Archive for Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Sebelius signs machine gun bill
April 22, 2008
Advertisement
Topeka — Kansans will be able to own machine guns, other fully automatic weapons, sawed-off shotguns and silencers starting July 1.
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius signed a bill Monday to legalize the possession of such weapons. The state banned owning machine guns in 1933, but some legislators said a change was necessary because legal questions threaten to keep dealers from delivering weapons to law enforcement agencies.
Supporters believe the bill will benefit mostly collectors because machine guns typically cost at least $20,000. Also, anyone wanting to own such weapons must undergo two federal background checks.
“I can’t even afford them,” said Sen. Phil Journey, a Haysville Republican who is a strong gun-rights advocate and championed the bill. “There may be some very happy collectors who have significant disposable income.”
The bill had bipartisan support among legislators and passed both chambers with more than the two-thirds majorities necessary to override a veto.
“I suspect that the governor knows that it’s not good public policy for the state of Kansas, but she has to pick and choose the battles she takes on,” said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman John Vratil, a Leawood Republican who opposed the measure.
In announcing her action, Sebelius didn’t elaborate on her reasons for signing the bill. Her past actions on gun issues had raised questions about whether she would.
In 2006, she vetoed a bill allowing qualified Kansans to carry concealed handguns, only to see the Legislature override her. Last year, she rejected a bill preventing local governments from imposing additional restrictions on concealed guns, and legislators once again nullified her veto.
But spokeswoman Nicole Corcoran said Sebelius didn’t receive numerous calls from law enforcement officers asking her to veto this year’s measure, as she did with the concealed carry bill two years ago.
“Governor Sebelius carefully reviewed this bill, which is similar to the laws of 30 other states that require compliance with extensive federal guidelines,” Corcoran said.
Those federal guidelines not only will require two background checks, but also the approval of a prospective gun owner’s local sheriff or police chief.
22 April 2008 at 6:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hornhunter (Anonymous) says…
Some thing like this gets signed, but the Queen vetoes coal plants? dumb
22 April 2008 at 6:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Oracle_of_Rhode (Anonymous) says…
This is a disappointment. I suspect that rather than “collectors” getting fully automatic machine guns, it will be kooks and gun nuts and militia-types who snap them up. Oh, and the violent, psychotic loner types too.
I just hope the next school shoot-em-up doesn't kill 450 kids instead of just 45.
22 April 2008 at 7:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logrithmic (Anonymous) says…
Well once the violent outburst happens, and there is a mass murder, we will know whom to blame - Sibelius and the rightwing RepubLICKlan legislature.
22 April 2008 at 8:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Stain (Anonymous) says…
What is the world coming to?
Democrat gives citizens more and more dangerous guns.
The Bush administration just interpreted the Second Amendment in a way that seriously curbs your right to own a gun and effectively repeals the amendment. http://www.americablog.com/2005/12/2nd-a…
What has the world come to?
22 April 2008 at 8:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gayokay (Anonymous) says…
Testing, had trouble posting in another thread.
22 April 2008 at 8:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
autie (Anonymous) says…
Happiness is a warm gun; bang, bang, shoot,, shoot
I guess I can't agree with everything my governor does..
22 April 2008 at 8:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
fu7il3 (Anonymous) says…
Maybe it's bizarro-world where everything is backwards.
*waits for announcement from GOP supporting gay marriage*
22 April 2008 at 8:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Oracle_of_Rhode (Anonymous) says…
This is a disappointment. I suspect that rather than “collectors” getting fully automatic machine guns, it will be kooks and gun nuts and militia-types who snap them up. Oh, and the violent, psychotic loner types too.”
Marion writes:
The people to whom you refer could do that sort of thing without this law.
What does a law allowing citizens to possess legal firearms have to do with criminals?
Bad news.
Machine guns, short-barreled shotguns, short- barrelled rifles and certain other kinds of firearms , have always been legal in most states.
22 April 2008 at 9 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
WHY (Anonymous) says…
A machine gun may cost 20000 but I can probably find a sawed off shot gun and a silencer for much less. I am sure i can find something fun to do with them. And why would cops want silencers??
