Loughner judge wants gun/magazine confiscation

| December 22, 2012

Gabriel sends us a link to an Associated Press article in which the judge for the Jared Loughner trial, U.S. District Judge Larry Burns, writes in the Los Angeles Times that he supports confiscation of semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines;

So what’s the alternative? Bring back the assault weapons ban, and bring it back with some teeth this time. Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Don’t let people who already have them keep them. Don’t let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market. I don’t care whether it’s called gun control or a gun ban. I’m for it.

I say all of this as a gun owner. I say it as a conservative who was appointed to the federal bench by a Republican president. I say it as someone who prefers Fox News to MSNBC, and National Review Online to the Daily Kos. I say it as someone who thinks the Supreme Court got it right in District of Columbia vs. Heller, when it held that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to possess guns for self-defense. (That’s why I have mine.) I say it as someone who, generally speaking, is not a big fan of the regulatory state.

Blah, blah, blah. I’m not a big fan of regulations…well….except one that ignores the bill of rights. Does the judge relish the idea of making criminals out of people who’ve never broke a law in their life until his wish list of gun control measures take effect? Hiding behind Republican credentials doesn’t make him right, either.

Some generous fellow offered me a “grandfather clause” for my weapons and magazines because I’ve been a good boy for the years since 1984 when I bought my assault rifle – as if my beliefs aren’t a principle and I can be placated because I’m just that selfish.

It’s become vogue in the anti-gun reactionary thugs crowd to call us cowards for clinging to our guns, but people like this judge are the real cowards, wetting their pants and wringing their hands over law abiding citizens with guns – citizens who haven’t committed crimes and have no intention to commit crimes with their guns. Well, until you make the guns illegal, that is.

Some of us have a need for weapons like the ones that the diaper-wearing crowd wants to ban. Prove I don’t.

Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists

Comments (79)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Sniper111 says:

    I’ll hang on to mine and fight if they come to take them.

    Democratic Party officials are already calling for the rounding up and extermination on 7 million Americans- one of the reasons I’m glad we still have a 2nd Amendment.


  2. NHSparky says:

    Nobody in the anti-gun movement can define “high-capacity” they can’t define “assault weapon” (although most hunting rifles have a lot more lethality/range than so-called “assault weapons”) and to go one step further than Franklin, aren’t even getting temporary safety from giving away their freedom, merely the APPEARANCE of temporary safety.

    Again, what we’re really hearing from the MSM and the Democrats (but I repeat myself) is, “HARRUMPH!! HARRUMPH!! HARRUMPH!!”

  3. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    The judge’s personal opinion carries no more weight than mine, yours, or that of anyone else. He is a willing tool of the lefties. If he were honest, he’d point out that rifles of any kind are used in relatively few illegal shootings, compared with handguns. But gun grabbing is a process and must start somewhere. So even though AR-15s, for instance, are rarely used to commit murders, they are said to be unnecessary for hunting, frightening in appearance, and are thus a good place to start the ban.

  4. Jonn Lilyea says:

    He should probably recuse himself from all future cases involving semiautomatic weapons since he’s already made up his mind about people who use those things.

  5. NHSparky says:

    The judge’s personal opinion carries no more weight than mine, yours, or that of anyone else.

    Sadly, it does, because while we present facts and logic that are read at best by a few thousand people, he pontificated his “feelings” in a newspaper read by a few million which will be picked up by other MSM outlets and disseminated to a few million more.

    Again, I wonder how the good judge “feels” about a Browning .300 WinMag versus a .223 Bushmaster or AR-15 style weapon? I’m not particularly eager to face a person using either one, but I know which one I’d prefer to face over the other.

  6. NHSparky says:

    Oh, and memo to Judge Burns–former SCOTUS justices Sandra Day O’Connor and David Souter were nominated by Republican presidents too.

    Just sayin.

  7. B Woodman says:

    Dear Judgie,
    You want ’em. YOU come & get ’em. Personally. Don’t send your bully boys, the po-po, or other multi-letter agency thugs to do your wish list for you. I. Want. YOU. To come to my doorstep. (evil smile).
    As the ad says, “We’ll leave the light on for you.”

