Home | About | Donate

Can We Do Anything About Murderous Assault Weapons?


#1

Can We Do Anything About Murderous Assault Weapons?

Bernie Horn

The murderer in Orlando on Sunday used a Sig Sauer version of the AR-15 assault weapon. The story is so awfully familiar.


#2

Two problematic arguments ALWAYS erupt when sensible people try to ban these horrific assault weapons:

  1. NRA funded pundits and On-Line posters purposely blur the line between assault weapons and ALL guns as if the wish to limit any maniac's access to an assault weapon is the same thing as banning ALL guns (like those used for protection in persons' homes).

  2. Right Wing "Patriot Groups" insist that any governmental move to limit their access to guns is the same thing as Martial Law or its coming certainty.

And since the NRA and its conservative friends in corporate media relentlessly push #1, it's impossible for the public to hear a fair analysis. Then, too, with the NRA funding Conservatives, they will continue to conflate personal freedom with "the right" to own ANY GUN including these military-like assault weapons that have no place on this nation's streets (or in its homes, movie theaters, post offices, churches, or gay clubs, etc.).


#3

The NRA funds almost every member of Congress. Everyone's afraid of them.


#4

I would settle for requiring that all gun owners carry liability insurance that follows the weapon until sold through a licensed (doing background checks) broker. I'd also settle for requiring that assault weapons be kept at closed ranges, if folks insist on being able to make that one remotely defensible use of them.


#5

Can the USA do anything about murderous assault weapons?

Well, one could make their ownership illegal, punishable by life imprisonment. After all, with the modern surveillance state at work the powers-that-be probably knows who owns them. Just check credit card purchases and then declare the guns illegal and give people a two-week amnesty to turn them in before knocking on doors at 4am and digging up gardens to find the guns.

Oh; sorry. It's the Land of the Free.


#7

Why not go further and ship those people to Alaska or the Arizona desert to some forced labor camp? Do the same with those who complain too much and don't fall in line. Might as well go all the way...


#8

When the 2nd Amendment was written there were no assault or semiautomatic weapons. When it was written guns were simple primitive things that had to loaded one shot at a time. I don't think the authors of the Bill of Rights had anything like that in mind when they laid out that inalienable right.


#9

They also had town criers and limited publications for media. Is that to say that free speech and expression should be limited on the basis that the founders didn't foresee satellite television and the internet?


#10

Until we can think for the collective instead of our own selfish self promotion, nothing can be done about this.

Alternatively, the scientific invention to neutralize this instrument may just be around the corner


#11

A case could be made, but me, I put weapons of mass murder in a slightly different category from town criers and other early mass communication techniques. The best thing about the US Constitution is its amendability to deal with changes that come up as the future unfolds (or unravels) no matter how many innocent bystander lives might be spared. But it looks as if those people who feel somehow threatened by any limitation on gun buying still don't want that, so we can look forward to many more motiveless mass annihilations with assault weapons.


#12

Let's just stick to a good flogging following by tarring and feathering and being ridden out of town on a barrel.

Whatever the disincentive, those guns should be made illegal and either handed in or if not handed in, they should be confiscated. This paranoia about tyranny that is used to support the blatherings of those who quote the USA's 2nd amendment is idiotic. The USA is already a happy little tyranny or haven't USAians read their news about surveillance by the state and watched the latest round of primaries for the POTUS election? All very third world and dictatorial with cops who kill without concern. Your personal firearms have stopped none of that., but they kill 15000 of you a year, which beats the rate at which the north Vietnamese army and Viet Cong killed the USA's grunts between 1965 and 1975.


#13

Sorry; one needs to be a colonel to work out that one.


#14

I lived in one of the more dangerous cities in the world for 12 years and did not feel the need to own a gun. It's an attitude of mind. The USA has a problem in its collective brain when it comes to guns.


#15

George 111 a man after my own heart!!! I have lived all over the globe, have rarely set eyes on a gun and am glad to say I would never live in the USA (visited once in 1967!).
What the article said to me was that the whole violent and individualistic attitude found in so many loyal Americans, allowing the constant attacks on other countries and bribing/forcing "allies" to designate enemies and apply the same sort of punitive actions, comes from the top. Solidarity among workers, diplomacy, seeing other points of view seem to be read as Unamerican. Force is the way, weapons must be big, bad and fast.

No wonder people at home feel afraid and want to "defend their values".


#16

Not to be argumentative but almost every member of Congress is funded by special interests - and many of those subvert public representation, cause the deaths of tens or hundreds of thousands of people annually or pollute our environment, and make Congress Members fearful to oppose them - take the pro-Israel AIPAC, big-oil & gas, big-pharma, and many others for example.........


#17

Well, yeah. But right now we're talking about assault weapons and the NRA.


#18

We can start banning our military from going overseas and killing brown people. They are the unwitting pawns of the elites that hold power in this country. Assault rifles are already banned in this country. What the media calls assault rifles are semi automatic rifles. Big difference. They are made to look like their military cousins for appeal. Banning high capacity clips would be a better start; limit to no more than five.


#19

Hardly. It's about the same mentality that's funded by the NRA and the Hollywood blood-lust that keeps War Fever a given within a segment of the population.

I HATE when people take what angry white males do and apply it to everyone else.

Even studies on HEART DISEASE are exclusively done on white men with the results then FALSELY generalized to "fit" women. And it doesn't work.

Just because the Anglo-European male--largely due to the advantages of gunpowder--assumed baboon-like dominance over all others hardly means that what is true for HIM is also true for all those he suppresses one way or another.


#20

Like i answered another poster on a different thread. I like to have the freedom to purchase a weapon or not. If there's people who abuse that freedom they, not the freedom, should be eliminated.

And trust me when i say it. If "the people", someday will feel that the their government turned oppressive, they will take care of that problem, weapons or not. Even tho weapons will help. I have seen it happen. It's not pretty and a lot people arevnot wanna be around when it happens. Those are usually the ones with screaming the loudest and pushing themselves to the front after.


#21

Not being USAian, but having lived instead in civilised countries all my life, all I can say is that if one is nuts about guns, only nuts will have guns. 15000 gun murders a year is indeed a statistic that one cannot be proud about. However, live with your myth about freedom: as they say, "yar welcome". The USA has thrown away its freedom during the last 16 years and no-one has done squat about it and it would appear that the gun-nuts are so paranoid about self-detonating Muslims that they support the removal of freedom.