By TTAG reader JR:

So Diane Fienstein is going to try to re-institute the “Assault Weapons Ban.” This infuriates me. But probably not for the reason you think. Let me explain . . .

For those of you who support this legislation, please enlighten me as to how it would make a difference. How it would actually protect people and make the country and it’s citizens safer.

There are 310 million guns in America, so they aren’t going anywhere.  There are always going to be guns.  Legal and illegal.  Period.

Due to our current laws, the sick individual who killed a bunch of innocent kids and adults last week was denied the purchase of a gun prior to his rampage. So like the criminal he was, he stole the guns he used. And ignored the fact that schools are gun free zones. Because he was a psychotic murder. Why does anyone think a new law would have changed his mind?

If Diane really wanted to make a difference, she would get serious about states reporting mental illness events/diagnoses to the FBI to be included in NICS background checks.  Because right now, the states don’t and the Federal government, who requires this information, doesn’t punish them for withholding it. How about withholding a little federal money from the states until they comply? Let’s see how quick that information starts flowing in.

Or equally important, help fund a trained, armed police officer in every public school. Most high schools have them, why not expand this to all public schools? And don’t tell me we don’t have the money for it. Call it “stimulus” for safety.

Take the money the federal government spent sending F-16’s, fixing religious buildings, etc. in Egypt over the last year alone and reinvest it here. That’s over one billion dollars of “foreign aid” by the way.  That would cover just over 20% of public schools with one officer (based on a 50k salary, and 98k public schools). One year of foreign aid to one country so cover 20% of public schools.

Those two actions alone would make a tremendous difference. But instead, we are going to argue about trying to get rid of “scary” looking guns. Because if you look at the details of what an assault weapons ban actually restricts, you might not find it so impressive after all. It’s mostly a bunch of cosmetic features. And if you still think it will make a difference, look at the AWB that California has and the guns you can still buy and be in compliance with the law.

And I forgot to mention — Connecticut already has an assault weapons ban. Just saying.

And above all else, please pray for the families who have lost a loved one. I think of the children of that age that I know, and the educators I know, and my heart breaks for their community. I know, despite my best efforts to show empathy, I will never understand their grief.  I am truly sorry for their loss.

Recommended For You

69 Responses to Instead of an Assault Weapons Ban, a Modest Proposal

    • Someone send this artical to Diane Fienstein. It probably won’t change her mind but at least she will have to read it and openly reject a real solution. The problem is that she doesn’t want to fix the real problem. She has her own agenda and it isn’t in the best interest of the children. It is about control and disarming law abiding citizens. She doesn’t believe in or respect the constitution she took a oath to protect.

      • I’ve sent letters to Feinstein. Her secretary does a good job of responding, but its a waste of time other than that. I don’t currently know of anyone in this world who favors an AWB or UN Arms Treaty more than she does.

        • If you’re not in the defense or intelligence industries, good luck getting Feinstein’s attention on anything of importance. She formed her social-issues opinions decades ago and hasn’t had an original thought since.

          The only person I’d like to see pushed out of office more than Feinstein, at this point, is Leland Yee. I fscking detest that guy.

        • I’ve got news for you – she doesn’t just want an AWB, she want’s ALL of ’em banned. As in no more guns, period, turn ’em all in, thank you very much.

    • Hey RF,

      How about an article about current CT gun laws and regulations on “assault weapons” there. Having this discussion daily with friends family and co- workers and all factual info re: the facts is useful

  1. 100% of all spree killers are mentally unbalanced and almost always, you find out they were seeing a psychiatrist for mental issues prior to their killing spree. Many of them sent a final message to their psychiatrist, posted online, or reached out in some manner prior to comitting their evil deeds.

    Why then, wasn’t their mental health status called into question in regards to their firearm ownership before the incidents? Is it that hard to check who is seeing a psychiatrist for certain illnesses that may call into question their mental fitness in regards to owning a firearm?

    What, then, is the point of the Mental Health check box on the form you fill out to buy a firearm if it’s never enforced for the duration of that person’s ownership of said firearm?