  8. Spade says:

    “Nobody in the anti-gun movement can define “high-capacity” they can’t define “assault weapon” ”

    Yup. Had somebody say “30 rounds it too much.” Oh, well, is 29 okay than?
    Heard somebody say 15, old bill said 10, Brady’s and others have said 7, Cuomo or somebody said 3 (I guess we’re banning all revolvers now too).
    It’s just a ploy by people who want the real number to be 0.
    And, as a pro tip, the Austrian Army in 1780 was using a rifle with a magazine capacity of 22.

    Anyway, this judge forgets something about his second amendment rights. It isn’t about him defending himself. It’s about us defending ourselves from HIM.

  9. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    Some years ago, police all over the country were rightly upset that they were being outgunned by bad guys. Thus, small and large PD departments switched from revolvers to 16/17 round pieces. I do not recall a national uproar about that conversion. It made sense. If you’re up against a Glock, you don’t want to depend on a speed loader to return fire. Why should I or any other law-abiding person have to do so if the day comes when the weapon in our hand is the only thing between our death or the death of the bad guy?

  10. MAJMike says:

    Just ordered and additional 500 rounds of .45ACP and 1000 rounds of 9mm Parabellum. Seems 5.56mm and 7.62mm NATO are all sold out at my usual venues.

    Don’t think gun owners will go quietly into the night.

  11. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    @5. Sparky. I see your point. What I meant was that his writing is merely a personal opinion and is devoid of legal authority. He has volunteered himself to the left (his little writing was, after all, published in the LA Times) and they will certainly make the most use of him.

  12. 68W58 says:

    They think we’re bluffing. They can just come into our homes and take from us something that they irrationally fear and loathe and we’ll just meekly go along with that usurpation of our liberties. Not just to keep and bear arms, but also to be secure in our homes and persons from unreasonable search and seizure, rights that our forefathers fought long and hard to secure and preserve.

    We’re not bluffing.

    Molon Labe.

  13. Ex-PH2 says:

    Over-reacting? This early in the morning?

    Guys, guys, guys, simmer down. Judges are elected in most places. This one can lose his job, just anyone else.

    And Jonn’s absolutely right when he says this judge should recuse himself from any court procedures involving semiautomatic weapons.

    He should do that in any case involving any kind of gun used as a weapon because he is already prejudiced and has said so in writing. He has shown extremely poor judgment in publishing his opinion. I’d like to know what his opinion is on violent crimes where baseball bats or knives or axes are used as weapons. Is he going to say ‘ban baseball bats and knives and axes’?

    If you truly want to have an effect on people like that, you write a rebuttal and make it clear, as I have done many times, that anything can be used as a weapon, including a pot of hot grits and a cast iron skillet. I think the video of Abbate kicking and hitting that female bartender, which went viral, makes it pretty clear that hands and feet can be used effectively as weapns.

    Send a rebuttal to the newspaper where he published his opnion letter.

  14. CAVtastic says:

    I’m new here and I get the prevailing thoughts by everyone, but I have an honest question that I’m seriously trying to understand. Not trying to start any shit or anything….

    Why does anyone NEED an AR-15? Or comparable weapon. For instance, the original post says in closing “some of us have a need for the weapons like the ones (mentioned)”. I’m honestly wondering where anyone lives in the US that they need these types weapons. I get that bad guys will always have weapons, not making an argument against that, but I never really understood why every day people can get access to weapons that we have in the military or law enforcement. For instance, I saw a .50 cal sniper rifle at a gun show once….why? What on earth does a civilian need that for? Or as one guy posted above “NATO standard rounds”. Why?

    I’m just wondering what the overall theme is beyond “I like target shooting”. Don’t shoot the messenger (no pun intended) but these are the honest questions that a lot of America is asking right now and frankly the NRA is not doing a good job answering.

    Before anyone assaults me for being a hippie, I’m a serving 13 year army vet, republican, owner of 5 weapons. Just asking…

  15. Old Trooper says:

    Gov. Cuomo mentions the same thing. One of his suggestions would be either confiscation or mandatory buy back in New York State. Yeah, that’s reasonable; confiscate guns from law abiding citizens that have done nothing wrong.

