Hundreds of the weapons advertised on KSL.com classifieds are rapid-firing military weapons with pedigrees from around the world.
The proliferation of these weapons, based on military designs, including the ubiquitous AK-47 by Mikhail Kalashnikov, have become wildly popular among shooting enthusiasts. And that popularity is a grave concern to gun-control activists.
"I don’t know how anyone can justify having one of those weapons," says Steven Gunn, a spokesman for the Gun Violence Protection Center of Utah. "Except their usual explanation that it is to ‘resist tyrannical government.’ "
I'm not sure what they mean by "rapid-firing." I suppose that can apply to any semi-automatic weapon. It fires as rapidly as you can squeeze the trigger.
The problem seems to always get back to this: how can we distinguish these undesireable weapons from the others which have more-or-less the same characteristics?
I'm certainly no expert, but I'm going to throw out a suggestion here. If the gun fires one of those scary, pointy bullets, it's banned. Would that work for ya?
Please leave a comment.
And again you prove just how stupid you are, please can you show me a picture of a bullet single bullet that you don't find scary?
ReplyDeleteI could show you probably 50 rifles (not "assault rifles") that fire that round......
But again its not about making the public safer, Idiot
""I don’t know how anyone can justify having one of those weapons," says Steven Gunn, a spokesman for the Gun Violence Protection Center of Utah."
ReplyDeleteIt's called a "Bill of Rights", not a "Bill of Things You Can Justify".
"The problem seems to always get back to this: how can we distinguish these undesireable weapons from the others which have more-or-less the same characteristics?"
The sales and popularity of said weapons disprove your belief that they are undesirable.
"If the gun fires one of those scary, pointy bullets, it's banned. Would that work for ya?"
No.
Since the Heller and McDonald cases were decided, it is unlikely that a federal ban on semi-automatic rifles would pass Constitutional muster (not that one had a chance of passing during the last congress, let alone now).
ReplyDeleteBTW - Such bans are already being tested in Parker v. District of Columbia (awaiting decision).
That said, 2 points. So called semi-automatic rifles are used in such a small fraction of crime, that any ban would have all but zero effect.
Second, while the media paints such rifles as some dangerous fringe category, they are in common use. The AR platform is the most common/popular rifle purchased today. Its as common as the lever action 30-30 of yesteryear. Plenty of people use them for target shooting, hunting, etc.
Once Parker is decided in Federal court (SCOTUS within next 2 years), its a done deal. Precedent often lasts decades, if not forever.
"If the gun fires one of those scary, pointy bullets, it's banned."
ReplyDeleteYou guys don't recognize Mike's sense of humor by now?
I find it funnier that Steven Gunn is a gunbanner.
Anonymous and AztecRed seem to think this is a popularity contest all of a sudden. It's not. It's about what's right and wrong.
ReplyDeleteTS is right. You over-zealous types have no sense of humor. (I think that's what he said.)
It's not. It's about what's right and wrong.
ReplyDeleteNope. Body counts are irrelevant. If you don't like the result of our culture, help fix the culture.
Right or wrong is basically 'rational basis' and been used to justify gun control since Miller.
It is unlikely to be held as the level of scrutiny when the case gets there in a year or two. Its about what's constitutional and what's not.