    The deterrent exists in the form of mental health assessment — it’s just not enforced and not effective at the moment. So fix that part of the process before you arbitrarily try to add more laws.

    • What, then, is the point of the Mental Health check box on the form you fill out to buy a firearm if it’s never enforced for the duration of that person’s ownership of said firearm?

      Read that line closer. It asks if you’ve ever been forcibly committed for a mental illness. Seeking voluntary treatment does not disqualify you – only being forced into treatment qualifies for that.

      • Well there you have it. The majority of people that end up going on sprees were not forcibly committed to undergo mental health treatment.

        Well duh, because they haven’t gone off the deep end yet. That check box is now acting just as effectively as the police when a spree is being committed, they tend to show up after the crime has resolved. So, that check box manages to stop people that have already snapped in the past. That’s nice, but that doesn’t help stop the current psychos (treated or not) from going on sprees does it?

        How does that help prevent anything?

        So the point here is to catch the people that are receiving treatment for their illnesses that are reasonable precursors and put that person that higher than average risk to committing violent crimes.

        • Well, yes, but then how do you deal with people who aren’t dangerous to others and seeking voluntary treatment? They’ll be automatically banned from purchasing guns. Sorry, but being depressed and non-violent should not be grounds for losing a Constitutionally protected right.

        • @totenglocke

          Well, I never said I wanted all depressed people or anyone seeking treatment to be banned from their own firearms.

          I said anyone that was mentally compromised and showing signs of potentially violent tendencies should be checked to see if they legally owned firearms and if they were easily accessible. It’s just being responsible.

          It’s the same idea as taking any weapons away from a suicidal person. First you diagnose the problem, then you make sure they have nothing in their possession that could escalate their condition to a worse outcome.

          And it’s not like they would be banned from firearms for life. If their mental condition warranted that their firearms should be relocated (temporarily) and placed in safekeeping, then it could be stored by the local PD or given to relatives until the patient regained normal mental functions. If they are diagnosed as “fit” then they could just retrieve their arms without a fuss.

  2. Why spend billions on hiring new cops for the schools when every community in America has citizens like me in it. I’m retired, have a clean record and am x military. I would gladly donate my time and my sidearms to patrol my local schools.

    All the g would need to do is make it legal and maybe assign a sworn officer to oversee the volunteers in 10-15 schools. I will bet you’d have enough qualified volunteers to cover every school, including peivate schools in America.

    give the volunteers a marked vest or blazer and a radio or panic button to go along with their own privately provided sidearms.

    Try a pilot program for one school year and work out the bugs. Even if you completely banned all ebr’s today there’s enough in circulation to make it certain that they will continue to show up at these crime scenes.

    • One word simple answer why not: Liability

      I agree with you by the way, but the first time one of the armed volunteers shoots a Trayvon type thug who attacks him for fun, the shit will hit the fan.

      • JWM,
        With you all the way on this. This is a job for the militia.
        Perfectly suited as an armed deterrent. Al lwe need is for governors to authorize it.

      • jwm, I agree completely, but Joke & Dagger is correct. The only remedy is statutory immunity for civilian protectors, but that will happen in the reign of Queen Dick.

      • True, but I would hope that would be part of any such militia-run system. As in, we would benefit from some sort of protection from immediate prosecution just like the LEOs do today.

        Any DGU should be met with paid vacation while the investigation is underway to ensure the shooting was justified. And this should be a strictly volunteer assignment that has qualifications to pass to “sign up”. Obviously, the militia would want competent staff, not just any person that owns a gun.

    • This – I’ve been posting this the last couple of days. Let trained citizens volunteer to provide extra security at schools.

      Personally, as much as suburban soccer mom’s love to talk about how they’d “do anything to protect their children”, I think they should be jumping at the chance to volunteer to literally protect their child’s life.