22 April 2008 at 9:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
madmike (Anonymous) says…
I fail to understand this legislation. I own several firearms and consider all of the rights in the constitution as individual rights, but come on now, this is nuts. A full-automatic weapon is not accurate after the second or third round, and therefore no good in self defense. As for a silencer or supressor, they ahe bulky and make carrying concealed almost impossible. This just feeds the anti-gun crowd with ammunition. Also, even if the state allows this, how does federal law play out in this?
22 April 2008 at 9:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
JJE007 (Anonymous) says…
There are several states that allow personal ownership of fully automatic firearms. Anybody recall a legal owner rat-tat-tatting anybody? Anybody? I didn't think so.
22 April 2008 at 9:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
JJE007 (Anonymous) says…
By the way, Sebelius knows that when she and Obama are in the White House that they'll ban all these nasty gun things so there's really no need to worry, people. It's just the politics of getting elected.
22 April 2008 at 9:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
sfjayhawk (Anonymous) says…
Sad. Can someone please tell me why machine guns should be legal?
22 April 2008 at 10:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
JJE007 (Anonymous) says…
sfjayhawk,
I'd say… “Not to your satisfaction…”
Did I get it right? Do I get a prize?~)
22 April 2008 at 10:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
madmike (Anonymous) says…
I checked with ATF and they said that this law allows Kansas citizens to apply through ATF for a CAT-III license, which you really have to go through the hoops to get, so nothing really changed.
22 April 2008 at 10:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
sfjayhawk (Anonymous) says.. “Sad. Can someone please tell me why machine guns should be legal?”
Kansas has had the most “liberal” (read restrictive) gun laws in the nation. Like the concealed carry law, this law is well within Federal Law and brings us much closer to Missouri's and the other 48 States laws. Besides any law that makes this illegal is too restrictive…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kly-fVUi…
22 April 2008 at 10:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
sfjayhawk (Anonymous) says…
Sad. Can someone please tell me why machine guns should be legal?”
Marion writes:
I got a better idea.
You tell us why machine guns should *NOT* be legal!
22 April 2008 at 10:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
sfjayhawk (Anonymous) says…
Marioin,
Um, because they are made for the military and for killing people. The only reason someone needs a machine gun is for killing people, many of them.
22 April 2008 at 10:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
sfjayhawk:
Please tell us how many properly registered machine guns in the hands of the lega owner have been used in crimes since registration became required in 1934.
22 April 2008 at 10:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
pisafromthewest (Anonymous) says…
logrithmic (Anonymous) says…
“Well once the violent outburst happens, and there is a mass murder, we will know whom to blame - Sibelius and the rightwing RepubLICKlan legislature.”
Let's see: The governor is a Democrat, and “The bill had bipartisan support among legislators and passed both chambers with more than the two-thirds majorities necessary to override a veto.” But it was the Republicans' fault. Brilliant as always, dysrhythmic.
But go ahead and vote for the Democrats who helped pass this bill (not as if you'd actually check to see where the Democrat you're voting for stood on the issue), then you can be sitting there after the elction sputtering “but, but, they're Democrats…” Nothing like a well-informed electorate like dysrhythmic to screw up a country.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Overall I have no problem with this legslation, with one minor exception. Can someone please tell me what legitimate, useful, legal purpose there is in a silencer?
22 April 2008 at 11:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
sfjayhawk (Anonymous) says…
Marion, honestly dont know any firearms stats - but I would think that most reasonable people would agree that machine guns, silencers, and sawed off shotguns are not something that should be legal to own. Can you tell me why someone would want a machine gun/silencer for any reason other than to participate in criminal activity? Do you need one for any legitimate reason?
Machine guns are military weapons that are meant for war, something I would guess you have never been in.
22 April 2008 at 11:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
sfjayhawk (Anonymous) says… “Um, because they are made for the military and for killing people. The only reason someone needs a machine gun is for killing people, many of them”
I would dare to say there are more machine guns in the hands of private citizens in this country than in the hands of the military. It is instructive to note that there was another “gun” bill that Gov. Kathy signed that is not getting the same play in the press. It would prevent the State of Kansas from the confiscation of firearms during a declared state of emergency such as occurred in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.
http://www.kslegislature.org/bills/2008/…
22 April 2008 at 11:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
autie (Anonymous) says…
madmike said awhle ago that one would have to apply through the ATF for a CAT III permit. If that is the case, I reckon that not too many bad guys will be applying..and given the expense of the weapon..this law does little or nothing. The bad guys will still have what they want anyway. I also think what Pisa said is right on..this bill had bipartisan support etc..it is not a party line thing at all…it is just us crazy midwesterners with a love for things that go boom…or boom, boom, boom, boom…or very little boom at all. don't want to wake the neighbors with that late night target practice.