  16. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    @14. Why does anyone NEED a 70 inch flatscreen? Why does anyone NEED more than a wage that pays their bills? The point is that talking in terms of NEED is to assume that NEED is the basis for owning a particular fiream. That’s where the lefties are steering the argument. If I want to own an AR-15 to target shoot because I enjoy it, that is enough. I do not have to justify my NEED for it.

  17. OWB says:

    I can define “assault weapon.” It’s anything which is used in an assault.

    No need for further bans on assault weapons – they are all already illegal. If I use a ball point pen (an object which is otherwise legal to own) as a weapon in an assualt, it has become illegal because of the use I made of it, not because there is anything scary or inherently evil about the pen itself.

    Who “needs” a flat screen TV? But if you want one, can afford it, or con someone else into buying one for you, why should you not have one? If we are going to use “need” as the scale for what people are allowed to own, then your neighborhood and mine would suddenly look much defferent.

    CAVtastic, in answer to your question, it is offensive to me that people (certainly not just you) are even asking the question. I don’t like green cars, but if you like them and own one it is just none of my business. Same with your choice of TV’s, hand held devices, shoes, and many other things which no one would dare question, but could be (and are) used illegally.

  18. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    I like to talk about school busses when child safety comes up as a topic. Everyone is in favor of protecting children yet there are no seatbelts on school busses. Why is that? Don’t we love our children enough to ensure they aren’t tossed around like rag dolls in an accident? Or is it that when it comes to guns, the real issue isn’t safety at all?

  19. 68W58 says:

    Ex-PH2: I am consistently perplexed as to why you think I am “overreacting” or need to “get a grip” when those who would usurp my rights come right out and tell me what they plan to do. Last night we had a knucklehead who told us that he wanted to “silence us” and this morning we have a FEDERAL JUDGE (FFS-and appointed not elected BTW) who has said that he is apparently not willing to respect the rights of the people.

    I choose to take them at their word and seriously-why do you think this is an overreaction?

  20. CAVtastic says:

    AIRCAV: Haven’t heard of 70 inch tv killing anyone…

    But you bring up a good point. Lets see…I really like to get high on heroine and rape women (not really) and since I have the right to pursue happiness then who are you to tell me I’m wrong? You are not defining the difference between need and want. People WANT a big tv and since its widely accepted that large TVs will not directly cause mayhem in the hands of madmen, they are tolerated in modern society. The same,however, can not be said about “assault weapons”, “high capacity magazines” and other military grade equipment being sold to people who have no use for them other than recreation. I assure you that is there was a history of crazy people using large TVs to kill mass amounts of citizens, we would have a mass movement to remove TVs from public access.

    I really was hoping that a better answer would come from this question but alas… If you can’t even convince people who are mostly on your side of why you are on the side of “right” then I don’t know how you will ever convince the other side of this issue.

    OWB: you are too easily offended. It’s a legitimate question that whether you like it or not, is being asked around this country.

  21. Old Trooper says:

    #14: Ok, I will try to answer this for you. Nothing in this country is based on “need”, because at the base, it is a strawman argument disguised as reasonable. No one “needs” anything above the basics to survive, however; for the government to decide that for you, or anyone else for that matter, makes you subservient to what they decide you “need”, which makes you a slave to others and not free to do as you choose. The argument for safety can be applied to other things, beside guns, too. “Need” can be used to define anything. For instance; there is no “need” for a car that can go 180 mph for the street. It should be relegated to closed course only. If we apply safety as the concern and state “the potential for people to be killed by someone driving that car at its intended speed makes the rest of us unsafe, so we need to severely restrict them” sounds reasonable; right? You don’t need a special license to own one. You don’t need special training to drive one on the road. Its intended purpose isn’t compatible with the rest of us on public roads, as the argument on guns usually steers when they can’t deny the other side’s reasonable responses to their arguments. People that own cars that will go faster than the highest speed limit are trusted to obey the laws and not create a dangerous situation that will likely end loss of life. We are being told that gun owners don’t have the same consideration as everyone else, that we are somehow homicidal maniacs for owning an “assault weapon” and “high capacity magazines”. Some on here know me and have met me, and a couple of my friends, and have even seen the amount of scary looking weapons we have (which has grown in number since then) and yet, none of them has been used to “mow down innocent kids and teachers” or “a theater full of moviegoers”. As with the high performance car, the potential for bad things happening is there, however, we aren’t given the same consideration, because some nutbar brought guns into a gun free zone for soft targets (just like the CO theater) and committed a heinous crime.

