A call for stronger gun control
By Rick Badie
State Rep. Paul Battles, of Cartersville, has proposed legislation that would allow school administrators to undergo annual state peace officer firearms training and be certified to carry weapons on campus. Though he supports HB 35, a guest columnist says state law already allows administrators to possess firearms on campuses. A retired pediatrician suggests addressing gun control in a multifaceted manner.
Existing law allows armed principals
By John Monroe
GeorgiaCarry.Org agrees with the general proposition ensconced in HB 35, that our schools would be safer if responsible citizens could be armed on campus. GeorgiaCarry also agrees that firearms training is a good idea for everyone, even those who do not own or carry firearms. The specifics of HB 35, however, make the bill difficult to incorporate into existing law.
HB 35 would permit school boards to designate certain school administrators to undergo state Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) instruction and then be authorized to carry firearms in schools. The difficulty is that existing law already is more expansive than that. Under O.C.G.A. 16-11-127.1(c)(6), a “duly authorized official of the school” may authorize anyone (not just school administrators) to carry a firearm at a school. Presumably, a school principal is a duly authorized official and may therefore authorize anyone, including himself or herself, to carry a firearm. Existing law has no training requirement.
If enacted, HB 35 would create another avenue by which a school administrator could be armed at school, by permission of the school board. It seems highly unlikely, however, that the provisions of HB 35 ever would be utilized. Given that the school principal already has the power to arm herself, her staff, her teachers and even her students’ parents, going through the more cumbersome steps of seeking school board approval and paying for training in a course that has not yet been developed are not likely to be pursued.
In addition to existing avenues for school officials to authorize anyone to carry firearms at schools, existing law also permits those with weapons carry licenses to carry firearms in schools under certain circumstances, without the knowledge or consent of school officials. Under O.C.G.A. 16-11-127.1(c)(7), a person with a license may carry a firearm in a school “when such person carries or picks up a student.” Licensees also may have firearms in their cars in school parking lots. Many parents take advantage of these provisions today on a regular basis when they take their children to and from school.
Georgia has a vast, untapped resource available to it to help protect its schools. There are some 600,000 Georgians with weapons carry licenses who have undergone criminal and mental health background checks by state and federal law enforcement agencies. Many of them are administrators, staff, teachers and parents who regularly are present on school grounds. Modifying the law so that such people are not prohibited from carrying firearms in school buildings, even when not picking up or dropping off students, would immediately enhance the ability of Georgia schools to protect themselves against aggressive attacks.
John Monroe is vice president of GeorgiaCarry.Org.
Let us make our children safe
By Noel Preston
Georgia has 2,487 public schools. The last fatal school shooting was at Monticello in August 1999. It makes no sense to pay, train, equip and insure 2,487 school principals to patrol schools that have had no fatal shootings for 13 years.
Some of our school campuses are so large, the principal and the invader might be a quarter-mile from each other, and the invader could shoot dozens of children before being shot or captured. The principal might be at an off-campus meeting when the invader arrived. The principal could hardly be expected to maintain firearm proficiency by having only two days a year of shooting practice. Expecting a principal to risk his or her own life without receiving a substantial pay raise and necessary health insurance for hazardous duty seems unfair and unrealistic.
Many factors make it easy for invaders to shoot school children. A sensible approach to reduce school shootings must be multifaceted as well. Some shooters were victims of bullying; reducing bullying at school is an obvious first step. Children are not afraid of metal detectors at airports, and would not be afraid of them at school, either.
Claiming “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is absurd. Too many small children accidentally kill their parents, siblings and other folk while playing with a gun that was supposedly locked up, unloaded and out of reach. Making it harder for anyone to get any firearm is critical. Requiring gun buyers to have criminal background checks and their drivers’ licenses screened for previous road rage or aggressive driving events, and addressing previous mental health concerns by providing prescription records for mind-altering drugs before being allowed to purchase a firearm, are all logical steps to curtail mass shootings. So is closing the loophole that waives the requirement for criminal background checks for purchasers of firearms sold at gun shows.
Gun control advocates claim the Second Amendment was written to protect the rights of farmers to have single-shot squirrel rifles, not to allow crazy people to have assault rifles. When the Second Amendment was written, the “government” didn’t have assault rifles, either.
Any attempt to bring about gun control must not interfere with the right of the citizenry to bear arms. The Second Amendment is one of the reasons America went to war against England in the first place. It’s not going away.