22 April 2008 at 11:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
sfjawhawk:
You have at least admitted that you do not know what you are talking about!
Further, the article is incorrect.
Kansas banned provate ownership of machine guns in 1986, not 1933.
In any case, machine guns are fun.
Since you are reactiing emotionally rather than rationally; which is how most people reacat for firearms, I will acquaint you with the facts.
Since 1934 when machine gun registration became required; prior to that time, you could walk into your local hardware store and buy one, there have been exactly…….
(Drumroll!)…..
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcful…
From the citation:
“In 1995 there were over 240,000 machine guns registered with the BATF. (Zawitz, Marianne,Bureau of Justice Statistics, Guns Used in Crime [PDF].) About half are owned by civilians and the other half by police departments and other governmental agencies (Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.)
Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.
–
Thanks to the staff of the Columbus, Ohio Public Library for the details of the Waller case.
Source: talk.politics.guns FAQ, part 2.
The other homicide, possibly involving a legally owned machine gun, occurred on September 14, 1992, also in Ohio (source).
In Targeting Guns, Kleck cites the director of BATF testifying before Congress that he knew of less than ten crimes that were committed with legally owned machine guns (no time period was specified). Kleck says these crimes could have been nothing more than violations of gun regulations such as failure to notify BATF after moving a registered gun between states.”
22 April 2008 at 11:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
pisafromthewest (Anonymous) says…”Overall I have no problem with this legslation, with one minor exception. Can someone please tell me what legitimate, useful, legal purpose there is in a silencer?”
Despite Wichita, Kansas City, and Topeka, Kansas is a rural state. There is a significant part of the populations that lives “in the country” (read as no cable television) and I suspect “those folk” (read as people whose nearest neighbor is measured in miles not feet) will legally use suppressors and fully automatic weapons like such populations in 35 other states and worldwide where immediate response from Law Enforcement means an hour wait while a Deputy from another county responds.
And as has been noted, all existing applicable Federal Laws (including two background checks) still apply for a private citizens in Kansas to own these weapons.
22 April 2008 at 11:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
sfjayhawk (Anonymous) says…
Yes marion, I have no time to follow the statistics on firearms, I spend my time doing much more exciting things like watching the grass grow.
Machine guns are made for the millitary to use in killing people more efficiently than single shot, or semi-auto. Does not sound like a capability that civilians require - unless you are John Dillinger (used machine guns that were purchased legally) or other people with criminal intent.
I have heard machine guns are “fun” for people that are trying to compensate for personal 'size' issues. May I suggest buying a muscle car, or a trip to the Spearmint Rhino as a much less anti social reaction than the purchase of a silenced machine gun to compensate for this problem? An implant might be another option for you to explore.
22 April 2008 at 11:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
JJE007 (Anonymous) says…
pisafromthewest says…
Can someone please tell me what legitimate, useful, legal purpose there is in a silencer?
–
A tree is full of nuts.
A tree is full of squirrels.
You can collect five squirrels per day, keeping a maximum of twenty on hand, during squirrel season in Kansas.
With an accurate .22 rifle that was QUIET, you could collect your limit of free range bushy-tailed tree chickens from a single black walnut tree without causing undue noise pollution and stress to the other squirrels in the tree. They could continue to enjoy their meal, have increased portions and experience less bickering over resources.
It's legitimate, useful, legal and you asked!~)
22 April 2008 at 11:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
JJE007 (Anonymous) says…
sfjayhawk says…
…I have no time to follow the statistics on firearms, I spend my time doing much more exciting things like watching the grass grow.
