifle.

The term "carbine" merely refers to the barrel length. A carbine is a rifle.

[DoNotRefill]

83. Carbine....

generally refers to a shoulder-fired weapon that fires a pistol cartridge.

An assault rifle is a select-fire shoulder fired weapon that fires an intermediate cartridge.

a submachinegun is a shoulder-fired select-fire weapon firing a pistol cartridge, as opposed to a machinegun, which is a shoulder-fired select-fire weapon using a full powered cartridge, as opposed to a crew-served machinegun, which is a ground-mounted automatic weapon firing a full powered cartridge.

This is all splitting hairs very, very fine, but just as there's a difference between a "clip" and a "magazine", there ARE technical differences, the terms are not technically interchangeable, and they are frequently misused. For instance, the M4 carbine is technically not a carbine, it's an assualt rifle.

[PragMantisT]

10. Typical scumbag NRA behavior

fuck 'em

Hopefully they will be hoisted with their own petards, which they refuse to allow to be regulated. along with assault rifles and ammonium nitrate

[OpSomBlood]

11. Misnomer.

There's no such thing as a "military-style assault rifle." A rifle is a rifle. Fully automatic machine guns were already heavily regulated before the "Assault Weapons Ban" took effect. The AWB was nothing more than restrictions on semi-automatic firearms that look menacing, particularly civilian versions of the AR-15 and AK-47, which closely resemble their military counterparts but do not operate the same way.

Read the law and decide for yourself. There's nothing in there that makes guns any less lethal...it's just a ban on certain cosmetic features.

And in spite of the negative stigma attached to the term "assault weapon" there were no such weapons used in the Columbine massacre.

I tore up my NRA membership because I hated the political direction it had taken, not for it's positions. The victims of Columbine have my sincerest sympathy, but two sick kids (and their parents) are to blame for that day, not the weapons they chose to use.

[Junkdrawer]

12. Two sick kids AND the weapons they chose to use....

and how they were able to obtain them are to blame for that day.

[Columbia]

13. You mean illegally?

[Junkdrawer]

14. Two Words: Gun Shows..n/t

[Columbia]

15. Two more words: Still illegal

Straw purchases for minors are illegal. The ones who did so were charged, tried, and convicted of such.

[Junkdrawer]

17. And two more words: Still Possible....

What we want is to prevent illegal purchases at gun shows - not to prosecute AFTER a horrible crime is committed. It should be just as hard to buy an illegal gun at a Gun Show as it is at a legal gun shop. To me, it is unconscionable that this loop-hole is still open these many years after Columbine revealed it.

[OpSomBlood]

18. Okay...

So how do you propose preventing an adult from purchasing a gun and giving it to a child? What extension of current gun laws could possibly prevent that from happening? A polygraph?

The adult is already breaking the law by making the "straw purchase" in the first place. To me, it's no different from an adult who buys alcohol or porn for a kid. They are breaking the law.

[Columbia]

20. You can't

Criminals don't follow laws by definition.

[RummyTheDummy]

56. Except Porn doesn't kill anyone

Although Alcohol, in extreme cases can.

By the way, the Dolphins blow.

[DoNotRefill]

61. Porn doesn't kill?

so those two confirmed cases of porn stars catching HIV on the set will not result in their eventual deaths?

As for dolphins blowing, that's true, they're mammals, not fish. Whales blow too. Seals, on the other hand, breathe through their cute little noses.

[RummyTheDummy]

64. Getting your talking points from Pat Robertson?

That sounds like something he or Dr. Falwell would say. Tell me again how a copy of Penthouse is more dangerous than a .357 magnum?

As for the Dolphins comment, it should have been obvious I was speaking of the football kind.

[DoNotRefill]

65. A "fist mag"...

could be potentially dangerous in that somebody could catch a disease if a magazine with fresh bodily fluids on it was being passed around. Or, if you've got an extensive "fist mag" collection, and you stack it too close to an electric heater, it could cause a fire, or a stack could fall over and crush you, or it could give you a very nasty paper cut.

