Splitter
R.I.P.
Dats funny, I don't care who you are lol
"Assault Weapon Ban a must"- C.C. Times Article
- Thread starter august_west
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
vette97
Ultimate Member
I got a nice reply from him. However, he was stating more Brady Campaign rhetoric. I provided some more info from my side. He declined my range trip offer and I told him I understood why he felt the way he did but that requiring confiscation of my legally owned arms when I couldn't do anything to cause or fix the Mexico border problem is not fair. I did tell him, however, that right now his voice is stronger than mine and Congress wants to please society instead of defend the Constitution. It will lead to them winning and us losing. That's why I will speak out when I can.
Onua
Ultimate Member
yeah i sent a letter to the editor, I called for a retraction sue to inaccuracies
august_west
Active Member
wapiti692
Member
This guy is a morron
Markp
Ultimate Member
- Dec 22, 2008
- 9,392
Dear Mr. Culleton,
It's not your fault that you don't understand the law or the facts, it's complex and very hard to understand. I encourage you to read this whole letter, because I feel that it's important that you understand clearly what you have proposed. Fully automatic firearms are involved in less than 1% of all homicides, but bear with me, read below and investigate for yourself. I will not stoop to personal attacks or attempts to treat you poorly. I have a great deal of respect for you and your opinion, but I want it to be fully informed.
Now for those not in the know, there are variations of nearly all firearms and the AK-47 is no exception. As a matter of fact, the AK-47 has an incredible number of variants. Some legal, some illegal, some regulated, and others not regulated. Let's start with some facts and I will try to help make sense of this very complex subject.
1. The second amendment was not written to protect hunting rights or sporting use of firearms. While certainly those rights are protected by the second amendment, they are not the only reasons that the second amendment was written. The second amendment was written to protect Americans from tyranny, and although we have a military second to none today, we could for a variety of reasons not be able to sustain such a fighting force to defend our country. Imagine, us in the position of a country like Iraq or Afghanistan, citizens are responsible to defend their families from the likes of Al-Quieda or the Taliban, without an AK-47 many of these families would be defenseless. Think it couldn't happen here... with our economy in free fall and many international enemies, you might want to rethink your position.
2. Unfortunately when you state that the AK-47 is a fully automatic weapon, you are wrong, some AK-47's are fully automatic and those LEGAL machine guns often fetch more than $15,000 on the open market and require an ATF Form 4 to transfer, these weapons will never be sold to your average gang banger. Sales of fully automatic weapons are tightly regulated, and have been since 1934 and the enactment of the National Firearms Act.
3. Now back to the topic at hand, the popularity of the AK-47 and the "brisk" business in among gun dealers in assault weapons. Assault weapons are an excellent choice for self-defense and they are great general purpose rifles as well. They are rugged, simple, and inexpensive. This is important because it allows all citizens access to roughly equal levels of protection.
4. Possession of any weapon, even a club, is dangerous in the hands of the mentally deranged. All one needs to do is to look at the family of 4 who was killed this week in a Maryland motel room with nothing more than a blunt object. They are no less dead than they would have been with a firearm. Fact is that in the past year more than 3,177,256 guns were purchased every 3 months in 2008, and in that same period of time more than 1.5 BILLION rounds of ammunition was sold. Yet, we only have isolated incidents of gun violence when we consider the numbers. In fact, drivers kill far more people each year than gun owners and still, we have yet to ban automobiles. Roughly half as many cars were sold in 2006 as were guns sold in 2008. Thats right, and 13,000+ fatalities occur each year from drunk driving alone and 42,000 people die each year, making new cars MORE than 4 times more likely to kill you than a new gun!
5. You might find this shocking, but of the 10,000 or so homicides that happen per year nearly 75% of them were committed with a handgun, that's right! Only 4% were committed with a rifle, including assault rifles, and 5% were with shotguns. This means that less than 1% of all homicides could have been committed with an automatic assault weapon. So why is that 1% such a problem for you? Think about it. Are you trying to prevent violence, or are you simply reacting emotionally after being spoon fed inaccurate media information? I know it sometimes gets me fired up.