–
Don't forget all that time you spend on your penis compensation obsession!~)
22 April 2008 at 11:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
autie (Anonymous) says…
I do love the smell of burnt powder in the morning..it smells..like victory. My daughter and I do our part keeping us safe from Al Qaida beer cans..When I eliminate the threat, my old .22 semi auto sounds like full auto. But of course we pick up all the victims and recycle them…it's like 70 cents a pound today. And if you think aluminum is good..pick up all the brass off the range.
22 April 2008 at 12:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
So much for rational discussion.
Bye, bye.
22 April 2008 at 12:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gl0ck0wnr (Anonymous) says…
“Oracle_of_Rhode (Anonymous) says… This is a disappointment. I suspect that rather than “collectors” getting fully automatic machine guns, it will be kooks and gun nuts and militia-types who snap them up. Oh, and the violent, psychotic loner types too.”
At least make an attempt to be rational… weapons covered by this law are in the $20,000+ range. Criminals generally don't purchase $20,000 weapons and they certainly don't go through the legal channels one must navigate to take advantage of this law. Get real.
22 April 2008 at 12:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Puggy (Anonymous) says…
the “nuts” and “kooks” have always been able to, and will always be able to obtain any gun of any sort illegally. it's best that the govt does what it can do to monitor guns like this because clearly the NRA is such a powerful lobby that not only can they buy off politicians, but they've got many Americans convinced that gun possession is a God-given right.
oh well. Sibelius for Vice Prez!
22 April 2008 at 1:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cool (Anonymous) says…
not too long before government controlled laser weaponry (robocop of 2020) replaces the more common
ammo.
big brother is coming.
22 April 2008 at 1:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says…
“And why would cops want silencers??”
This is going to sound awful, but silencers are occasionally used to take out attack/guard dogs that are near drug houses and where criminals may be holed up so that the dog barking doesn't tip off the criminals of LEO presence and LEO are not attacked during surveillance or apprehension.
Machine guns are needed by law enforcement because of the fact that they are becoming more prevalent among criminals and LEOs are out gunned in those situations.
22 April 2008 at 1:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
madmike (Anonymous) says…
Puggy, while I do not agree in the need for full-automatic weapons, the second amendment of the United States Constitution clearly grants the right to keep and bear arms, so while not a “God” given right to have firearms, it is a right of Americans to have them.
As far as why law enforcement uses silenced weapons, during a take down of a drug house or a breach during a standoff, silenced weapons can have a distinct advantage in that the noise made by a H&K MP-5 without a supporessor is deafening.
22 April 2008 at 1:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
pisafromthewest (Anonymous) says…
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
“Despite Wichita, Kansas City, and Topeka, Kansas is a rural state. There is a significant part of the populations that lives “in the country” (read as no cable television) and I suspect “those folk” (read as people whose nearest neighbor is measured in miles not feet) will legally use suppressors and fully automatic weapons like such populations in 35 other states and worldwide where immediate response from Law Enforcement means an hour wait while a Deputy from another county responds.”
I got no problem with that, as I said earlier. My question was specifically limited to silencers. And I would think that one of “those folk” who was trying to drive an intruder from their home with automatic weapons would _want_ the intruder to hear the noise! :)
However, JJE007 and a_flock_of_jayhawks, I can see the logic in those reasons … thanks. (Although I suspect that squirrel hunting may not be the most cost-effective use of a $20,000 weapon and a CAT-III license.)
22 April 2008 at 1:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
JJE007 (Anonymous) says…
pisafromthewest says…
I suspect that squirrel hunting may not be the most cost-effective use of a $20,000 weapon and a CAT-III license.
–
HA HA!~) The squirrels deserve a respectful, extravagant and quiet quietus..
22 April 2008 at 2:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BrianR (Anonymous) says…
Will Rolland the Headless Thompson Gunner be permitted to carry this gun to class?
22 April 2008 at 2:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Colt45 (Anonymous) says…
pisafromthewest (Anonymous) says…”Overall I have no problem with this legslation, with one minor exception. Can someone please tell me what legitimate, useful, legal purpose there is in a silencer?”
Hearing protection.
22 April 2008 at 2:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BrianR (Anonymous) says…
“And what if a crazy cat burglar breaks into my humble abode in the middle of the night..and he has a gun?”