    With freedom comes responsibility and since we have taken that out of our society, by blaming everything on someone or something else, we have the expected results of removing a key component from society and make it harder for the rest of us to enjoy the same freedom that someone else has in driving a high performance car, which is just as dangerous in the hands of someone bent on doing bad as a weapon with a “high capacity magazine”.

  22. John11B says:

    #14: I also see many people asking the question about whether we need to own certain guns or not. The fact is we are allowed to own them. Some people may choose not to buy guns, or more specifically an AR or comparable weapon, and that is fine. If someone wants to own one that is their choice. I see no reason to own a car that goes 75 mph above posted speed limits but if someone else sees fit to buy one it is their life. I am no fan of smoking or using tobacco products, but if other people want to smoke that is fine. It’s their life. I like to drink occasionally. If others choose not to that is ok.

    We live in a country of choices. Just because certain groups do not like certain choices does not give them the authority, moral or otherwise, to take them away from everyone else. Whatever is available to the public there will be citizens who make awful choices with those options. But just because a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population makes terrible decisions that hurt others does not mean the other 300 million people in this country need to be punished and have their options restricted.

  23. Hondo says:

    Ex-PH2: 68W58 beat me to it. Federal judges are appointed for life.

    Not an overreaction. This guy has just indicated he’s in favor of ignoring the 2nd Amendment if it suits him. And he’s a serving Federal judge who is in a position to “interpret” existing and new laws (translation: tell us what they really mean, AKA legislate from the bench) for an indeterminate period of time.

    Were I an attorney defending anyone in his court in any situation using a firearm, I’d immediately formally move for a change of venue. He’s just indicated he’s biased against law-abiding citizens having the means to defend themselves as well as being grossly ignorant regarding firearms.

    With all due respect, Yer “Honor” – conservative my ass.

  24. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    Cavtastic: I was trying to illustrate the fault in the NEED argument and I thought that you might go where you have gone. So, you are restricting the NEEDS argument only to those things that can harm someone else? Is that it?

  25. 68W58 says:

    CAVtastic-my response is that it is irrelevant. The murderer will find another weapon to carry out his mayhem whether that is a handgun or a pump action shotgun or pipe bombs and banning this or that firearm will not solve the problem. Next time it will be shotguns and the grabbers will want to ban them (“why does anyone need a pump shotgun”), then handguns and then whatever the lunatic uses. My firearm provides me with the ability to protect myself should I have to confront someone on a murderous rampage (FWIW in close quarters I would probably prefer a shotgun, though I recognize that there are a variety of circumstances in which I might prefer another weapon and I am far more likely to have my handgun on me should the need arise).

    The previous “assault weapons” ban was easily avoided. The Chinese manufactured SKS that I bought in the mid 1990s had none of the features that supposedly made a weapon an “assault weapon”, but there were kits you could buy which made it easy to convert to a weapon with a pistol grip and removable magazine.

    You say that I don’t need one, but my military training always taught me that it is better to have and not need, than to need and not have. I’m keeping my firearms-all of them.

  26. CAVtastic says:

    21,22, thank you for your response and I agree with the comments. My question of need really derives from the original post of Need, not from my own question of it. I get that no law prevents it, but I wonder how long that law will survive the onslaught of modern times.

    Unfortunately it’s just like any other situation involving people: 90% of your time you are dealing with 10% of the population. In this case a lot smaller percentage are causing the problem, but mass punishment is not just a military concept.

    I appreciate the thoughtful response and hope that it continue in this discussion nation wide.

  27. CAVtastic says:

    Air cav, again, I’m not the one that brought up needs, it was in the original post. I’m only asking why someone needs these types of weapons.