    • I would join JWM here in CA on that job.
      I think Kennedy summed it up best, ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. JWM summed it up right there in one line on how to fix the issue, with very little out of pocket from local or federal government.
      If that isn’t a constitutionally conservative fix right there I don’t know what is!
      I understand the point of liability but seriously it is like the cops too. They are not liable, or at least most of the time they aren’t. I am sure there are many like us who would volunteer time and our sidearms to make our schools safer, but gasp! That means it isn’t a gun free zone anymore, OMG run for the hills!!!
      I am embarrassed to have Difi representing California. I am sure what ever she has cooked up it will pass the Senate. If the house dumps it, then you know they will blame the Republicans as wanting to kill our children. Forget the fact it will do nothing. Many of the killings Okios, VA Tech, Fort Hood, University of Texas, and Columbine, minus the TEC-DC9 did not use an AR or AK style firearm. Banning sporting rifles will do absolutely nothing! In fact in the latest shooting it appears he used a rifle, but had two pistols which would have done the job without the rifle. I can’t see any legislation making any difference.
      If they do pass something, then how will it be enforced? Will it have a grandfather clause? Will there be a forced confiscation? If we start seeing ATF going house to house it will get real bad real fast.

  3. How about using the $3 billion in annual aid we give to Israel to protect schools. What do you think about that? Oh, can’t do that! Only Egypt!

    • Oh gawd…. let’s stick with the people we fund who turn around and burn our flags and promote voilence against our country… then after that we can go after the ones who are actually our strategic allies and produce scientific, military and medical advances to the world. Why pick on Israel? Oh yea, cause that’s what passes for popular sport throughout history… kick the Jews…

      • Joe, we’ve bankrolled Israel for decades – there comes a point where you say “ENOUGH!”. It’s absurd that American taxpayers have to keep paying for Israel because they chose to live smack in the middle of millions of Muslims that want them dead.

        FYI, I’m against all foreign aid.

      • youre damned right.

        israel can f–k off.

        our founding fathers warned us against foreign entanglements and permanent alliances.

      • Maybe because of the way they have treated America after we give them all that aid, or maybe what they do with it. But I’m sure your right no one ever had a valid reason to say anything about a jew, they only ever say anything because they are anti-semites, right?

      • Not to mention the strikes they take on that we won’t touch. Israel’s the one ally we have in a region rife with countries that hate us. If we send foreign aid let it be to Israel. If there was ever a country that needs our foreign aid cut off it’s Pakistan.

  4. I would only support the central kook database if there is a suitable level of due process required to list someone as a kook and if there is a simple, accessible means to appeal and review one’s appearance on the list. I worry about winding up with something like the terrorist watchlist our fuzzy federales now maintain in the shadows. The potential for a abuse is just too high.

  5. Where is the line drawn? What constitutes a mental illness that would justify removing someones2A rights? A Veteran with PTSD? How about a person with mild depression taking meds? Are the right questions gonna be asked to ensure that someone is not labeled mentally ill just because of a little depression or social anxieties?

    There needs to be an sane until proven or adjudicated insane clause. Just like innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

    • I’m sure it not as difficult and some make it out to be to find certain red flag mental illness’ that all spree killers have in common to use as a guide to monitor to justify that currently useless Mental Health check box on gun forums….

      The obvious no-brainer mental health issues that should be red-flagged are:

      1. Violent behavior.
      2. Fantasizing about killing or hurting others.
      3. Severe self-loathing, suicidal thoughts.

      I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the majority of spree killers and their psychiatrists talked about some form of wish-fulfillment of going on a killing spree during their sessions. Did the psychiatrist know they owned firearms? Probably not. If they did, then they should be criminally liable in some way because that’s just irresponsible.

      If you are actively seeing a psychiatrist for anger management or violent behavior, well that doesn’t mean you’re the next spree killer. It just means you’re angry about something. Obviously, common sense has to come into play. If you’re full of self-loathing and suicidal, isn’t common sense practice that that person shouldn’t be around tools that they could use to end their life?

      If, however, someone is stupid enough to joke about going on a shooting spree in front of their psychiatrist, maybe they don’t need their guns in the first place.

      • Nothing is common when it comes to common sense. There was a post on this blog back on Nov 30th about the Bradyites fit over Sen. Coburns amendment of the National Defense Act. Link here:http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/11/robert-farago/coalition-to-stop-gun-violence-urgent-alert/

        The VA was declaring Veterans mentally incompetent. A VA determination is not grounds to lose 2A rights. There must be a legal process to strip a person of Civil Rights.