Now, while the images of freckle-faced little children, some of them missing their two front teeth, stare at us from the pages of newspapers and television screens, now, while their faces cry out to us for action, now, while we feel ashamed for failing to protect them, now we must act.
Get rid of the assault rifle. Get rid of armor-piercing bullets and anti-personnel ammunition. Only an outright ban on these machines of murder, these instruments of killing innocent young children who still dream of puppies and tooth fairies and Santa Claus, will do any good.
And let us make our children safe.
Noel Preston is a retired Atlanta pediatrician.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
31 comments Add your comment
Myaa Alssooo
January 30th, 2013
12:46 pm
Noel, nothing you propose is practical unless the government attempts to confiscate weapons and ammunition. That will lead to the bloodiest insurrection since the civil war.
Managing HIPPA laws and other measures to protect patient privacy versus some of the notifications you mention are going to be very difficult.
And as far as quoting gun control advocates, why bother?
Lt Dan
January 30th, 2013
12:58 pm
Noel, FYI::
An assault rifle is a selective fire (selective between fully automatic, semi-automatic, and burst fire) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. It should be distinguished from the US legal term assault weapons.
To my knowledge, most manufacturers do not make these weapons available for sale to non-military\law enforcement persons.
And to be brutally honest, I purchased an AR-15 type rifle for two reasons: (1) target shooting at a range, and if needs be (2) to engage and neutralize an adversary (ie, kill people).
3rd-I
January 30th, 2013
2:43 pm
Stop focusing on guns and focus on the PEOPLE. Even in the case if the very poor example of a child getting hold of a gun and accidentally or purposely shooting someone. It is still in fact “people” who kill people. So focus must be on the PEOPLE and their irresponsibilty in allowing such a thing to happen. How to fix THAT has to be the focus.
Using the argument that one does not need to own an AR-15 is a nonstarter with me. You tell me that the writers of the Constitution could not have conceived the type of weaponry available today and I will respond immediately that neither could they conceive the nature of crime against society and persons today (even though one of the greatest crimes against humanity was being perpetrated at that very time). The nature of weaponry has changed, but so has the nature of crime and the criminal mind that commits it. Hence, why I own an AR-15.
Quantavious
January 30th, 2013
2:44 pm
Noel Preston’s comment that an armed presence on a school campus would be ineffective because “the principal and the invader might be a quarter-mile from each other” is typical of the idiot nonsense the gun grabbers are spewing.
The NRA proposed a perfectly viable answer to school security, which is to have a trained, armed security person in every school. The lefties say that idea won’t fly because it’s “too expensive”. You kind of get the impression they want to do nothing at all.
ClydeFr0g
January 30th, 2013
2:50 pm
Noel,
You are absolutely right that the principal of the school might be too far away to successfully engage a threat in time…so allow ALL teachers and staff the RIGHT (not requirement) to defend themselves and their students at schools.
As you so aptly pointed out, the actual rate of school shootings is INCREDIBLY small. If it’s so small that we don’t need to put the time, money, and effort into training willing teachers/admin to bear arms then it’s not a big enough problem to destroy the SECOND amendment to our Constitution.
This “gun show loophole” is a MYTH. It has NOT ONE THING to do with gun shows. If you could quit suckling off the mainstream media teat for a minute you might learn the reality. It’s PRIVATE SALES that don’t require background checks. AS a staunch 2nd Amendment right supporter this is the one issue that I agree should be changed, but NOT if it means that all firearms owners must register with the government. Check and delete, that’s what should happen. Currently proposed schemes for background checks want to store this information which serves as a backdoor registration, and all sensible freedom-loving students of history that support gun rights are against this.
When the First Amendment was written there was no internet, TV, or radio either…does that mean free speech should be restricted to spoken word on a soapbox and printed news? Hogwash! When the Second Amendment was written there was NO restriction on the weapons citizens were allowed to own, it says NOT ONE WORD about hunting. Indeed citizens WERE armed with the BEST weapons available at that time on par with the best weapons available to the military of that time.
Finally, please describe the functional difference between this misnomer “assault rifle” as popularized in the liberal media and a standard semi-automatic rifle. I don’t think you can.
“Any attempt to bring about gun control must not interfere with the right of the citizenry to bear arms. The Second Amendment is one of the reasons America went to war against England in the first place. It’s not going away.” – the only sensible thing you say. So, this being the case, please explain to me where the Second Amendment restricts which type of rifle I can have and which I cannot. You do understand the meaning of “shall not be infringed”, don’t you?
