Silly me...and I thought an AK-47 was an ASSAULT rifle. This isn't your father's handgun, boy...oh, wait a minute...maybe it is...
... where guns are mandatory, where it was legal to drink WHILE driving (up till about four years ago), where they run executions two at a time ... and, oh, yeah, where our President used to be guv'nuh.
Back to the politics board from whence you came!
[sigh]
Besides, I was referring to them, not it.
-- Modified on 2/26/2005 5:43:29 AM
...but stilll this thread is far to serious for the likes of me, so I'm bailing out.
[Jump] Geeeeeerrrrrrooonnnniiiiimoooooooooooooooo!
It's a shame the murdered bystander didn't go for a head shot rather than lose his rounds to the gunmans kevlar vest. The hell with the "10 ring" on the chest of the human silhouette target. I favor a quick double tap to the head when I'm practicing.
REAL Gun control is putting your rounds where you want them.
Cm.
In spite of any potential reality of your statement in CERTAIN situations...
This guy had a history of spousal abuse and weapons violations, and was being sued for unpaid child support. They didn't say "partial paid"... they didn't say "Gee, he was trying, but that money-grubbing ex-wife and kids of his wouldn't let the poor wife abuser make it", or "He was selling his gun collection to make his back child support payments, but they just wanted more".
THIS GUY JUST ENDED SOME WOMAN'S LIFE AND TOOK AWAY THREE KIDS MOTHER AND TRIED TO KILL HIS OWN SON BECAUSE HE HAD ANGER MANAGEMENT ISSUES.
I put that in capital letters because evidently at least two of you needed it spelled out, and I am very disappointed in you CM...I know you have strong feelings in this area, but there is no implication that your statement was warranted in this article and the child support was "excessive"...NOT ONE, GET IT?
From what is in the article, this isn't about ANYTHING BUT VIOLENCE TOWARDS WOMEN.
It makes me sick to see that some people still don't understand that.
Whoa Dude! I really wasn't trying to be flippant about this tragedy. Not very long ago a similar event happened right here at the family court in Riverside, Ca. I wasn't implying in any way that the poor woman was being insensitive or greedy in her child support needs either. If anything I was only lightheartedly rebutting what I construed as a pro-gun control statement by you. (remember your to the "left", I'm to the "right")
You're a good man MSD, you have passion in your politics. Don't let your passions get the best of you and alienate your friends who appreciate and respect your uniqueness.
Sincerely
Cm.
I appreciate the explanation, CM, and I know you are a good guy at heart. That is why I was suprised, which was mostly based on 1) Your subject line was unrelated to the story as it read, and you didn't have a smiley there if you were being lighthearted, 2) I still can't see a reason this guy (or anyone) had legal access (I am assuming it was legal) to an AK-47, which, like the M-16, was designed for military use. Just because something is made isn't enough of a reason in my mind that people should have access to things, especially when those things are designed to kill.
Oh, and BTW, in a situation with other civilians around, I would think a body shot might be a much higher percentage shot than a head shot, especially if from a little distance, and therefore reduce the risk of additional civilian injury.
Now that we are all clear, let me say one last thing, and then I will get off my pulpit:
Violence against women is the second lowest thing a man can do, right after violence against your children, and that loser consciously did both. I hope he burns.
"I still can't see a reason this guy (or anyone) had legal access (I am assuming it was legal) to an AK-47, which, like the M-16, was designed for military use. Just because something is made isn't enough of a reason in my mind that people should have access to things, especially when those things are designed to kill."
An AK' IS a military urban assult weapon but as long as it is semi-auto(one round per trigger pull) it is no more(and possibly less) deadly or in need of "gun control" than a common shot gun. It is the person who wields the weapon that decides the weapons threat on society. The moron in Texas had "priors" and anger management issues. He should not have had access to a scout knife let alone a firearm. I have several weapons in my collection that are considered "ugly" or "military" or "assult weapons" by elitist liberals like Diane Feinstein(who BTW has a permit to carry a concealed weapon). My weapons are stored in an approved Gun Safe and they have never been fired at ANY living creature. To deny me or any other law abiding citizen(no felonies or violent convictions) the right to collect such weapons is like denying someone the right to own a V8 powered automobile.
Cm.
Sorry, brudda...I will stay with "All You Need Is Love", and if I go down like Lennon, at least I will know my motto brought joy instead of fear.
I'd sooner die in battle than as a sacrificial lamb. I respect your sentiment though.
BTW- Didn't Lennon help write "Happiness is a warm gun"? That's a favorite Beatle's song of mine.
Cm.
-- Modified on 2/26/2005 10:25:18 AM
...and I know that it was 2nd reading that swayed me! 