        • Oh I agree. I don’t think it should ever be an easy process to confiscate a firearm from someone without due cause and process. However, there should be certain scenarios where guns should be confiscated sooner rather than later.

          I’m talking about situations where the person in question is irrefutably mentally or emotionally compromised and potentially violent (either to themselves or others).

          That’s very specific and not something that can readily be abused. They need to be all of those things at once to even start the conversation of “does this person have readily available access to firearms or other weapons?”

          There is no logical reason why people in the above situation should have access to a gun, let alone anything else they can use to inflict harm on anyone else.

          Course, this doesn’t really help against people that just “snap” and go from sane to insane in a matter of minutes with little or no warning. But there really isn’t much we can do about that. But deeply disturbed people are easy and obvious candidates for a second look and analysis.

    • Also, people may not seek help if they know the stigma of seeing a psychiatrist will result in their guns being confiscated. That stigma prevents people from seeking help today in fear of many other consequences. I truly believe however that these mass shootings, single killings even, and suicides are mental health related. How many kill their mothers and fathers? How many suicides are there a day? They just don’t get the sensational press. Focusing on “assault weapons” is meanlingless BS because the problem goes deeper.

  6. Any politician who spends any time on any-freaking-thing before there are armed guards in every school rates just about the killer in my opinion.

    • Right, let’s start protecting our children with the same means we use to protect banks and jewelry stores.

      Work on mental illness policies by all means, but let’s make our schools places where murderers fear to tread.

      I really do feel that, in as much as the killer is to blame, the State willfully left hundreds of children defenseless and vulnerable to attack.

      Some responsibly has to rest on the schools failure to protect the children in its care.

      If as many children had died in a fire, and we found out the school had no alarms or extinguishers, we would be justly outraged at their negligent irresponsibility.

  7. Any attempt by government to confiscate the 300 million guns already in private hands will lead to civil war.

    Those who will not fight, will sell their guns to those who will.

    Confiscation will open up a black market bigger then the one for drugs.

  8. How about allowing teachers to carry after they had a competent mental health screening? The principal & a teacher gave their lives to stop & shield. Although I think the principle was responsible for the innept security. I have no doubt either one would have empied a handgun into the face of that piece of work./// As to reporting/ cataloging mental illness, so what? Oh yeah, that will sure stop a psycho. Lots of CC holders would volunteer as has been posted. Wheres old Wayne when need him, Randy

  9. How about using the $15 Billion we spend every year on the stupid “War on Drugs” or the $2 Billion we waste each year on the ATFE?

    Can’t afford it? Somehow we could afford ONE TRILLION dollars to create Islamic Republics in the Middle East full of millions of people who, with some good reason, hate us even more than they did before!

  10. ***”If Diane really wanted to make a difference, she would get serious about states reporting mental illness events/diagnoses to the FBI to be included in NICS background checks. Because right now, the states don’t and the Federal government, who requires this information, doesn’t punish them for withholding it. How about withholding a little federal money from the states until they comply? Let’s see how quick that information starts flowing in.”****

    Im afraid to say that this act is logistically impossible.

    I plumbed the library database at my local university last year researching for a term paper on gun control. During the research process I discovered some fascinating government documents, one of which was a GAO hearing convened by Congress to review the Brady Background Check system’s effectiveness after 10 years.

    Testimony was offered by many agencies which reinforced what i’m about to share, but the most moving speech was given by a representative of the Illinois State Police. She revealed that their department-one of the largest LE agencies in America-was backlogged FIVE YEARS with accumulated mental health and criminal warrant paperwork which had yet to be sent to the FBI for inclusion into the NICS system. It seems that while generating paperwork and arrest warrants for mentally disturbed and traditional bad guys is easy , physically getting the documentation to the FBI presents severe logistical problems. Police departments don’t have the manpower to comb through the paper stack, and the FBI’s database is only as strong as what info they receive. This is based off of just the State of Illinois, BTW. Factor in nationwide backlogs across the country, and you’d need an entirely separate Federal Agency dedicated to processing and combing through the paperwork to maintain the Brady System. Without billions of dollars created to make a bureaucracy from scratch which would essentially be an American KGB, the Brady System is doomed to remain a paper tiger. If someone breaks bad tomorrow , it could take **months*** before the record of arrest makes it to the FBI!