SAWB
January 30th, 2013
3:51 pm
While watching the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun control today I was struck by an undeniable fact. The pro-Second Amendment speakers and Senators continually referred to statistics most of which were gathered by the US Justice Department to defend their position. These statistics showed time and time again that what the anti-gun crowd was stating was simply not true.
Senator klobuchar started her statement by stating how important statistics are and then proceeded to pull ever emotional trigger she could while ignoring the facts. Senator Cruz challenged the Police Chief of Baltimore to provide data to support his anti-gun position and he could not and would not even discuss the issue.
At the end of the day the argument for more gun control is irrational and based solely on emotion not supported by any logic or facts.
MANGLER
January 30th, 2013
3:59 pm
That organized militia thing really doesn’t mean much to y’all, does it? Your 2nd amendment argument fals flat on it’s face, when you read the entire thing. It plainly says a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Do you realize (obviously not) that is saying the people that make up the militia have the right to keep and bear arms.
We have an organized militia – 6 of them actually (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, National Guard). Not to mention 6 tiers of police (FBI, Federal Marshals, Parks, State, County, and City).
Not specifically mentioned is the general public. Government has allowed the general public to have guns for hunting and protection. It can actually tell you what kinds it will allow you to use for those purposes. And since people keep walking into public places and killing civilians with weapons used by regulated militias, you’re likely going to see those restrictions tightened.
But just keep treating the Constitution like you treat your Bibles, shouting out the parts that you like and omitting the parts you don’t like.
Lt Dan
January 30th, 2013
4:32 pm
Hey anti-gun people:
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of the United States first ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[1]
In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]
Yes, I shamelessly copied and pasted from Wiki, but it all works for me.
I’m keeping my AR, magazines, and ammo. I hope I only have to use them for target practice.
Don
January 30th, 2013
4:38 pm
If it’s a good idea to put police at every school, and a better idea to arm the principal, and even better to arm some teachers and parents, why wouldn’t arming students be the best idea? Properly vetted, of course…
Don
January 30th, 2013
4:43 pm
Mangler: by law, the militia has two parts. The organized ones you mention and an unorganized one that includes all able bodied men aged 17 to 45. Check it out.
Don't Tread
January 30th, 2013
5:26 pm
“Making it harder for anyone to get any firearm is critical” in the same essay as “Any attempt to bring about gun control must not interfere with the right of the citizenry to bear arms” and “Get rid of the assault rifle. Get rid of armor-piercing bullets and anti-personnel ammunition”. Talk about self-contradiction.
Psssst…Here’s a little secret, Noel: All ammunition is “anti-personnel”. (Grains of sand traveling at 1000 feet per second are “anti-personnel”, for that matter.)
Here’s some more news for you, Noel: There already was an “outright ban” on the “machines of murder” in CT, which didn’t “keep the children safe”. Your notion of “gun-free zones” doesn’t work, because you ignore the fact that criminals, by definition, don’t obey the law, and “gun-free zones” only disarm the good guys. If you don’t feel safe because citizens have 2nd Amendment rights, there are plenty of blue states to move to. I’m sure your move will be offset by those blue-state residents who are tired of their rights being violated and their taxes going through the roof, and are moving here.
John’s analysis is correct (which reminds me I have a renewal for GCO coming up…)
ClydeFr0g
January 30th, 2013
5:39 pm
Here MANGLER, I’ll help you out;
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” is exactly what the Second Amendment states. You claim this means that only the military can have weapons.
“A well regulated *educational system*, being necessary to the *intelligence* of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear *books*, shall not be infringed.” Would this mean that only schools have the right to own books?
“A well regulated *transit system*, being necessary to the *mobility* of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear *cars*, shall not be infringed.” Would this mean that only the government and taxi services would have the right to own cars?
You do know who THE PEOPLE are, right? THE PEOPLE is NOT the government, NOT the military, and NOT the National Guard as you anti-freedom, anti-liberty socialists like to read it. THE PEOPLE are citizens like me (and even you if you so choose).
You do know what “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” means, right? It means it’s a protected RIGHT, not a privilege like driving a car, and that the government CANNOT interfere with my ability to exercise this right.