Disarming good citizens (the majority of us holding those 12 MILLION new guns and 1.5 BILLION rounds of ammunition) will not make us safer. I agree that putting weapons in the hands of criminals and the insane is a bad idea, but it's already illegal to do so. It's illegal to engage in straw purchases and it's illegal to manufacture new fully automatic weapons for sale to the general public. We have all the laws we need to keep our communities safe, but we do need to enforce the law and encourage more qualified citizens to exercise their right to bear arms and provide for their own safety. I respect the counter-argument, but it has been proven to be wrong many times before. Everywhere gun control has been tried it has either failed or resulted in genocide. As a matter of fact, most fatal mass shootings involving more than 3 people in recent history have happened in "gun free" zones or zones where firearms were heavily regulated. Research from the University of Maryland backs up this claim.
I hope that I have helped provide some clarity with regard to the issue and hope that you will consider a retraction of your article, as it is factually incorrect.
Sincerely,
It's not your fault that you don't understand the law or the facts, it's complex and very hard to understand. I encourage you to read this whole letter, because I feel that it's important that you understand clearly what you have proposed. Fully automatic firearms are involved in less than 1% of all homicides, but bear with me, read below and investigate for yourself. I will not stoop to personal attacks or attempts to treat you poorly. I have a great deal of respect for you and your opinion, but I want it to be fully informed.
Now for those not in the know, there are variations of nearly all firearms and the AK-47 is no exception. As a matter of fact, the AK-47 has an incredible number of variants. Some legal, some illegal, some regulated, and others not regulated. Let's start with some facts and I will try to help make sense of this very complex subject.
1. The second amendment was not written to protect hunting rights or sporting use of firearms. While certainly those rights are protected by the second amendment, they are not the only reasons that the second amendment was written. The second amendment was written to protect Americans from tyranny, and although we have a military second to none today, we could for a variety of reasons not be able to sustain such a fighting force to defend our country. Imagine, us in the position of a country like Iraq or Afghanistan, citizens are responsible to defend their families from the likes of Al-Quieda or the Taliban, without an AK-47 many of these families would be defenseless. Think it couldn't happen here... with our economy in free fall and many international enemies, you might want to rethink your position.
2. Unfortunately when you state that the AK-47 is a fully automatic weapon, you are wrong, some AK-47's are fully automatic and those LEGAL machine guns often fetch more than $15,000 on the open market and require an ATF Form 4 to transfer, these weapons will never be sold to your average gang banger. Sales of fully automatic weapons are tightly regulated, and have been since 1934 and the enactment of the National Firearms Act.
3. Now back to the topic at hand, the popularity of the AK-47 and the "brisk" business in among gun dealers in assault weapons. Assault weapons are an excellent choice for self-defense and they are great general purpose rifles as well. They are rugged, simple, and inexpensive. This is important because it allows all citizens access to roughly equal levels of protection.
4. Possession of any weapon, even a club, is dangerous in the hands of the mentally deranged. All one needs to do is to look at the family of 4 who was killed this week in a Maryland motel room with nothing more than a blunt object. They are no less dead than they would have been with a firearm. Fact is that in the past year more than 3,177,256 guns were purchased every 3 months in 2008, and in that same period of time more than 1.5 BILLION rounds of ammunition was sold. Yet, we only have isolated incidents of gun violence when we consider the numbers. In fact, drivers kill far more people each year than gun owners and still, we have yet to ban automobiles. Roughly half as many cars were sold in 2006 as were guns sold in 2008. Thats right, and 13,000+ fatalities occur each year from drunk driving alone and 42,000 people die each year, making new cars MORE than 4 times more likely to kill you than a new gun!