    I bet you supported the overthrow of saddams regime because he had WMD, yet he never used them on us. So why is it so hard to believe that some people (not me) think we should remove your assault weapons from your home before your mentally ill nephew comes to visit you one evening, bash your head in with a base ball bat, take your guns and then kill my kids at school? But that would never happen cause you are a responsible gun owner and you keep it locked up… But you keep it for home defense so it can’t be locked up can it…? This are the responses that some of you put out and if you think the lefties aren’t in here taking your words and using them against you (much like Tuesdays with claymore?) then you are foolish.

    I’m just trying to understand how the far right on this thinks. I get the far left: don’t agree with it but I can’t turn on tv without seeing it. So I come here to see the other side of the coin.

  28. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    “Why does anyone NEED an AR-15? Or comparable weapon.”

    Everything in life is a trade off. Should we outlaw travel by plane or car because innocent people are killed in crashes every year? Should we restrict their use for only that travel which is government approved? I mean, why guns? What’s the real issue? Could it be that a government that curtails private gun possession is a government that MUST be aware of its limitations in forcing its rule on the citizenry? Can that be in view of world history generally and US history in particular? Let’s say I fully endorse that line of thinking. Then, my NEED is to ensure that I have the most powerful and reliable weapons in my private arsenal that I can legally have. Does that work for you?

  29. Spade says:

    Tada: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/nadler-state-ought-have-monopoly-legitimate-violence

    “But let me say, yes,” Nadler added. “One of the definitions of a nation state is that the state has a monopoly on legitimate violence. And the state ought to have a monopoly on legitimate violence.”

    D’s want to not only take your guns away, but your right to self defense as well

  30. Old Trooper says:

    @27: Schools are gun free zones, which means that they are designed to be defenseless against anyone and everyone that wants to do harm. As I have stated before, I could go into that school armed with 2 revolvers and a shotgun and do the same amount of damage in the same amount of time. The left and anti-gunners focus on the tool used, not the obvious, which is they have created these defenseless zones where there is no one to stop it. The left and anti-gunners never mention the 1997 Pearl MS high school shooting, or the 2007 Arvada CO church shooting, or even the recent Oregon mall shooting, because it doesn’t fit their narrative. In each of those cases, the shooter was stopped from continuing their rampage by armed citizens. With the left and anti-gunners, the thought of someone being armed in a “gun free zone” is not an option they are willing to entertain and, as we just witnessed with the NRA suggestion, they have a collective coronary from someone even mentioning it. I have heard from some family members that are leftists that “armed people in schools is not the answer”, to which I reply; “it depends on the question”. Would I feel more comfortable if properly trained and armed faculty were working at my grandson’s school, or the school my daughter works in? Yep, I would, because as it stands now; they are fish in a barrel.

  31. 68W58 says:

    Cavtastic-I have a mossberg for home defense. If my “crazy nephew” wanted to kill me he could take that weapon to go and kill people or he could try to get into my gun cabinet after my other firearms. Or he could just get the keys to my tractor and drive to the nearest school and run the kids down on the playground (my Kubota isn’t very fast, but it is faster than 8 year-olds). In which case I hope there is someone on hand to shoot him dead. His murderous intent is what would matter not the means.

  32. CAVtastic says:

    30: I ABSOLUTELY loved the idea about having a trained group of individuals who worked for the school system, randomly patrolling schools to prevent a similar issue. I agree that the gun free zone system is just a flashing beacon for nut jobs.

    Aircav: you are comparing airlines and cars, modes of transportation which results in ACCIDENTAL death vs weapons designed to kill. Doesn’t match up.

    Is your concern that without one of the fore mentioned weapons you will be unable to defend yourself against the marauding hordes of federal troops who will invade your homestead? Do you think that if the government called for the sort of action that 1: any of the troops would follow such a unlawful order and if so that 2: you could do anything to stop it with an assault rifle?

  33. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    I have never had a fire in my home but I have fire extinguishers. It’s a shame so many people don’t but that’s their choice. I don’t need the gov’t to mandate that I have smoke detectors in my home but the gov’t did so to protect stupid people from themselves. It doesn’t work becuase the stupid people don’t buy the 9-volt batteries to keep the smoke detectors fully operational. I’m sorry that some people commit crimes with firearms but that’s no reason to take mine from me.