I recommend tons of clutter. The cat burgler will break a toe or trip, fall and break his or her neck, problem solved.
22 April 2008 at 2:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
pisafromthewest (Anonymous) says…“I got no problem with that, as I said earlier. My question was specifically limited to silencers. And I would think that one of “those folk” who was trying to drive an intruder from their home with automatic weapons would _want_ the intruder to hear the noise! :)”
Opps, true enough! In my defense I think the legitimate use of a suppressor to be obvious, to reduce the noise and flash of shooting a firearm.
Much of my use of firearms is target practice and most of that is indoors. The sound can be deafening and even with with hearing protection can damage hearing. Combine that with the flash from an explosion just feet from your eyes and ears and the senses become momentarily overloaded.
Using of a firearm in self defense most homeowners do not have time to put on hearing protection and being closer to the explosion of powder in the chamber they get the worse of the flash and bang which can be disorienting. Reducing that reduces the recovery time for ones senses (hearing, sight, etc) which improves awareness and decision making. The flash and bang reveals the position of the shooter which when faced by multiple assailants is not necessarily a “good thing” (tm) for someone defending oneself. The bottom line is that just because you or I have no legitimate need for a fully automatic weapon or a silencer doesn't mean nobody does and therefore should be made illegal.
http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/model-…
22 April 2008 at 2:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…
BrianR (Anonymous) says…
“I recommend tons of clutter. The cat burgler will break a toe or trip, fall and break his or her neck, problem solved.”
And sue you. And win. Better to blast him, save yourself the headaches and tons of money. What a world we live in.
22 April 2008 at 2:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
pisafromthewest (Anonymous) says…
Okay, okay, thank you everyone! Now I see what the legitimate uses for a silencer are! (That's really why I asked, I wasn't being sarcastic.) Now I want one! :)
22 April 2008 at 3:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says…
NOJ says…
“And sue you. And win. Better to blast him, save yourself the headaches and tons of money. What a world we live in.”
Unfortunately, you are correct.
22 April 2008 at 3:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says…
For an accurate weight and feel of the weapon in preparation for using it (stockweld & dope), you probably don't want to have the silencer if you are using it for home/personal protection. As long as you get a good first shot off, especially if you score a headshot, the sound of the weapon is the least of your concerns. Plus, you end up having to clean it along with the gun after practicing.
22 April 2008 at 3:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says…
“For an accurate weight and feel of the weapon in preparation for using it (stockweld & dope), you probably don't want to have the silencer if you are using it for home/personal protection. As long as you get a good first shot off, especially if you score a headshot, the sound of the weapon is the least of your concerns.”
Non-wet suppressors that thread to the end of a custom barrel are commercially available and don't require much preparation other than threading. A head shot is easy against a single paper silhouette, but one or more live assailants are a different story (shoot for the center of mass). Cleaning the weapon afterwards is the least of my concern.
I have a pretty good idea of just how disorienting shooting a .45 in a dark house can be and if I had practiced with a weapon with a integrated or had the time to attach suppressor that was fitted I would choose it every single time.
22 April 2008 at 4:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says…
Sigmund says…
“A head shot is easy against a single paper silhouette, but one or more live assailants are a different story (shoot for the center of mass).”
Well, I am an expert marksman, so I always go for the headshot when I get it ;)
“Cleaning the weapon afterwards is the least of my concern.”
After each practice? Not me.
22 April 2008 at 4:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
eddiez (Anonymous) says…
Awesome! Sound suppressors are great. Still, it's a legal hassle to own them anywhere in the USA.
22 April 2008 at 5:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cool (Anonymous) says…
need those machine guns for massive islamic attacks?
right ?
http://www.bradycampaign.org/
22 April 2008 at 6:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Logan5 (Anonymous) says…
I bought a neat mortar on Ebay the other day with 50 rounds of HE. Wait till July 4!
22 April 2008 at 6:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Logan5 (Anonymous) says…
Seriously, where does it end. The military and police keep their weapons relatively secure. What happens when private citizens start loading their gun cabinets with these. That's right, somebody's gonna steal 'em.
Remember the old adage about bringing a knife to a gun fight? Next it will be about bringing a Mac-10 to thermonuclear war.