I'da thunk that the tone of my post would show that I was being quasi-facetious. I'm not anti porn, as long as everybody is of age and consents, and it doesn't show inappropriate behavior like violent porn, kiddie porn, bestiality, (all of which I think should be illegal) and I think that Bukakke stuff is pretty f*cking sick, but hey, to each their own...now the "flatulence porn" I find amusing. Not arousing, but amusing. I've never actually seen any of it, but I've seen it advertized, and thought it was pretty frigging funny. I don't have a whole lot of use for porn (I'm married, and would rather have sex than look at other people having sex, and my wife is most friendly with me, as demonstrated by her status as displayed in my sig line), but the run of the mill stuff is OK by me if people want it.

BTW, in case you didn't know it, more toddlers die every year from drowning in unattended 5 gallon plastic buckets than are shot and killed each year. ANYTHING can be dangerous. You can drown in a glass of water, for cripes sake, and bathrooms are POSITIVELY LETHAL. More people die from non-gun-related misadventure in the bathroom than are murdered with firearms each year. Bet you didn't know that little factoid...and another little factoid you may not know is that a .357 revolver, placed loaded on a shelf, will virtually never discharge if it's not touched in some way. If a gun is left someplace, and nobody touches it, pokes it, prods it, or acts upon it, it's just as lethal as a porn magazine. Which is to say it's not.

[RummyTheDummy]

66. There's nothing wrong with flatulence porn

But seriously...that was my point in a way. However, the .357 can be much more dangerous than the Penthouse if it is merely picked up can it not? It could discharege by accident. The kind of discharge one might encounter with a Penthouse mag. is of a far different nature.

And everyone knows about the bathroom thing, except that's not entirely correct. I believe more people are killed in HOME accidents than with firearms. My stance on gun control is actually pretty generous. It changed in 2000. How else will we over throw the government after another stolen election?

[DoNotRefill]

68. this is getting a bit off topic...

but I just don't understand how seeing and listening to somebody on TV passing gas can be sexually arousing. That's a mind-boggler for me. But, as I said, to each his or her own, whatever floats your boat, different strokes for different folks, ok, enough references. I don't think "flatulence porn" is wrong per se, I just don't get it.

Guns don't just discharge by accident. People pull the trigger accidentally, but they don't just "go off". A gun is a tool, nothing more. It can be used for good, it can be used for bad, or it can not be used. The military used to refer to unintentional weapons discharges as "accidental discharges", but they've changed it to "negligent discharges" now. That's appropriate. The problem isn't the gun, it's the idiot who is being careless.

Most people who die by the gun in the US deliberately take their own lives, and guns don't CAUSE suicide. Homicides are a minority of firearms deaths, and negligent discharges cause a tiny, tiny minority of fireams deaths in the US annually. Most accidental deaths in the home occur in the bathroom, and there are a LOT of them every year, more than all of the homicides, if not all firearms deaths total.

[RummyTheDummy]

70. Dude, I was kidding about flatulence

But while all your points are somewhat valid, should an ex con or perhaps someone that has been confined to a mental institution be allowed to purchase a firearm? Where exactly do we draw the line?

[DoNotRefill]

71. I've stated before....

that I have no problem with convicted felons, people adjudicated mentally defective, et cetera, being denied the right to own a firearm. But that's a DENIAL of their rights, just as felons and people adjudicated mentally defective are denied their right to vote. They had their rights, but were stripped of them in a court of law after due process.

Now people who have previously been in a mental hospital but have NOT been adjudicated mentally defective SHOULD be able to own a gun. Why? Because their presence in the mental institute was VOLUNTARY. They may have mental issues, but have done nothing to lose their rights, and have done nothing to suggest that they might be a danger to themselves or others.

If somebody is going to be denied their civil rights, the ONLY way it should happen is if they're stripped of them in court, in accordance with the law. Stripping people of their civil rights when they have done nothing wrong is a moral abomination. It doesn't matter if it's the RKBA or the right to vote. A right is a right, and until a person does something to lose it, it's inviolable.

[Columbia]

19. See post 16

There is no loop-hole.

A straw purchase means that a person lawfully purchases something for someone who is ordinarily not allowed to purchase it themselves. Where the purchase is made is completely irrelevant. It can be done at a gun show, a gun show parking lot, or a gun store.