What you will notice is missing from the Second Amendment are the phrases “except semi-automatic weapons” or “but only guns that can fire one round before reloading” or “only muskets” or “only blunderbusses”.
Yes MANGLER, I know what the Second Amendment says. And it is YOU that is misguided about the link between the right it provides. It does not specify a right for the MILITARY to have guns. It does not protect the right of GOVERNMENT to have guns. It clearly states, for anyone with half a brain that can read it, “the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.
Not Blind
January 30th, 2013
5:52 pm
Hey Mangler, if you had to belong to a militia in order to bear arms why doesn’t the wording read “…the right of THESE people to keep and bear arms….”. It doesn’t say that, it says “the people”. The people is all of them.
Not Blind
January 30th, 2013
5:57 pm
My original post seems to be under moderation so here is the summary.
In the USA, every year, nearly 200,000 people die from the errors of medical professionals. Where’s the outrage ???
tim jordan
January 30th, 2013
6:51 pm
Why do we allow these gun owners to kill our children and wives. These people belong in prison. They are good for nothing and will kill your child if he looks at them the wrong way. We need to remove these guns from them as they are destroying any safety we have here. Gun owners are the terrorist of the 21st century.
tim jordan
January 30th, 2013
6:57 pm
Gun owners in America have replaced Al Qaeda. These are Americas modern day enemy. They want to over through America and put in place their own rule by force. They will kill our all of us. We are under attack by the new modern day Al Qaeda. America needs to be taken back by these terrorist who kill innocent woman and children on a daily basis. We can take our country back from these terrorist.
ClydeFr0g
January 30th, 2013
7:13 pm
tim jordan –
I know LOTS of gun owners and not a one of them has ever killed a person outside of the duty of their military or police duty. How many gun owners do you know? I can guarantee you know more than you think you do, you just don’t know they own guns!
There are estimated to be over 300 million guns in this country (overwhelmingly legally) owned by an estimated 80 million people. The VAST majority of those gun owners don’t slaughter babies as you’d like everyone to believe. Do your own research and you will see that the people committing illegal gun violence in fact represent about 0.01% of gun owners.
So let me get this straight…you think the other 99.99% of gun owners are terrorists and belong in prison? Almost 80,000,000 American citizens should go to jail just for exercising their rights as provided by the Constitution?
Can you REALLY be that stupid?
SAWB
January 30th, 2013
7:18 pm
Tim said, “Why do we allow these gun owners to kill our children and wives. These people belong in prison.”
I agree wholehearted we are way too lenient on criminals in this country. Way too many folks that commit crimes with guns or with guns in their possession never see significant jail time. We need to focus on punishing the actual criminals and not law abiding gun owners.
Start by enacting laws banning the use of plea bargains if a gun is involved and mandating the maximum sentences available. If there are not enough jails enact legislation allowing the use of inmate labor to build more prisons.
Also, before you say it I know prisons do no rehabilitate, but the point is to segregate criminals from law abiding citizens.
USC
January 30th, 2013
8:18 pm
Well Regulated means well regulated (second amendment) – if you want to quibble over words. With 330,000,000 guns in the U.S. we clearly do not need more. The paranoid psychosis expressed by the proposed traitors above should make all sane people realize that their proposals have not ever worked and we must try something new. This is a complex, and, for some, confusing, society which will become more complex in the coming decades. Let’s make it peaceful, predictable, and without fear of guns and bullets.
An observer
January 30th, 2013
8:30 pm
So what are we going to do about violent video games and movies?
Wilbur
January 30th, 2013
8:33 pm
Breathless liberals have decided to demonize 80 million americans who own guns as crazy terrorists. I think its the stalinist democrats who are the crazies.
Don Edwards
January 30th, 2013
8:57 pm
If ANYONE can craft a law that will keep evil people from doing evil things, I promise to grind every firearm I own into very fine dust. I would do so on national TV, and while shaking the hand of the author. It can not be done.
The Constitution has always meant very much to the service members, law enforcement officers, firemen, and others who have taken the oath to “preserve and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. Why then do we think it’s necessary to discount the hundreds of thousands of lives lost, in defense of the Constitution? To do so is akin to leaving a comrade on the battlefield. NEVER!
ClydeFr0g
January 30th, 2013
9:08 pm
Actually USC,at the time of the writing of the Constitution (and even today to a lesser degree) “regulated” meant practiced, efficient, equipped. It’s not as simple as your “well regulated means well regulated” comment.