22 April 2008 at 6:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Cool:
What does your link have to do with lawfully owned and registered machine guns?
Machine guns are fully automatic.
The killer used semi-automatics.
No lawfully owned machine gun has ever been used in this kind of crime, nor am I aware of any contraband machine gun which has been used in this manner.
Whatup?
22 April 2008 at 6:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…
lrN51EXCXydF;
Well said. Unfortunately I fear there will be a lot of deaf ears.
22 April 2008 at 6:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Logan5 (Anonymous) says…
Again I ask, where does it stop? How much fire power is too much? RPG's, grenades, tanks, small tactical nuclear devices? Should I be able to purchase a Ryder truck filled with fertilizer and diesel fuel complete with a cell phone activated remote trigger?
22 April 2008 at 6:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
pisafromthewest (Anonymous) says…
Logan5 (Anonymous) says…
“Seriously, where does it end. The military and police keep their weapons relatively secure. What happens when private citizens start loading their gun cabinets with these. That's right, somebody's gonna steal 'em.”
“Remember the old adage about bringing a knife to a gun fight? Next it will be about bringing a Mac-10 to thermonuclear war.”
On the one hand you do have a valid point that I've often mentioned myself … at one time, all the illegal guns in the hands of criminals started off originally being legal guns. However, just like the thermonuclear war you so handily (if melodramatically) brought up, the proverbial genie has left the bottle and isn't going back in. The guns are out there, and it would seem foolish to take them away from law-abiding citizens when there's no way to get them all back from the criminals.
“Should I be able to purchase a Ryder truck filled with fertilizer and diesel fuel complete with a cell phone activated remote trigger?”
Well … you already can. (You might consider starting off a little smaller, though.) Which again makes it seem pretty pointless to ban guns, or for that matter RPG's and grenades, when someone can make a handy little building-killing bomb from readily available and legal-to-purchase materials.
22 April 2008 at 6:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Logan5 (Anonymous) says…
I am not a lawyer, but it appears to me that this legislation takes a step beyond justification by the usual rhetoric from the NRA about self defense and hunting. Under what valid and legal circumstances is the possession of these weapons justified by a private citizen?
22 April 2008 at 7:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Machine guns are fun.
And a very, very good investment.
A Thompson Auto-Ordnance M1A purchased when they were on sale in 1992 for a paltry $1250 will fetch $18-20K now.
An M11/9 Subgun which sold for $395 in the early 90s will now bring maybe $3K and certain models much more.
My “Pre-May” Bren which I sold for $4750 in 1993 would bring maybe $25K now.
You would be surprised if you knew how many banks made such investments and have vaults full of properly registered and legal machine guns.
22 April 2008 at 8:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Finding_Uranus (Anonymous) says…
“Under what valid and legal circumstances is the possession of these weapons justified by a private citizen?”
Kind of along the lines people can call President Bush a war criminal and General Patreaus a traitor….same basic concept of the constitution.
22 April 2008 at 9:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
crepinsekz1 (Anonymous) says…
Some of yall are completely ignorant. Why do people need automatic weapons… there just gonna go around killing tons of people!!! idiots… like its so hard to make a gun automatic anyways you can easily and I say easily make any semi automatic gun automatic within 30 minutes if that. this law just allows law abiding citizens to acutally own automatic weapons without being scared of getting 10 years in prison… and why would we want automatic weapons? there not good for hunting. just killing people!!….how about just shooting them have you ever shot a gun there lots of fun now imagin being able to just unload on a target range it would be ungodly.. so all you uptight jerk offs need to just keep quite..
22 April 2008 at 9:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tutulee (Anonymous) says…
Machine guns and silencers ARE used to kill people efficiently. That's why those who would prefer not to compromise in their self defense prefer them.
It's just my opinion, but I feel that the the problem here that is getting everybody so emotional is largely a difference in life experience. As mentioned before, those living in extremely rural areas could benefit from owning an assault rifle with a can at the end. They must be prepared to protect themselves from a wider range of possible threats than those living in urban environments in addition to not having immediate access to law enforcement to deter and respond to criminality. This is the reality they live with and many people have think their preparedness is paranoia because they differ in their life experience.