The fact of the matter is, no law is going to prevent someone from illegally obtaining firearms and using them in a criminal fashion. Once they decide to disregard laws, no gun control is going to stop them.

[Junkdrawer]

21. Then you would have no problem closing this loop hole nation wide...

Looks like we agree.

[Columbia]

22. What loop-hole?

Gun dealers must do a background check on purchasers whether they are at a gun-show or not.

[Junkdrawer]

23. But gun dealers aren't the only ones who sale guns at gun shows...

ALL participants of a gun show should be under the same law.

[Columbia]

25. And that would have prevented Columbine?

How?

[Junkdrawer]

29. All four Columbine guns were purchased from private sellers a gun show...

That's how.

[Columbia]

34. They were straw purchases

Made by persons who are able to lawfully own them. The transactions between them and the perpetrators are straw purchases which are already illegal.

[Junkdrawer]

35. Already answered this one. We want to PREVENT not punish after...

a tragedy.

[Columbia]

38. No, you haven't

Do you understand what a straw purchase is? It can be made anywhere. What you propose would not have prevented Columbine. Period.

[Junkdrawer]

41. Good night and pleasant dreams....n/t

[OpSomBlood]

44. Pipe dream.

Preemptive crime control won't happen until we have the psychics from Minority Report. Looks great on paper, though.

Criminals, by definition, break laws. That's what makes a criminal a criminal. The only way to prevent laws from being broken is to harshly enforce them to set an example to people who may choose to break that law in the future.

There's nothing a violent criminal would love more than to know that his victim is unarmed.

[DoNotRefill]

42. We want to prevent car accidents, right?

so why not ban them?

Oh, yeah. They serve useful purposes, too, just like guns do.

We want to prevent teens from committing crimes. Wouldn't the best way to do that be to lock all teens up? If they're in jail, they can't be out on the street committing crimes, right?

When did we move from punishing the offenders to punishing EVERYBODY for the actions of somebody else? Because that's what gun control does. The only difference between punishing everybody for the actions of others and gun control is that gun control ONLY APPLIES TO THE LAW ABIDING.

You DO know that criminals CAN NOT be constitutionally required to register their guns, right? The ONLY people who can be prosecuted for failing to register their guns is people who HAVE NOT BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME. So, if the cops catch a felon in possession of a gun, they can't prosecute the felon for not registering it. Screwy, huh?

[billbuckhead]

81. Cars and car ownership are highly regulated

Driver's licence and renewals, car tags, airbags, state inspections, seat belt laws, driver's ed in schools, insurance, etc.

[OpSomBlood]

82. There's a happy medium.

I don't really have a problem with state-issued licenses to own firearms based on criminal record and history of mental illness. But no government record of who owns what.

[DoNotRefill]

85. Nowhere in the Constitution....

will you find the phrase "the right of the people to keep and drive cars shall not be infringed."

[DoNotRefill]

37. Wrong again.

One was not purchased at a gun show, the Intratec AB-10. It was purchased from a pizza delivery driver that the shooters knew, and he went to jail for selling it to them.

[DoNotRefill]

30. Wrong.

That's like saying somebody wanting to sell their privately owned car should be made to get an automobile dealer's license.

ALL dealers at gunshows are under the same law. ALL individuals at gunshows are under the same law.

Making the laws for apples (all must have red skin) the same as the law for oranges (all must have orange skin) is pretty stupid.

[DoNotRefill]

33. If you try to sell a gun for profit...

you MUST be licensed, regardless of if it's at a gun show, out of your home, or at a gun shop.

Most of the "dealers" at gun shows that would have to get FFLs to sell at gun shows are people who sell accessories. Why should a person selling beef jerky only at a gun show be forced to have a Federal Firearms License? What kind of sense does that make?

[Elidor]

36. So we should give up trying to deter crimes, then

Just let it happen, 'cause we're all powerless to do anything. Laws have no deterrent effect whatsoever. Bank robbers still rob banks after all: obviously the laws against bank robbery did not deter them.