Talk about “paranoid psychosis”…let’s talk about that for a minute. You are more likely to get killed by lightening than by a crazy person with an assault rifle in a “mass shooting”. The OVERWHELMING majority of guns are not used in crime, and the OVERWHELMING majority of legal gun owners never commit murder. So what are YOU paranoid of that you want to take away a RIGHT of those 80 million Americans protected by the Constitution? Sounds like YOU are the one with the “paranoid psychosis”!
“Traitors” are people that wish to usurp the authority granted to THE PEOPLE by the Constitution which are clearly folks like YOU that want to wipe your @$$ with the Constitution.
Want to talk about proposals that clearly haven’t ever worked? Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country and one of the highest murder rates in the country. How well are those draconian gun control laws working out up there? Kennesaw has a law that all households MUST have a gun and they have a very low crime rate. How do you figure that happens USC?
You are too dense to get it I know, still, I’m going to make it simple:
CRIMINALS DON’T FOLLOW THE LAW. They don’t care about magazine restrictions or “assault weapon” bans. CRIMINALS will still have these things. You think passing a law prohibiting these things is going to make all the criminals decide to be good boys all of a sudden? Or you think banning guns will make them unavailable, you know, just like banning heroin, cocaine, crack, meth, etc. makes those things unavailable?
Can you REALLY be that stupid?
USC
January 31st, 2013
6:35 am
Now we know why the N.R.A. has reversed it’s position on background checks. It turns out (not a well kept secret) that Wayne LaPierre, the C.E.O., has a ‘nervous condition’. Like the Arizona shooter, he was rejected by the U.S. Army.
Clyde – you may not know what WELL REGULATED means but most of us do. Look it up if you need help. What about your background check?
Raisin Toast Fanatic
January 31st, 2013
9:11 am
“Now, while the images of freckle-faced little children, some of them missing their two front teeth, stare at us from the pages of newspapers and television screens, now, while their faces cry out to us for action, now, while we feel ashamed for failing to protect them, now we must act.”
Here we go again with an emotion-based post, just more of the same in which rationality is less important that a feel-good knee-jerk reaction.
I just get so tired of it.
markie mark
January 31st, 2013
9:30 am
Dear Mr Preston – regarding this statement – “So is closing the loophole that waives the requirement for criminal background checks for purchasers of firearms sold at gun shows.:
Please do some research and educate yourself before you comment again. There is NO gun show loophole. Go to any gun show, to any licensed dealers table, and you will have to have a background check. The only instance where no background checks are required is when I sell MY gun on a personal sale. What next? What is the next piece of commerce you wish to interject yourself and the government into? Land? Cars? Vehicles kill more people in a month than guns ever do. Are you going to require background checks on private sales of cars? This is the proverbial slippery slope that you hear about. And the object of your attention is something specifically protected by the US Constitution.
While I feel terrible for the tragedies caused by deranged people with guns, they are statistically very small compared to everyday occurrences that cause death in our country. While sympathetic, I am not going to stand idly by and not argue in support of the right to own a weapon, large capacity clip and all, as the liberal democrats continue their agenda of incrementally chipping away at this right. Things we thought would not happen in a million years in our society only 25 years ago are commonplace today. If we do not fight for this, 25 years from now gun ownership may be only a memory of how things used to be.
ClydeFr0g
January 31st, 2013
11:01 am
USC, way to go with the cherry-picking reply! Care to respond to the rest of my posted response to your nonsense or are you just conceding that I was correct and everything else you said that I responded to was idiotic garbage?
Specifically;
* Your “paranoid psychosis” that you can’t function without peeing your pants out of the fear that no matter where you go there will be a psycho with an AR ready to gun you down, despite the FACT that the OVERWHELMING majority of gun owners are peaceful, freedom-loving, productive citizens.
* You don’t understand what a traitor is and that you and your militant socialist liberal pals are exactly traitors to the Constitution which is the law of the land whether you like it or not. The harder idiots like you push to erode the rights of American citizens, the harder freedom-loving citizens will hold onto those rights.
* Your irrational and fantasy-land beliefs that cities like Chicago with the strictest gun control and among the highest murder rates are a freaking liberal utopia and cities like Kennesaw where guns are mandatory by law and have very low crime and murder rates need to ditch what they are doing right and “try something new”.
Care to respond? Your silence is your acknowledgement that you have no clue what you are talking about.