    That’s why the Brady system needs to be shut down. Its tasked with a mandate which is logistically impossible to execute within the bounds of the Constitution.

    • The Illinois Representative is correct as to warrants, but most of the people those warrants charge are already banned through the NICS. The involuntary commitment paperwork takes essentially no time because the final say lies with the admitting physician. In many states, including Maryland, that paperwork is hustled along to the Feds. Further, and based on anecdotes I’ve heard, physicians are quite eager to force an involuntary commitment (rather than allow the patient to sign themselves in) when the patient has been brought in due to suicide threats, mentioning or using guns. This is probably an excellent idea.

      Suddenly all the politicians have forgotten the Army Major physician who launched a spree killing. They also brush aside the children treated as mere ‘collateral damage’ to our efforts to change by bloodshed the entire culture of a region on the other side of the world. It’s all a smokescreen for the desire of governors to wish the governed disarmed. We apparently can’t count the bloodshed abroad because that would conflict with policing an empire. Personally I’m glad China hasn’t decided Mexico needs a few Chinese divisions to put an end to the Cartel Culture. They have every right, if our example is to be followed.
      Were mental health the true concern, they’d have reprogrammed a few billion a year from foreign wars to domestic mental health systems. They would have paid for public service announcements warning parents of unstable teens and young men to keep no guns in the house without a safe. “If your young man has given up on school, work, or family but has taken up the hobby of shooting-for-amusement, secure your damned guns.

  11. The mental health problem is far more complicated than that. Mental health professionals are currently TERRIBLE at predicting if a person is going to be violent or not. People are too damn complicated and too much is unknown right now. Three things are needed: research, research, and more research. Oh, and fewer psychiatrists being able to see and/or acknowledge the limits of their expertise and abilities, but we see that in some firearms instructors, too, so it ain’t limited to the MDs.

    • Not true.

      If anything, the mental health process currently in place is too lenient. They don’t want to be counter-sued in sue-happy America so more often than not, they are too afraid to tell it how it is and declare anyone “unfit” if it’s not PC.

      Welcome to America without balls to do what should have been done.

      All these spree killers didn’t suddenly “flip out” without warning. All the signs were there. Deeply disturbed individuals with severe attitude problems, violent tendencies, etc. Plain as day. The problem is society. Those closest to those spree killers prior to their final act probably knew they had problems, they just didn’t want to deal with it and of course they had no idea how disturbed they really were. Instead, our society should educate themselves on mental illness and learn the warning signs and start keeping a lookout among ourselves starting with our loved ones. I wonder if the mother of the Connecticut killer saw his mental break coming but loved her son too much to believe it (or was just hoping he would change or get better).

      Read “A Gift of Fear” by Gavin De Becker. Almost all cases of violence and mental illness have clear warning signs — we just don’t recognize them. It’s not a matter of people flipping out, it’s a case of people not educating themselves about these warning signs, recognizing them and taking action (ie. the Connecticut shooter was probably a perfect example of a psychotic long before his spree).

  12. My thinking is that there are two situations that someone should have a temporary ban on buying firarms.

    A) If someone shows that they are either an imminent threat to themself or others then this should be reported to prevent them from buying firarms or unless the patient can show through 2 other doctors that they pose no threat. This temporary ban will expire after 1 year unless the doctor renews that ban.

    B) If a physiatrist prescribes a psychiatric drug. From the date of where the prescription ends plus 1 year the person will have a temporary ban. To get this lifted the doctor must sign off saying theat the patient shows no imminent threat to themself or others and is not showing any withdrawl symptoms. For every refill, the doctor must renew that ban.