(/sarcasm)

[Columbia]

39. Gun control does not deter criminals

It only punishes law-abiding citizens.

[Elidor]

45. Circular Logic

:crazy: Gun control indeed does not deter criminals: it deters law-abiding citizens, inhibiting them from becoming criminals. The tautological rhetoric of your own post makes it clear you admit this, even if you haven't yet puzzled it out its ramifications.

[Columbia]

47. What does it deter law-abiding citizens from doing?

Owning a gun for lawful purposes. A criminal who decides to murder is not going to give any heed to gun control laws nor murder laws.

[Elidor]

52. Talk into a tape recorder

Listen to yourself sometime.

[Columbia]

58. I'm talking about the real world

Where have you been?

[NuttyFluffers]

77. love that hardhead

couldn't have stated it any clearer, and yet it still doesn't get through. funny isn't it?

duh, criminals don't abide by laws, no kidding. but the laws are there to prevent law abiding citizens to do it. that's their purpose. and the other purpose of law is to have grounds for heavy prosecution of people who disobey stated law. sure they break it, but they are going to be fully prosecuted.

remember what the state does: war, taxation, law, prosecution, punishment (along with oodles of positive things on the side) are part of the nature of government. we *need* someone to be the *bad guy* to legally do all the unpleasant, nasty stuff we don't want to do. *that's where the state comes in* they place the boundaries of conduct and the punishments that will follow if boundaries ar crossed.

so what about the criminals. they've always existed. there's *always* someone willing to cross the line. that's why we have a state to stop them. but in order to stop the state from being a capricious overlord a concept called *legality* appears. this concept gives open license for what cannot be done by individuals to be done by the state instead. if the *legality* of the state deteriorates by capriciousness eventually the individuals dismiss the authority of the state (ignore it's legal power) and abandon it in favor of a new one.

so saying "but criminals can do it!!" is just a childish argument. so what if they can do it? they are going to be *severely* punished for it. this is the basis of ALL LAW. we just don't want YOU to do it. and if you do YOU KNOW WHAT's COMING. ahh, the complexity of law... please this is civics 101. arguments like this shouldn't even be popping up. we as the 'leaders of the free world' should have such basics readily known.

[OpSomBlood]

80. Fear of the law.

The argument here is that laws already exist, and they are already being broken. Murder has been illegal as long as there has been law. Why is murder with a gun more severe than murder with a knife or a broomhandle? Prosecute a murder as a murder.

It's like the "hate crime" legislation. Why should the court care what a murderer's motivation is? Try him for murder!

There's no such thing as preemptive crime control. You're in fantasyland if you think that the availability of guns is the reason why there's so much gun crime. Wrong...criminals have lost their fear of the law.

And here we are arguing that more laws will solve the problem.

[DoNotRefill]

51. and here I thought law abiding people didn't kill other people....

because murder is already illegal. Go figure. If a gun control law would deter a law abiding citizen from committing crimes, wouldn't the existing legal prohibitions against mala in se laws also already deter them? If a law abiding citizen decided to murder somebody, they'd already be breaking one of the strongest legal prohibitions out there. What would adding a smaller legal prohibition in the form of gun control contribute to dissuading them? If they're willing to commit murder, they'll be willing to break a gun control law too, wouldn't they? Or do you really think somebody, ANYBODY, is going to say "I'd really like to kill that person, and I don't mind committing murder, but DAMN! I don't want to break a gun control law!"???

[progressivebydesign]

54. Wrong again.

The truth is that the easy availability of guns is what is responsible for most crimes by those not considered career criminals. Have a gun in the house? Statistically, it will either be used against you by and an intruder, a family member, or used in a suicide in your house. UNLESS, of course, it is stolen, and used in crimes elsewhere. The difference is the availability of weapons... When handguns and other weapons were not as easy to get as a six-pack of beer for a teenager, fight and grudges were dealt with with fists, or even a jack knife. There is a personal component to that.. shooting someone is supposedly easy, because you have little connection with them, it's quite detached.

The problem is the proliferation of weapons.. cheap weapons. There is no regulation on the manufacture on these things, and apparently no real oversight on the distribution. IF the shooters at Columbine had no access to weapons, like the ones they practiced with on their violent video games, then most likely it wouldn't have happened. We raise the kids on a diet of garbage food and extremely, extremely violent "entertainment" and we wonder why the fuck they turn out to be so lacking in empathy, compunction, and why they're so violent.

[DoNotRefill]

63. Actually, if you look at Kellermann's study...

you'll find that almost the entire bulk of the "43 times" statistic so often quoted is comprised of cases of suicides. That doesn't mean that guns cause suicide, however, any more than it means spoons cause obesity. It's far more likely that people who are serious about committing suicides get guns, rather than that having guns causes suicides.

You say that availability of weapons somehow causes crime. Yet it's interesting to note that the places with the very strictest gun control laws in the US almost ALL have the highest gun crime rates, despite firearms being almost impossible to obtain legally. Why? Because there's a black market for guns, just as there's a black market for other high-demand items that are illegal. I'm almost positive that there is very little coca grown in the US, and most of the refining from coca leaves to cocaine takes place overseas. It's illegal to possess cocaine everywhere in the US, except in certain very specific situations (like it's use as an anesthetic agent for dentists, and dope dealers aren't generally ripping off dentists to make crack). How would cracking down on domestic manufacture of firearms keep criminals from dealing in guns in exactly the same way that they deal with cocaine? Or do you have some magic wand to make ALL guns on the planet disappear?

As for there being no regulation on the manufacture of firearms, you couldn't be more wrong. Gun manufacturers are strictly regulated and licensed, and there are voluminous requirements that they must comply with. These cover everything from who they can sell to, to who they can hire, to how deep the engraving needs to be on a firearm, to a whole lot of other areas.

There IS real oversight for weapons distribution. And BATFE can inspect ANY FFL annually and without notice, without any evidence of wrongdoing. The only restrictions on BATFE's ability to perform inspections is that if they want to perform an inspection without probable cause, they can only do it once a year. That's to keep BATFE from literally camping out in one person's premesis because they don't like him or her. If they wish to examine a FFL's records in the course of a criminal investigation, they can do so at any time, as many times as they like, without probable cause. When you get a FFL, you GIVE UP your 4th Amendment rights as a condition of the license.

Regarding the Columbine shooters: First off, they obtained ALL of theri guns illegally. Secondly, they made a buttload of IEDs (pipe bombs and propane bombs), and detonated a few of them. Thirdly, the two largest mass murders in the US were completed without a single shot being fired: September 11, an attack committed with case cutters and airplanes, and the OKC bombing, which was committed with a truck, fertilizer, and diesel fuel. It's going to be a hard sell that IEDs in the hands of motivated attackers are somehow less deadly than a couple of kids with handguns and shotguns. If the Columbine shooters had blown up the school instead of shooting people, how many would have died? We don't know, but if they drove a carbomb into the cafeteria and set it off, it would have most likely killed hundreds.

[OpSomBlood]

40. Hmm...

Why not just enforce the laws that already exist? Maybe release non-violent drug offenders to rehab so that there's plenty of room in the prisons to put those who commit gun crimes.

[Elidor]

48. I heartily endorse this plan

With the exception of scam artists, especially those who con the elderly. Give me full sentences for them, and I'll gladly subscribe to the rest.

[DoNotRefill]

26. Ah. Why not just ban guns entirely? Then the problem would go away...

Look at how well banning pot and cocaine worked....

BTW, would you care to explain what an "illegal gun" is? Guns are generally legal in the US. POSSESSION of guns by certain individuals is illegal.

[OpSomBlood]

16. Ugh.

There's no such thing as a "gun show loophole" either.

In Florida (widely considered the most "pro-gun" state in the union), purchases at gun shows are handled the exact same way as those in stores. All of the required background checks and paperwork must be filed, and unless you have a concealed permit there is a mandatory three-day waiting period.

I'm just getting tired of these anti-gun catchphrases like "assault weapon" and "gun show loophole" and "military-style" which have no substance but get thrown around to solicit an emotional response.

[w4rma]

24. Obvious misquote by the AP

Mauser called the NRA "an organization not with a Field-and-Stream-magazine membership but a Soldier-of-Fortune-magazine leadership."