5. You might find this shocking, but of the 10,000 or so homicides that happen per year nearly 75% of them were committed with a handgun, that's right! Only 4% were committed with a rifle, including assault rifles, and 5% were with shotguns. This means that less than 1% of all homicides could have been committed with an automatic assault weapon. So why is that 1% such a problem for you? Think about it. Are you trying to prevent violence, or are you simply reacting emotionally after being spoon fed inaccurate media information? I know it sometimes gets me fired up.
Disarming good citizens (the majority of us holding those 12 MILLION new guns and 1.5 BILLION rounds of ammunition) will not make us safer. I agree that putting weapons in the hands of criminals and the insane is a bad idea, but it's already illegal to do so. It's illegal to engage in straw purchases and it's illegal to manufacture new fully automatic weapons for sale to the general public. We have all the laws we need to keep our communities safe, but we do need to enforce the law and encourage more qualified citizens to exercise their right to bear arms and provide for their own safety. I respect the counter-argument, but it has been proven to be wrong many times before. Everywhere gun control has been tried it has either failed or resulted in genocide. As a matter of fact, most fatal mass shootings involving more than 3 people in recent history have happened in "gun free" zones or zones where firearms were heavily regulated. Research from the University of Maryland backs up this claim.
I hope that I have helped provide some clarity with regard to the issue and hope that you will consider a retraction of your article, as it is factually incorrect.
Sincerely,
Fine work. You should send that out to many more than just that one measly " journalist "
mudd4life88
Active Member
BRAVO 
smokey
2A TEACHER
- Jan 31, 2008
- 31,524
the sad thing is that people read things like this and believe it to be a credible source....wow. it bugs me when people try to qualify themselves by saying something like "i've been a hunter for X years butt..." or "after my X years in the military i still feel that.." or "i am a rational person who in no way needs to be 'sterilized as soon as possible to keep from spreading my inferior genes to future generations' but i feel that..." this guy is such a raging dumbass i wish we could put almost anyone on this forum up against him in a live-time debate...anyone feel like watching bean verbally kick this guy's ass on public television?
DeadIDik
Habitual Line Stepper!
Id love to know if this clown was actually in the Army. The whole thing smells fishy.
Cold Steel
Active Member
Well, I sent my letter.
Here's mine. Why don't you guys post yours? I'd like to read them.
-------------
Here's mine. Why don't you guys post yours? I'd like to read them.
Editor:
If it was clearly demonstrable (and it is) that President Clinton's assault weapons law was a dismal failure in curtailing violent crime and shootings in the U.S., why would anyone want to reinstitute it, as John Culleton strongly asserts ("Assault Weapons Ban a Must," April 23)?
Culleton drags out the same tired premise used by others, namely, that such guns have "no legitimate sporting purpose;" and to continue letting civilians possess "fully automatic weapons" only makes the drug cartels stronger in Mexico and violence in the U.S. more likely.
Poppycock.
First, few Americans want U.S. laws aimed at Mexican crime. Those drug cartels operate mostly out of corrupt alliances with military and police, and they have no problem acquiring guns, if not here, then directly from China and other illicit sources. AK-47 automatic rifles are strictly taxed and regulated in this country and special licenses are required for their possession. Very few of these legally owned guns are ever used in crimes.
Another aspect Culleton ignores is that the assault weapons laws don't stop at AK-47s, but are increasingly aimed at any semi-automatic rifles, including many sporting .22LRs and, more recently, semi-automatic handguns.
Culleton also sidesteps the issue of the Second Amendment. I've read what the founders had to say about why they wanted the Second Amendment and nowhere did any of them (not one!) ever use the term "legitimate sporting use" in their arguments that the American people should have the constitutional right to arms ownership. True, the founders didn't have to contend with 30-round magazines in their day, but then, they also didn't have to contend with high-speed printing presses in outlining their First Amendment protections.