    Note this is only my thoughts, and with data showing that there is a very strong correlation to psychiatric drugs and mass shootings (http://www.cchrint.org/2012/07/20/the-aurora-colorado-tragedy-another-senseless-shooting-another-psychotropic-drug/), having a temporary ban could help from firearms getting into the hands of those that are unstable or have the potential (due to drugs) to show a threat.

    • Do you realize how many folks take psychiatric drugs? Look it up then think about how completely asinine your “B” statement is. Have you ever dealt with mental illness?

  13. The Fed last week decided to spend 45 billion dollars A MONTH monetizing the debt. Every month. Ya think we could spend something on school security or training up civilians.

  14. I agree that bans are asinine, but if one is set on thinking that they arent, “State X already has an AWB” is an easy argument to punch holes in. The reply is just “Yeah, but state Y doesn’t. Crims will just buy them there.”

  15. We can’t protect our presidents from being killed, so the rest of us have no chance of being “guaranteed” any type of safety from some whacked out killer. If someone really wants to kill you or anyone else, you’re most likely going to die. This nut killed these innocent children and adults and there’s no law or person or anything that could have prevented this tragedy. If we ban guns then we only create more potential victims for criminals to murder at will. I can’t even watch the photos of these poor children on the news without wanting to cry.

  16. I would like to add to the discussion: all politicians who advocate to take away our rights to have weapons available to defend ourselves cannot have a carry permit of their own nor access to or use of police/private security. After all, if they are really ready to lead us in this fight, we should expect they will voluntarily demonstrate their leadership and show us how to live life without fear of personal attack or harm to our loved ones. No funds can be allocated to their personal safety because we are confident that their selfless act will demonstrate how safe the world is.

  17. If we prevent those with mental health “problems” from owning guns, then I guarantee the government will start making everything a “mental health problem.” Don’t give Feinstein any ideas.

  18. I’m with Dirk, and I’d like to see obama get rid of his SS and walk down any street in his own hometown alone.

  19. awb ban didnt work before and studies prove ccw does. spend the money on mental health which was lost in the deinstitutional drive in 70’s. read clayton cramer blog for more.

  20. Get rid of TSA, arm every pilot, put guards in every public school (and allow current school employees to be screened and qualified to double as guards).

    Or maybe hire vets to do it. Screen them, train them, post them.

    -D

  21. “If Diane really wanted to make a difference, she would get serious about states reporting mental illness events/diagnoses to the FBI to be included in NICS background checks.”

    So, we’re gonna count on crazy political actors… to determine who is, or is not ‘crazy’ and keep a database and put anyone on a database without any judicial review, but a bureaucratic administrative one?

    If you were against oBUSHmaCare for all the right reasons, where’s the logic in labeling people crazy, to be determined by other crazies?

    Despite just how much the SSRI pill pimps want to delude, Psychology/Psychiatry is NOT a “science.” The modern field of psychology originated with the eugenics movement at the turn of the 20th century to determine who should or should not procreate; they wanted to give a ‘scientific’ gloss propagandize to the rest of the citizenry who are, or are not fit for society. And, its origins are alive and well today. At best psychology is a relatively intuitable observation of human behaviors, plus or minus stimuli, with huge x-variable of human will that will NEVER make any experiment 100% repeatable, as is in the case of REAL sciences, where if even an experiment is not repeatable ONCE, it’s deemed to be a failure. We live in a degenerate ‘magic pill’ culture of instant gratification; how else do you think there’s a rampant carnard about an inanimate object ‘causing’ violence??

    Govt database determining who is or is not ‘crazy,’ NO F’ng THANKS.

    Have you been paying attention to govt lately? These are the same morons who can’t balance a checkbook, and for their economic imbecility, after years of racking debt and fucking up, they want to raise taxes on us, AS IF, the new proposed taxes will apply to BILLIONAIRES?

    We live in a society of delusions where sheeple blindly trust various ‘institutions’ much too much. Psychology/Psychiatry who deem any energetic children’s behavior as a mental disease, should be the one field which should be suspect the most. And a govt who wants to use data from that said field built on social engineering and poorly constructed experimental models/algorithms to aberrant philosophical foundings, should NEVER be allowed. PERIOD.