(Makes sense with the "not". Doesn't without it.)

[OpSomBlood]

27. Nope.

Notice the contrast between "membership" and "leadership."

What he was saying was that the NRA's members are law-abiding gun enthusiasts, while it's leaders are right-wing extremists. A good quote.

[w4rma]

55. You are exactly correct. I was incorrect. Thanks for pointing that out.

:hi:

That's a really good quote and a very good description of the NRA, imho.

[solinvictus]

28. Gun Owners of America

I left the NRA when it became an ego organization for Wayne LaPierre and his bunch. All they care about is filling their coffers.

[OpSomBlood]

31. Aye.

Same reason I left.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

46. I saw a news story on TV

can't remember what channel, in which they were talking about flagging support for shrub in the NRA. Made me feel all warm and fuzzy.

Those sick fucks who yelled get a life at that dad? May they NEVER know the grief of having to bury a child.

Fuckwits.

[ngGale]

49. Get a Life? How about it took a life...

cold bunch. Gun laws or no gun laws, it's the attitude that one kills with. If the Father had a gun, he may have popped the guard.
Then they would have put him in jail. This doesn't make sense at all. They will get the vote through because Bush has to have the NRA.

[Frangible]

62. oh, the irony

of saying "get a life" to someone whose son had just died. That said, I disagree with the guy that banning cosmetic features on guns has any value, but, there's just some things you don't say to people who've lost a loved one.

[OpSomBlood]

75. Agreed.

Telling the Columbine father to "get a life" was something only a total asshole would do. Pro- or anti-gun, I don't think any compassionate human being would disagree with that.

Yes, the AWB is quite worthless. When you get down to brass tacks, it is a ban on guns that "look" scary, and that is quite ridiculous.

A good website with statistics and facts about "assault weapons" can be found here: http://www.awbansunset.com/ :

>> Less than four percent of all homicides in the United States involve any type of rifle. No more than 0.8% of homicides are perpetrated with rifles using military calibers. (And not all rifles using such calibers are usually considered "assault weapons.") Overall, the number of persons killed with rifles of any type in 1990 was lower than the number in any year in the 1980s. <<

>>Rifles

Specifically, a rifle is considered an "assault weapon" if it can accept a detachable magazine, and possesses two or more of the following features:

- Folding or telescopic stock
- Pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the stock
- Bayonet mount
- Flash suppressor or threaded barrel
- Grenade launcher

Among this list of "evil features", only one item initially stands out to the layperson as possibly making the firearm significantly more dangerous, and that is the grenade launcher. However, since grenades and the components to make them are already extremely tightly regulated as "destructive devices", grenade launchers are irrelevant. It would be a fair assumption to say that perhaps "grenade launcher" was added to the list simply to provide a certain degree of shock factor.

Other items on the list at least have some practical purpose.

The most amusing of these by far is the bayonet mount, which is the subject of an infinite number of wise-cracks (such as, "the ban has significantly reduced the number of drive-by bayonettings"). All joking aside, while a bayonet could be useful in either millitary combat, or a home defense situation, if anyone has EVER heard of ANY harm being committed by a criminal armed with a bayonet on an "assault weapon", please tell us about it.

A folding or telescopic stock allows the firearm to more easily be transported and stored, and would also be useful in a home defense situation where maneuverability is important. A flash suppressor reduces the visibility of the bright flash of light that is sometimes produced by firing in the dark. This would be very important for someone defending their family against an intruder in the middle of the night, as the flash would tend to temporarily hamper the shooter's vision.

The pistol grip, being perhaps the most "military-like" feature in appearance, in most cases is a necessity of the firearm's design due to the stock being directly in-line with the bore, as opposed to being lower than the bore as is the case with "traditional" rifles. Because the positioning of the stock in the manner does not provide for a place that the shooter can hold on to with the trigger hand, a pistol grip is used.

None of these things have any significant impact on how deadly a particular firearm is, and each is a legitimately purposeful feature. <<

There is a huge gun violence problem in this country. But it is obvious that "assault weapons" are not the core of the problem.