Comments on: Link to my Roanoke Times column on Harrisburg show

By: patriot paddler

patriot paddler — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 20:51:47 +0000

Mark- I’m sure it’s possible that George III, Hitlary, DiFi and BO could all be sippin’ tea together on his deck at this very moment. Hell, he probably even invited them all down for some “private” trout fishin’ on “his” river. And I’m sure they would all be surrounded and protected with REAL live “assault” weapons. A tool that they certainly don’t want any of their “subjects” to possess.
Yep, the “King” seems to have plenty of his town criers promoting his agenda these days. Let me clarify that for the “subjects” that refuse to acknowledge or don’t understand the term. The true definition of an “assault weapon” is one that is capable of FULL automatic fire. PERIOD. That’s all. Anything less is NOT an assault rifle, regardless of color, accessories, mag size or caliber. Use any acronym you like but DO NOT call it an assault weapon. I have fired both so don’t attempt to feed me a line of emotionally charged political BS. You can put mag wheels, a hood scoop and a Chevy emblem on a Hyundai but it will NOT perform like a Corvette. BTW, with the proper license you can also own a true fully automatic firearm. To demonize, criminalize or steal the rights of millions of law abiding citizens is no less a crime then those committed by a few murderous lunatics.
And please, don’t ask anymore stupid questions like; “We register cars don’t we?” “You need a license to drive don’t you?” “Your liable for your car aren’t you? NO, NO and NO. Thousands of hi-perf cars, motorcycles and boats are privately exchanged everyday with nothing more then a handshake to seal the deal. If I sell you a NASCAR and YOU choose to drive it on a public road and hurt or kill someone, YOU go to jail not me. You do not need a license to use a racing car/boat/bike on your property, some public property or any tracks. You don’t need a license to play football or skydive, but you can die doing any of this. Last year alone 700 Americans were killed by “illegal aliens” operating cars with no/ fraudulent drivers licenses. There are already more than 20,000 laws pertaining to firearms. Do we really need more? DO YOU THINK A CRIMINAL OF ANY TYPE WILL ABIDE BY ANY OF THEM?
On the sports show, they chose to make a purely political statement. Other Americans that still hold to our values, our Constitution and even our oath, made their statement. I believe rightfully so by boycotting such nonsense.
On school security, do as some states already have. Allow teachers/staff with hunting/firearm experience to carry undercover. That means everything from a personal sidearm to a 12 ga locked safely in a janitors closet. Ever wonder how many maintenance men, gym teachers or custodians are hunters, ex-military or retired LEO?
Finally, for all the “subjects” and like minded politicians, ask the right questions for a change. “Were any of these criminals on a psycho-active prescription drug?” (If accounts are correct I believe most of them were). Since there seems to be some conflicting reports, “Where is the school security video to verify the weapon(s) used?” Before we go on a witch hunt shouldn’t we have all the facts? Can it really be considered justice if we steal everyone’s rights because of the crimes of a few?” “Why isn’t the USAG being charged for all the “straw” purchases he allowed to happen”??
“When the law breaks the law, there is no law” Billy Jack 1972 I think
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety” Ben Franklin
“The Patriot Act took away far, far more than this gun legislation does. Were you all this irate then?”
Good point Sandi, maybe this last hysterical rant about stealing even more of our rights was just, as they say, the last straw.

By: Huntersdad

Huntersdad — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:17:05 +0000

Sandi we are in agreement that the armed guard thing is not very practical (and not likely to happen) ,but I am stuck on the idea as at least the quickest deterrent we could put in place to maybe prevent the next one. When I compare it to another piece of legislation that will do nothing of the sort as it is just more words written down on paper, said legislation pales in comparison in my opinion.
And thanks for standing up for the Sunday hunting issue, again we agree on something.

By: Sandi Saunders

Sandi Saunders — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 13:38:42 +0000

Well Huntersdad, I appreciate that you want hard bricks to throw at me but I answered as honestly as I can. I do not think an armed guard in every school is practical (or going to happen) and I do not see it as any more safe or “foolproof” than the ban on these weapons (also not going to happen) and ending their carte blanche as the machismo “Rambo” choice for maniacs. Either could be equally effective IMO.

I do not believe that the Constitution (or Americans) would allow a gun ban or confiscation and while I support regulation, oversight, restrictions and limitations on some weapons, I cannot agree that people should be disarmed in their homes. (Or even in all cases, in public). I am well aware of the world we live in. I even believe felons should have the right to a gun in their home for self defense. I hold that as a right above the law if you need to know.

BTW, gun advocates, here is your chance to prove me wrong and stand up for the hunters who have so staunchly stood with you…

http://blogs.roanoke.com/roundtable/2013/01/logic-and-continuing-the-sunday-hunting-ban/

By: Huntersdad

Huntersdad — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 03:43:04 +0000

Sandi, I appreciate the lengthy response to my question of you, but you kinda sorta didn’t REALLY answer it. Do you have an opinion one way or the other which choice would have a better chance of preventing or at least lessening the carnage of the next Sandy Hook, the reinstatement of the old AWB with some new teeth, or armed guards at the schools? Even if the new/old legislation passes, there are still millions of guns available with high capacity clips that could be used in the next massacre, you pointed that out to me in your response. To me, nothing short of a total ban and collection of every weapon in the country will prevent such a thing from happening again and we both know that will never happen nor do I want it to.
. And besides, after the guns disappeared the nuts would turn to other means like fire bombs or explosives to commit mass murder.
Meanwhile, this debate goes on in the White House, in the halls of Congress, in the coffee shops, at the water coolers, right down to the humble bloggers like us and nothing is acually being done to protect the children of this country from the next nut with a gun. And to me that is truly sad…..we as a country are better than that, and these children deserve more than just empty arguments and meaningless legislation. At least that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong.