    Anyone who pushes for ANY kind of govt data base, especially one based on aberrant human ‘philosophy’ to dictate and control actions of millions of Americans, should be dismissed, post-haste! PERIOD.

  22. “Bring back Patriotism and God to the classroom”
    Or fail in trying to ban the billions of inexensive metal boxes with springs in them.

  23. I am actually with you on this one. My son is getting ready for first grade, and I don’t understand why there are no cops at the school. Our local Sheriff has over 1800 officers, and there are only 178 schools in the county. It is clearly not a question of money.

  24. I am not versed in all aspects of this law but I keep hearing this term, “Connecticut already has an assault weapons ban”, and it confuses me. Wouldn’t the Bushmaster 223 have been considered an “assault weapon” under that law? And if so, how did the mother legally own it as the media has reported?

  25. Hey, this is just a drive-by from a pro-gun-control guy, and a Canadian to boot. So you’re free to ignore it.

    100% agree that mental health is the single biggest factor in this recent massacre. But it’s not the only factor.

    Can you hear yourself? You’re asking to stop foreign aid, and put a cop in every elementary school, all because you don’t want to relinquish the right to own quasi-military weaponry, guns that have no real use other than to wound/kill as many people at short range, as quickly as possible.

    No sane person expects that the US can ever be made into a gun-free society, so you can quit telling yourself that any attack on assault weapons will ultimately lead to a handgun ban or similar.

    The public interest is NOT served by the possession of large-magazine semi-auto by an untrained populace. It’s about time that a reasonable line is drawn. If assault weapons are essential to you, join the National Guard or the military and get the full package. It takes more than camo pants and a freakish gun to make you a warrior.

    As a parting gift, here’s an excerpt from some spam I received yesterday, which helps convince me I’m on the right track here: (get out your tinfoil…)

    The primary-school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, approximately 45 miles from the Colt Arms Factory, is just another one in the long line of government psyops designed to persuade the public to allow the government to take away their guns, and their means to defend themselves against the government and the banksters that the politicians really serve.

    The small children murders are designed to create hysterical emotions in women to get them to demand that guns are banned. If that doesn’t work they will continue with their evil agenda with worse and worse atrocities on younger children, until they get their way and disarm the people, so that they cannot fight back against government tyranny.

    Newtown is the U.S.A.’s Dunblane, which was orchestrated in Scotland in 1996 by the British establishment, to whip up hysteria in order to ban all handguns from the U.K. It was a follow-up to the Hungerford Massacre in England in 1987, which was carried out by mind-controlled Michael Ryan, who then shot himself so he could not be questioned, and it was used to ban semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.

    It’s always the same people behind it – the gun-grabbers who want the people to be defenceless against the gun-grabbers’ employers – the banksters who own all of the politicians. They get their politicians to pass legislation for them, in order to remove the people’s freedoms and means of defending themselves, and enslave them in a draconian police-state, under a mountain of debt, and then exterminate the useless-eaters.

  26. Well done Dan Zimmerman, almost as great as your article called “time to take a deep breath”. I think the lastest polls show that we, as a nation, are starting down the depression stage of loss, which means they are going to lose public support to a level around preshooting levels. Keep these articles coming.

  27. Also, it could be argues that hand guns are potentially more dangerous than assault rifles simply because the person is able to conceal a handgun, thereby people are unaware of the presence of a gun and less likely to stay clear of a person who decides to go on a murserous rampage…As far as the size of the clips and bullet capacity, any size clip you can find for an assualt rifle you can practically find for handguns…hell I have four high-capacity magazines, that hold 20 rounds a piece, for my 9mm Sig P226. On top of that I can easily fit the other three magazines I’m not using in all of my pockets…seems like the government is still (with all of the advancements in knowledge) completely incapable of using common fucking sense.

  28. Impressed by the lay out and the arguements against an assault weapons ban as I’m all for responsible ownership, but how do assault weapons help our society? Are they really needed, or do you think they are just a result of our rights the 2nd Amendment affords? Please explain.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *