Tag Archives: assault weapons

national news

Rep. Cain: You’re the reason for stricter laws

Where I come from, when someone threatens another person by saying they have a deadly weapon ready for them, the person to whom he or she is speaking can take that as a direct threat to their health and safety.

So, on Thursday night when former U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke said “hell yes, we’re going to take away your AR-15, ” he received a Twitter-borne threat from Texas state Rep. Briscoe Cain, who said “My AR is ready for you, Robert Francis.”

Is that a direct threat to the Democratic presidential candidate from a Republican Texas state lawmaker? Yep. I believe it is.

Is that also a clear demonstration of what O’Rourke is trying to say about enacting stricter gun laws to keep these kinds of weapons out of the hands of crazy people? Yes, sir! I believe that’s the case as well.

I am not going to say that state Rep. Cain is “crazy.” I am saying that he needs to be very careful about the threats he levels against a candidate for the presidency.

The FBI takes quite a dim view of people popping off carelessly while threatening physical harm to individuals running for public office.

national news

So, just who really needs an assault rifle?

2 Comments

Some of the weapons collected in Wednesday's Los Angeles Gun Buyback event are showcased Thursday, Dec. 27, 2012 during a news conference at the LAPD headquarters in Los Angeles. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's office says the weapons collected Wednesday included 901 handguns, 698 rifles, 363 shotguns and 75 assault weapons. The buyback is usually held in May but was moved up in response to the Dec. 14 massacre of students and teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)

Let’s talk about guns for a moment or two.

A Rhode Island congressman, Democrat David Cicilline, has pitched the Assault Weapons Ban of 2015 to his colleagues in the House of Representatives.

The ban has drawn the support of a number of Democrats. However, Republicans control Capitol Hill, which likely means the assault weapon ban won’t see the light of day.

Cicilline issued a statement: “Assault weapons are designed for the sole purpose of killing as many people as quickly as possible,” he told The Hill newspaper. “We need to do everything we can to reduce the toll of gun violence by keeping these weapons out of our communities.”

Here’s what I believe will happen to the bill, although I likely am wrong about some of the nitty-gritty details of the debate.

They’re going to tell us that the Second Amendment says categorically that the right to “keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” They’ll look past the first part of the amendment that talks about a “well-regulated Militia.” I’m not going to argue the point here, given that I believe the amendment was written poorly in the first place; it seems to contain a non sequitur … but that perhaps is just me.

The congressman’s bill would allow those who currently possess an assault weapon to keep it, but it could become difficult for someone to sell it.

So, does this proposed legislation water down the Second Amendment to an unacceptable level? I do not believe it does.

Then again, I’m not in Congress and I don’t have to listen to the wishes of constituents who think otherwise. In fact, an ABC News poll says Americans now oppose a ban on assault weapons, believing that authorities are unable to stop “lone wolf” attacks by someone toting an assault weapon.

Despite my concern about the verbiage contained in the Second Amendment, I accept the notion that gun ownership is a protected right. I own a couple of weapons. They’re hidden.

The notion I cannot accept is that assault weapons are part of the package envisioned by the Founders who wrote the Second Amendment — in the late 18th century.

Nice try, Rep. Cicilline.

national news, political news

Yes, guns do kill people

3 Comments

A 9-year-old Arizona girl has become the poster child for gun-safety reform.

This isn’t a pretty story and it speaks to adult stupidity and carelessness as much as it does to anything else.

The girl was firing an Uzi automatic assault rifle on a firing range when it the instructor told her to pull the trigger  to fire a several-round burst. The recoil of the Uzi pulled the weapon upward and the instructor was shot in the head. He later died.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/27/opinion/robbins-why-was-child-firing-uzi/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

And so here we are debating whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is so damn sacred that it prevents government from enacting laws that keep these weapons out of the hands of little children.

What on God’s planet Earth have we come to?

The debate is going rage on. Should we make such laws? Absolutely, we should.

Mel Robbins, a firearms expert, writes for CNN.com about the tragedy. She notes that the incident isn’t really the little girl’s fault. The instructor was standing in the wrong place. What’s more, the instructor told the girl to put the weapon in fully automatic mode.

What happened to the man is tragic beyond measure.

But what in the world are we doing allowing little children to handle these kinds of deadly weapons in the first place, even in what’s supposed to be a “controlled environment”?

As Robbins notes in her CNN.com essay: “Kids can’t drive until they’re 16, vote, chew tobacco or smoke until they’re 18, or drink until they’re 21. No child should have access to firing a fully automatic weapon until the age of 18. And gun ranges should know better than to hand one to a novice shooter passing through on vacation, let alone one as young as 9.”

The National Rifle Association so far has been quiet on this incident. Don’t expect the nation’s premier gun-owner rights group to remain silent. The NRA brass can be expected to come up with some kind of rationale for preventing the enactment of laws that keep guns out of little children’s hands.

In the process, the NRA very well could demonstrate — yet again — how out of touch with American public opinion it has become.