If Culleton and other opponents of arms ownership could point to any demonstrable benefits of the first ban, we might have a more reasoned debate. But Justice Department/FBI statistics showed a zero reduction in the already declining crime rates. Remove the months and the years from the stats and it's impossible to tell where the law took effect and when it expired. If it had no effect then, what makes Culleton think it would now?
It's just one more freedom that would be eroded to no good end.
If Americans truly want to rip the lungs out of the drug cartels, one simple way to do it would be to commit their children (and themselves) to a zero marijuana regimen. That would have far more effect than a dozen assault weapons bills!
If it was clearly demonstrable (and it is) that President Clinton's assault weapons law was a dismal failure in curtailing violent crime and shootings in the U.S., why would anyone want to reinstitute it, as John Culleton strongly asserts ("Assault Weapons Ban a Must," April 23)?
Culleton drags out the same tired premise used by others, namely, that such guns have "no legitimate sporting purpose;" and to continue letting civilians possess "fully automatic weapons" only makes the drug cartels stronger in Mexico and violence in the U.S. more likely.
Poppycock.
First, few Americans want U.S. laws aimed at Mexican crime. Those drug cartels operate mostly out of corrupt alliances with military and police, and they have no problem acquiring guns, if not here, then directly from China and other illicit sources. AK-47 automatic rifles are strictly taxed and regulated in this country and special licenses are required for their possession. Very few of these legally owned guns are ever used in crimes.
Another aspect Culleton ignores is that the assault weapons laws don't stop at AK-47s, but are increasingly aimed at any semi-automatic rifles, including many sporting .22LRs and, more recently, semi-automatic handguns.
Culleton also sidesteps the issue of the Second Amendment. I've read what the founders had to say about why they wanted the Second Amendment and nowhere did any of them (not one!) ever use the term "legitimate sporting use" in their arguments that the American people should have the constitutional right to arms ownership. True, the founders didn't have to contend with 30-round magazines in their day, but then, they also didn't have to contend with high-speed printing presses in outlining their First Amendment protections.
If Culleton and other opponents of arms ownership could point to any demonstrable benefits of the first ban, we might have a more reasoned debate. But Justice Department/FBI statistics showed a zero reduction in the already declining crime rates. Remove the months and the years from the stats and it's impossible to tell where the law took effect and when it expired. If it had no effect then, what makes Culleton think it would now?
It's just one more freedom that would be eroded to no good end.
If Americans truly want to rip the lungs out of the drug cartels, one simple way to do it would be to commit their children (and themselves) to a zero marijuana regimen. That would have far more effect than a dozen assault weapons bills!
-------------
An "assault rifle" is a rifle designed for combat, with selective fire (capable of shooting in both fully automatic and semi automatic modes). Although the AK47 is included in the catagory it is because it is one of the standard infantry weapons used in most modern armies. From Wikepedia:
'The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]
It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
It must be capable of selective fire;
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.
Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles despite frequently being considered as such. For example, semi-automatic-only rifles that share designs with assault rifles such as the AR-15 (which the M-16 rifle is based on) are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus not selective fire. Belt-fed weapons (such as the M249 SAW) or rifles with fixed magazines are likewise not assault rifles because they do not have detachable box magazines.
The term "assault rifle" is often more loosely used for commercial or political reasons to include other types of arms, particularly arms that fall under a strict definition of the battle rifle, or semi-automatic variant of military rifles such as AR-15s
The US Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges".[5]
Primarily limited to the United States, the term assault weapon is a legal term, separate from the technical definition, used to describe a variety of semi-automatic firearms that have certain features generally associated with military assault rifles. '
I think as a whole the pro weapons and 2A groups should avoid enforcing the incorrect "assault weapon" terminology used by the media and anti-weapons groups especially in print when we are trying to correct their inconsistencies and misconceptions. Something along the lines of target rifle, personal defense carbines, etc. is closer to the definition of the rifles most have come to buy, accessorize and shoot.
'The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]
It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
It must be capable of selective fire;
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.
Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles despite frequently being considered as such. For example, semi-automatic-only rifles that share designs with assault rifles such as the AR-15 (which the M-16 rifle is based on) are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus not selective fire. Belt-fed weapons (such as the M249 SAW) or rifles with fixed magazines are likewise not assault rifles because they do not have detachable box magazines.
The term "assault rifle" is often more loosely used for commercial or political reasons to include other types of arms, particularly arms that fall under a strict definition of the battle rifle, or semi-automatic variant of military rifles such as AR-15s
The US Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges".[5]
Primarily limited to the United States, the term assault weapon is a legal term, separate from the technical definition, used to describe a variety of semi-automatic firearms that have certain features generally associated with military assault rifles. '
I think as a whole the pro weapons and 2A groups should avoid enforcing the incorrect "assault weapon" terminology used by the media and anti-weapons groups especially in print when we are trying to correct their inconsistencies and misconceptions. Something along the lines of target rifle, personal defense carbines, etc. is closer to the definition of the rifles most have come to buy, accessorize and shoot.
As papers are loathe to print longish letters to the editor....I tried to keep mine short and ...ummm....sweet
I would, very much, like to respond to John Culleton’s April 23rd column.
I don’t know where Mr. Culleton gets his information, or who he talks to. But, he is seriously misinformed regarding both the AK 47, and the sale of fully automatic firearms.
The Kalashnikov styled firearm sold to the public in gun shops is, in every case, a semi-automatic rifle that operates on a century-old technology. The same self-loading technology used by sportsman for many decades. (Pull the trigger and hold it down as long as you like, and one shot is fired…one.
True, an AK doesn’t look like daddy’s deer rifle, though it functions exactly the same. And oh! The AK47 currently sold to the public in California? Its a pump gun, just like dad’s ol’ shotgun.
I should also mention the sale of automatic weapons to the public has been illegal (without very costly licensing) in every state since 1934. (The National Firearms Act)
I’m sorry, But, I feel printing this column was irresponsible, at best, and its exactly this kind of misinformed (or misleading) rhetoric that pours gasoline onto a controversy that needs no extra fuel.
Thanks for your time
Ed Rose
I would, very much, like to respond to John Culleton’s April 23rd column.
I don’t know where Mr. Culleton gets his information, or who he talks to. But, he is seriously misinformed regarding both the AK 47, and the sale of fully automatic firearms.
The Kalashnikov styled firearm sold to the public in gun shops is, in every case, a semi-automatic rifle that operates on a century-old technology. The same self-loading technology used by sportsman for many decades. (Pull the trigger and hold it down as long as you like, and one shot is fired…one.
True, an AK doesn’t look like daddy’s deer rifle, though it functions exactly the same. And oh! The AK47 currently sold to the public in California? Its a pump gun, just like dad’s ol’ shotgun.
I should also mention the sale of automatic weapons to the public has been illegal (without very costly licensing) in every state since 1934. (The National Firearms Act)
I’m sorry, But, I feel printing this column was irresponsible, at best, and its exactly this kind of misinformed (or misleading) rhetoric that pours gasoline onto a controversy that needs no extra fuel.
Thanks for your time
Ed Rose
gamer_jim
Podcaster
Another example of how people base their opinions on fear and emotion instead of the facts. What gets me is that people against guns think the rest of us should be against them also. I just wonder if the folks screaming for more gun control actually knew the facts would they still want more gun control?
BenL
John Galt Speaking.
mmmmmmm...delicious, protected ducks....
Half-cocked
Senior Meatbag
- Mar 14, 2006
- 23,937
We should all go down to the newspaper and cry fowl considering all the canards in that letter.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
Timonium Gun Show April 27-28 (Timonium Fairgrounds Exhibition Hall) (2 Viewers)
- Started by joro55
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
-
Convicted For Building Guns; Judge says, “Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom”- Started by Harrys
- Replies: 1
-