By: The Amatuer

The Amatuer — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:01:02 +0000

Just a thought wasn’t the lever action rifle was te assault rifle of it’s day in 1873?

By: Mark Taylor

Mark Taylor — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 15:55:35 +0000

Stephen – I’ve been called an egghead, but I think I prefer good egg! I’m not paranoid. I think of it more as a healthy combination of cynical and pragmatic based on an appreciation of (and higher education in) history, sociology and psychology. So, no worries about not being able to get a handle on me! I’m not easy to define!

By: Sandi Saunders

Sandi Saunders — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 14:07:20 +0000

Huntersdad, I believe my comment “I can appreciate the sincere belief that guns matter so much and having any you like even more so”, clearly says that I “appreciate the sincere belief that I should have the right to choose for myself whether or not I own one of these weapons and a thirty round clip to put in it”. Do you have any idea how many people in this nation sincerely believe they should be allowed to smoke pot at their leisure without having some hypocrite wanting to make that choice for them?

Society makes the laws it wants the society to live by. YOU claim this “tragedy should not give the federal government a free pass to take away my rights, liberty and freedoms to make those choices for myself”, but in reality, the government and our laws always has done so, in many matters. The Patriot Act took away far, far more than this gun legislation does. Were you all this irate then? Did you fight to cancel those efforts?

You do not know that “the proposed new gun control will do nothing to prevent the next Newtown” any more than you know “immediately placing trained, armed resource officers in every public elementary and high school in the nation” will. This is an effort to curb what we see as a disturbing trend and a weapon that has mass potential for abuse going forward. I do not even think it will succeed but the irate rhetoric and IMO dishonesty many gun advocates argue with is truly telling.

Claiming this effort will “take away my rights, liberty and freedoms” is more than a little hyperbolic. There will still remain hundreds of guns available for personal self-defense, sport shooting and hunting. Not to mention the guns already in millions of homes. You know this.

By: Sandi Saunders

Sandi Saunders — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 13:51:43 +0000

Bubba Greene, I really believe those people you claim “are hot on the trail of new gun regulations” have sold more guns than the NRA efforts. I also believe that no comprehensive gun control legislation will be passed, which means that whomever may not “want to stop with just 30 round magazines and Armalite style rifles” will have to do so. IMO, the objective here is to remove (or make it harder to get) the guns that seem to most appeal to the angry tyranny fighter and mass shooter. Everyone is well aware of the Constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms. Oddly enough, even us “gun control advocates” support that right, we just do not agree that it is or should be limitless and unregulated.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 13:47:06 +0000

Good questions Bubba. I answer “yes” to all 3. I have absolutely no fear of the gun control movement. I have no panic that someone will take my firearms. I have no doubt that I will eventually be able to purchase that bolt action .22 squirrel gun I’ve wanted for years.

My hunting is not about the weapon. I enjoy the woods and water, and I enjoy eating game, which brings me to my tangible fears. Such things as climate change, mountain top removal, fracking, etc. scare the hell out of me.

I do not know the answers to my following questions. Perhaps they have been addressed earlier.

Machine guns were banned sometime in the 30s, I think. Was this ban detrimental to future ownership of firearms and our gun rights?

What is the sentiment among the military and law enforcement on all this?

And as far as Mark declaring victory for those standing against unfair judgment, I don’t think there were any champions. It is possible to engage in a tinkling match and both sides end up stained and wet. I am still trying to figure out our honored outdoor writer. Is he paranoid; is it a facade of paranoia/solidarity to preserve his following, and what exactly can be extracted from between his lines? I think he is a good egg but damned if I can get a handle on him.

Peace.

By: Mark Taylor

Mark Taylor — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 13:41:51 +0000

Nino — I didn’t say the S&W wasn’t an assault rifle. My “nope” was the answer to the assertion that it CLEARLY is one. My point is there is nothing clear about it. Does that pistol grip on the S&W give that rifle a practical advantage over the Browning in certain situations? Probably. But, really, as you pointed out, the guns are more alike than not. The magazine capacity is the big difference. The Browning comes with a 4-round magazine; the S&W a 10-round. That particular S&W is in .300 Whisper/.300 AAC Blackout, a relatively short-range cartridge.

You astutely pointed out the marketing aspect. That’s actually a really big part of this whole equation. The truth is that gun manufacturers have helped strengthen the image of military- and police-style firearms as tough guy guns through marketing. It’s no different that RAM telling me that I will be tough if I buy one of their trucks, of Lexus telling me I will be suave if I buy one of their luxury sedans. I’m betting the marketing departments are working on new campaigns, and suspect we’ll see less of a focus on the “manliness” aspect of ARs and more of a focus on the Second Amendment and protection (of self and home).

Oh, the price. The S&W has an MSRP of $1,119; the Browning $1,299 to $1,359.99, depending on caliber. Of course you can buy the Browning, but good luck finding the S&W!

BTW, Bubba, re: your comment about bidding $3,499 on a new Colt AR. Really?