  34. Spade says:

    CAVtastic on you number2: I love when people make the argument that people with rifles and the basic knowledge that HS chemistry gives could never stand up to the US military.

    Not to offend anybody here, but it moves to hilarious when somebody from the US or UK military makes that argument. Where’ve you been for 11 years (longer for the Brits)?

  35. 2-17 Air Cav says:


    “Aircav: you are comparing airlines and cars, modes of transportation which results in ACCIDENTAL death vs weapons designed to kill. Doesn’t match up.” Are you joking? Are you at all familiar with the history of the left’s arguments when it comes to gun safety? Do yourself a favor and use Google.

    “marauding hordes of federal troops”

    That’s precisely the sort of language employment that tells me and others here that you are not sincere about wanting any sort of intelligent exchange. So, that finshes me with you, pal.

  36. CAVtastic says:

    Don’t you believe the government has a responsibility to look out for its citizens, even if they don’t like the choices made? Not everyone wanted to invade Iraq and yet we did. Not everyone wanted to fight in Europe during ww2, but the government decided it was in our best interest.

    I’m unsure of your military back ground (rank and positions) but you are telling me that you never ordered your soldiers to avoid a particular bar, not do a particular activity, or something of the like because you feared for their safety or the possible ramifications? Of course you did, not because you KNEW the outcome but because you made a decision on behalf of your soldiers to protect them from what could be.

  37. Smaj says:

    #14, why did our forefathers NEED those muskets? A major reason was protection against tyranny. The AR is the musket of this time period. Get used to it.

  38. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    Done means done.

  39. Jonn Lilyea says:

    Actually, I can’t tell you why I NEED my guns. You just have to trust me.

  40. Old Trooper says:

    @36: While many believe the government is responsible for the protection of citizens, the SCOTUS upheld a ruling, in Castle Rock vs. Gonzales, that the police are not Constitutionally obligated to protect individual citizens. The same premise falls to the federal government. So; who is going to protect you? We all know that police usually arrive after the fact and do the outline, take witness statements, fill out paperwork, and cover the body. Only the clinically insane would believe that the police will protect them from harm.

  41. 68W58 says:

    “Don’t you believe the government has a responsibility to look out for its citizens…”

    The courts have ruled that the police (agents of the state) have no such responsibility at least as far as them having to come to the aid of citizens in distress, so I’m not sure what actions you think the government should take. Individuals are ultimately responsible for their own defense and protection, not the government. And the comparison between what I can tell my soldiers, who are subject to UCMJ, and what the government can order citizens to do is strained to say the least. I, the soldier, am sworn to obey lawful orders given to me. I, the citizen, am under no such obligation.

  42. 68W58 says:

    Old Trooper was faster than I was.

  43. CAVtastic says:

    Done means done. Roger that. That we were having an intelligent conversation but I guess not…

    To compare the revolution with the modern day US is absurd. I can’t even begin to point out how the modern day assault rifle is comparatively no where near the musket (and I don’t mean “because it shoots more bullets, and faster”. Not to mention the difference between a government that was an ocean away, populated by a different set of people then this current home grown, elected government. It’s a shame that this “second revolution” crap still resides among so many who have served or are serving. How narrow minded an alarmist of you. Why did you even join the military in the first place. To defend what exactly? To serve who? To obey the orders of who?

    Never mean to start an argument, but just wanted to hear some discourse from people about this heated subject. Some of you had great points and I appreciate your time. Some of you are sadly over emotional about a subject that, frankly, emotion is not on your side. It’s on the side of the people who wanna strip your weapons. Better formulate a strategy based on some sensible retorts versus “cars are dangerous too!”

    Please remember, there are three sides to this argument. Left right and middle. And those of us in the middle are the ones who need convincing. But them its always easier to just preach to the converted and call the rest heathens. Now I am done. Have a merry Christmas and a happy new year.

  44. 68W58 says:

    “To defend what exactly?”

    I seem to remember the oath that I took speaking to what I was supposed to protect and defend.

  45. 68W58 says:

    “support and defend”.

  46. Spade says:

    “Not to mention the difference between a government that was an ocean away, populated by a different set of people then this current home grown, elected government.”