As for your new diversionary;
Why do you think it matters that Wayne LaPierre has a “nervous condition”? In your mind that means someone shouldn’t be able to exercise their Second Amendment RIGHT? How about someone with dyslexia? I already know, in your mind the mere virtue of wanting to exercise your Second Amendment right makes a citizen crazy and therefore ineligible to exercise their Second Amendment right!
I know very well what “well regulated” means, and AS I STATED IN MY PREVIOUS POST, it had a different meaning when the Constitution was written. If you bother to look the word up yourself you will see what I mean. But I don’t want you to have to abandon your fantasy that the Second Amendment only pertains to the military’s right to bear arms! Too bad for you the Supreme Court agrees with me and has on more than one occasion.
And what about my background check? I know you and your militant liberal pals don’t believe in the citizens right to privacy and think you have the right to know everything about everybody, but unfortunately for you I have a right to privacy so I can tell morons like you to go to hell. So go to hell!
USC, I am convinced idiots like you will not be satisfied until the Constitution is in shreds, padding the floor of a hamster cage. I don’t know who you expect to do this for you. The military and the police have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, not your backwards militant liberal ideals. There are plenty of other countries in the world where you can go that you don’t have to cry yourself to sleep at night worrying about the boogie man coming for you with an AR. If you hate America, our laws, and our traditions so much I suggest you go find someplace else to live. And please take a few of your lying crybaby liberal snots with you.
too little time
January 31st, 2013
11:05 am
Georgia has 2,487 public schools. The last fatal school shooting was at Monticello in August 1999. It makes no sense to pay, train, equip and insure 2,487 school principals to patrol schools that have had no fatal shootings for 13 years.
But it make more sense to ban semi automatic firearms from MILLIONS of Georgia households to prevent the fatal shootings that haven’t occurred for 13 years? Seriously… that’s your argument?
TBone
January 31st, 2013
11:21 am
OK while this regime has created yet another crisis due to some deranged individuals, we can rest easy to know that the economy has been fixed because our skeet shooter in chief has put the sunset on his jobs council that never really met?!? I think the Burger King and Ronald McDonald were the only two members but they can go back to hawking burgers.
Truth
January 31st, 2013
2:13 pm
Mr Preston,
Assault rifles are illegal. They have been since 1934, before the invention of the assault rifle, when the national firearms act made the ownership of automatic weapons highly regulated. What you are whining about is a civilian firearm that has the cosmetic appearance of an assault rifle. It is no different in function than many hunting rifles.
Armor-piercing ammunition is illegal. It is classified as a “dangerous item” under the aforementioned National Firearms Act.
“Anti-personnel ammunition” is actually the most survivable and humane ammunition on the market. If these killers were using hunting ammo, there would be no wounded, only the dead. Hunting ammunition creates such horrific wounds that even being shot in the leg is highly fatal.
Please stop speaking from ignorance and stick to what you know. I DO hope your medical knowledge is broader than your obvious lack of knowledge on this subject.
JR
January 31st, 2013
3:50 pm
“Get rid of the assault rifle. Get rid of armor-piercing bullets and anti-personnel ammunition. Only an outright ban on these machines of murder, these instruments of killing innocent young children who still dream of puppies and tooth fairies and Santa Claus, will do any good.”
This statement is chock-full of ignorance. As others have said, Assault Rifles are already regulated to the point of being essentially unobtainable and aren’t even a part of the Assault Weapons ban.
Regarding ammo: would you care to define what “anti-personnel” ammunition is? How does it differ from standard hunting ammo(which is designed to kill a deer as quickly and efficiently as possible)? How is it different from standard FMJ practice ammunition? How does it differ from match-grade ammunition?
Frankly it sounds like you heard a scary word and had the knee-jerk reaction of “OMG BAN IT!!1!1″ without even having a clue of what it is or if it even exists. This probably bothers me the most about the calls for new bans; the people proposing these bans are completely ignorant as to what they are banning! Sometimes they are trying to ban something that doesn’t even exist! You may as well add heat-seeking baby-killer bullets to the banned item list.
Also, are you aware that armor-piercing ammo is LESS lethal than standard hunting ammo? Its also expensive, exceedingly rare, and mostly useless. Not one of the mass shootings in the past 30 years has used armor piercing ammo. But none of this matters since the case for banning it has more to do with it sounding scary than actually being a threat.