Admittedly, few people can afford true machine guns (as differentiated from assault rifles), but I doubt that this legislation serves as a slippery slope. Anti-gun proponents often talk about a slippery slope of lethality in which they perceive a future in which people can legally purchase mortars, anti-tank missiles, explosives, etc in the name of self defense. I'm not sure if this slippery slope actually exists because if it did at a state level I suspect that far more conservative states would have passed such legislation already and their citizenry would already be stocking private arsenals.
Ultimately, I suspect the truly self-defense oriented person is very much satisfied with owning an assault rifle because the physical threat they perceive they must prepare against is not the government or Al Qaeda (although they are popular targets in conservative pop media) but the common violent criminal. Given this threat criteria, it is not inappropriate for this person to want the best weapon for the task given their situation, which in many cases may be an assault rifle.
Keep in mind that the the AR-15s that are most commonly purchased by the civilians are not fully automatic and can be had between $800-$2000 (check gunbroker.com). These are already accessible to the general public, much more so than a fully automatic machine gun in terms of background checks, tax paperwork and sheer price tags ($20,000 for an M249 seems an unrealistically low asking price) so I am a bit perplexed when people claim that machine gun crimes are going to increase significantly when crimes committed by legal assault rifle owners are extremely rare as it is.
22 April 2008 at 9:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
There is no “slippery slope”.
Private legal ownership of short barreled shotguns, suppressors (silencers to you!), short barrelled rifles, machine guns and that nefarious category, “Any Other Weapon”, as well as Destructive Devices has been 100% legal in this country since 1934.
Stuff it!
22 April 2008 at 10:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cool (Anonymous) says…
the road to perdition
the new hotel & condo tower
http://www2.ljworld.com/photos/galleries…
www.oreadinn.com
22 April 2008 at 10:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Rationalanimal (Anonymous) says…
Just when I thought Sebillius good be any dumber, she goes and totally redeems herself.
22 April 2008 at 11:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
redneck (Anonymous) says…
This is for law abiding citizens who can pass a background check. The criminials can already buy these weapons as long as they have enough money. They ignore the laws, that is why they are called criminals. Oh that is right, the concealed-carry law was supposed to allow wackos to pack heat. That didn't happen. It simply made the criminals wonder who might pull out a gun and shoot their ass when they decide to hold up the neighborhood liquor store. There is nothing wrong with putting a little fear into the criminals. I say it's about time somebody got it right. Oh yea, somebody might want to have silincer on their gun so they don't go deaf after target practicing. Same reason the law tells us to have a muffler on our vehicles. Happy shooting boys and girls.
22 April 2008 at 11:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Cool:
I see that you are back on track now!
princeobama.com
23 April 2008 at 12:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
FunkyChicken (Anonymous) says…
Silencers: as stated, they make guns less loud and more accurate. The cops use them so they aren't deafened in a SWAT situation, and we normal people use them because they make guns less loud. Unless it's a 22, they're still loud.
Military weapons: the 2nd amendment is specifically about guaranteeing the right to own and operate military weapons. As to why you'd want a machine gun? They're fun, but expensive to shoot. If it wasn't for the stupid 1984 gun ban, they'd cost about the same as semi. Don't worry about criminals getting them - they've already got them.
23 April 2008 at 9:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jafs (Anonymous) says…
While there may be some truth in the “criminals have everything, so why take guns away from law-abiding citizens?” argument, there is a slight hole in it as well.
The students responsible for the various school shootings were not “criminals” - they were troubled young people. If they hadn't had access to serious weapons, they probably wouldn't have committed those crimes.
Also, the other argument against everyone having guns is:
Two people (or more) get into an argument at a bar which turns violent.
a. They have their fists/beer bottles.
b. They have semi-automatic weapons.
Which scenario is likely to result in more tragedy?
23 April 2008 at 12:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Tattoos are disgusting and repugnant; merely primitive body ornamentation left over from equally primitive religious practices.
I am especially amused by those who get tattoos which depict Chinese or Japanese characters which they later find out say something like, “I am a smelly dead fish”!
Now can we get back to machine gun chatter?
I am especially fond of the Thompson 1921/28 Navy Overstamp version.
Whattya think?
23 April 2008 at 12