    Yeah, you should totally always trust and give a monopoly of force to a government because it’s home grown and elected. This is always a good idea.

    “I can’t even begin to point out how the modern day assault rifle is comparatively no where near the musket”

    Erm, by what SCOTUS said in Heller the 2nd refers to weapons in “common usage” by citizenry and the government. Which is what an AR-15 totally is. You should probably bother to read Heller v DC and Parker v DC.

  47. CAVtastic says:

    Trust but verify John 😉

    I feel the need to just say, again, I’m not trying to say you guys are off base. You aren’t. If I offended anyone I did not mean to. Refer to my first post: I just had some honest questions and wanted to discuss it here with you guys I follow the posts here and am intrigued by many of the views posted. Not saying I agree with them all, we don’t have to, but interested none the least.

    Again, merry Christmas.

  48. Ex-PH2 says:

    68W58, to me it appears to be over-reacting to something that someone said. Just because this judge wants to take guns away from people, it does not mean that he can do so.

    The immediate reaction I saw here and elsewhere isn’t just the ‘cold dead hands’ answer. It’s more like something I’d see in a dog with a bone. Seriously. And it’s consistent. It’s a threat, not a reality. When a politician makes public statement calling for deaths of 7 million NRA members, my reaction is to get a membership in the NRA and start encouraging other people to join, and get his ass removed from politics.

    I’m not any more in support of people like this judge than you are. He is completely out of line in publishing something so inappropriate. And you ought to know by now that while I don’t have or want a gun, seizing property without a reason is nothing but theft. It’s what the Nazis did in Germany, not just to the Jews, but to anyone who disagreed with the Reichstag.

    Every reaction I’ve seen to someone who is as hypocritical as this judge, who says “I’m a gun owner”, or those Hollywood blowhards who have one and all made movies that involve extreme violence and property destruction, has been almost too predictable. I can make a list, if you want.

    “They’re all going to come and take our guns away.” Well, the NDAA basically gives the government the right to do that, and it hasn’t happened yet, has it? No, nor has it happened under an executive order Obama signed in back in 2009.

    Maybe I myself was over-reacting to what you said, but what I keep seeing in response to the knee-jerk reactions from the left side of the fence is another knee-jerk reaction from gun owners.

    Both sides are reacting to something in fear. They’re afraid of you and you’re afraid of them. Think about it for a minute.

    If you want to get the idiots in Hollywood to shut up, then make and post a video saying “Hey, Hollywood! If you want us to get rid of our guns, then stop making violent movies. Otherwise, shut your silly mouths.”

    You can also start a petition to get the judge that made that statement removed from the bench, especially since he’s already admitted that he’s a gun owner. Doing something constructive is a much better way to use your energy, and a much more appropriate way to get these morons to shut their yaps.

    You know as well as I do that weapons of any kind represent authority. It may not be real, but it is implied. Does my short sword represent my authority more than someone who doesn’t have one? Damn straight it does. But you also know that real authority isn’t because someone has a weapon; it’s only a symbol. If authority lies only in having a weapon on you, then how come Eisenhower didn’t wear a gun when he was in the White House or when he was the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces during WWII?

    If you thought I was being too harsh, well, then I’ll back off. But answer this: Who has knocked on your door and told you to hand over your guns?

  49. OWB says:

    Quote CAVtastic: “I’m just trying to understand how the far right on this thinks. I get the far left: don’t agree with it but I can’t turn on tv without seeing it. So I come here to see the other side of the coin.”

    Actually, no, you don’t. If you wanted to see the other side of the coin you would go somewhere that is advocating that everyone be compelled to own guns. Instead, you are here among those who are simply saying that we want all the meddlers out there to keep their noses out of our business.

    Let me spell it out a bit more clearly for you – the opposite of those who want to disarm all law-abiding citizens would be those who demand arming all law-abiding citizens. Have not heard anyone here advocate for that.

    So why exactly are you arguing your position among us? The stench of red herrings is getting quite odoriferous.

  50. Spade says:

    “If you thought I was being too harsh, well, then I’ll back off. But answer this: Who has knocked on your door and told you to hand over your guns?”

    The governor of NY would like a word with you.