Comments

1
"Ban Assault Weapons"

Do these two old buffoons realized there is no such thing as an "Assault Rifle" and it's a term the media has conjured up. SHEEP.

What next? Ban Knives? Ban Swords? Ban Rocks? Ban Metal Pipes? You will never BAN or STOP evil people. WAKE UP.
2
The 2nd Amendment protects the right to bear weapons only in the form in which they existed in 1789: muzzle-loaded, black powder, single shot weapons.

Our Founders never envisoned - let alone intended - that their Republic and their posterity be terrorized by a magazine-fed, high-velocity ammunition, semi-automatic firearms wielded by the criminally insane.
3
I like how the average "Assault rifle" round is smaller then most Hunting rifle rounds, They just want to Ban Assault rifes because they "Look Scary". Idiots.
4
@Sarah Mirk:

Very subtle. You managed to use the word motley in an article with a lead-in photo of a jester. A true once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for any journalist not on the renaissance fair circuit. Congrats.
5
Assault rifles have much larger rounds and are shot at higher velocity than average hunting rifles. They should be banned to keep these murder weapons out of the hands of children and dangerous criminals.
6
@DW: ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT 556 VS 762?
7
Why ban any weapons? Give us back our rocket launchers, grenades and I want something new that shoots sharks full of pipe bombs. It's my right, damnit!
8
@ evan:

dude, even if d&w is wrong, it's not because they 'look scary' -- it's because they can spray a shit-ton of bullets in a tiny amount of time with only the slightest pull of an insane finger.

that, and the fact that they're designed for nothing other than killing several people at once.

wake the fuck up.

9
@DW, STEPHEN, ET AL: WHILE I WHOLE-HEARTEDLY AGREE WITH THE PREMISE THAT ASSAULT RIFLES HAVE NO REAL USE OTHER THAN KILLING THINGS... THEY ARE RELATIVELY RARE WHEN IT COMES TO GUN DEATHS. HAND GUNS ARE THE REAL KILLERS. FOR EVERY DEATH ATTIBUTED TO A RIFLE OR SHOTGUN, THERE ARE FOUR DEATHS VIA HANDGUN. WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO IT, I'D SAY THAT DRACONIAN RESTRICTIONS ON HANDGUNS ARE WHAT WE NEED, NOT FURTHER RESTRICTIONS ON RIFLES.
10
Only in Portland would the Obama protesters be ultra-liberal. We've got it so good. This town is amazing.
11
LEGALIZE FREEDOM!
12
@Daniel Luechtefeld. Yes, the dim witted founders of our republic could never have imagined technological advancement. /sarcasm
13
It's amazing how ignorance is rampant in Portland. Do you jack wagons really believe that the second ammendment applies only to muzzle loading weapons? It applies to arms, period! The muzzle loader was the assult weapon of it's era and was used to overthow a corrupt government that was marching to disarm the colonists. The second ammendment is there so the people can have the same weapons the government has, in case they need to overthrow a government that has become "destructive".

...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security...(Declaration of Independance).

There are supposed to be checks and ballances in our government, between the three branches. However, the check and ballance between the people and government is the second ammendment. Our right to be armed and overthrow a corrupt government is what is designed to keep this government "for and by the people". For those who say "assult weapons" are more powerful than hunting weapons, you too are ignorant. First off, an assult weapon is a selective fire weapon, capable of being used in full auto mode. The semi auto rifles the media and un-constitunal polititions allude to as assult weapons are, infact look alike, semi auto, military type weapons. Most of these weapons shoot less powerful cartriges than hunting rifles as they are designed to injure moreso than to kill. It's how war works these days. These less powerful cartriges also allow for more ammunition to be carried in a military situation. If you idiots are going to post on here, please do some research. And, while you're at it, stop spewing shit with intent on totally ruining what little freedom we have left in this country.
14
If the Second Amendment only protects the right to keep and bear muzzle-loaders, the First Amendment only protects speech written in long hand, or while standing on a soap box.
15
"Most of these weapons shoot less powerful cartriges than hunting rifles as they are designed to injure moreso than to kill."

You are so right, Saltire! The numbers don't lie: the guy in Aurora injured way more than he killed. Please forgive my ignorance here because I'm sure it's more than fine, but as a gun expert, Saltire, did this incident have an an acceptable, industry-standard death-to-injury ratio? Few more questions, thanks for indulging: how's the quality control at these companies? I know these assault weapons-sorry, semi-automatic military-grade rifles-are complex machines that demand design precision. Bear with me here but I'm wondering for the future what would happen (god forbid!) if some sort of manufacturing defect threw off the injury to kill ratio. What if a batch of these injury rifles (or harm twigs, as I like to call them) were made with a few more parts killiness and a few less parts tickles/bear hugs or nuggies? We could have a tragedy on our hands!

Sorry, I'm a worrywart in general!

I'd love your thoughts. Thanks!
16
The massacre in Aurora is an awful tragedy. Infact it's downright sickening. However, if we were to allow the second ammendment to be dismantled, what recourse would we as people have to prevent other things like this from happening? Criminals are just that, criminals because they have a blatent disregard for the law. They will aquire what ever they need by dirty means to perpetuate their crimes. Leaving a populace disarmed will only make the people more susseptible to this type of violence. And, that's the good news. The bad news is that small scale criminals, including the guy who committed this act in the movie theater are nothing in contrast to the crimes against humanity that will be committed by ours and other governments once we are disarmed. Ask 12 million Jews what they thought of Hitler's gun control act of 1938, "for a kinder, gentler nation". We can not afford to disarm, lest we be lambs to the slaughter.
17
Saltire is very correct!
Disarming the people would bring slavery back to this country. If you want to be a slave, then by all means keep pushing for more gun restrictions.
18
Great to see the cannabis movement represented. To keep up with the latest developments affecting the cannabis community, check out www.ncc420.com
19
Poor misinformed people..... there are some of you out there that think not owning weapons will stop all this,and make everything bad go away, but thinking that way will only make things worse in America (Land of the free). You should talk to people who had weapons and had them taken away (former soviet union) or recently the Syrians (who are getting shot up by their government right now) not being able to defend themselves from them. I have never known a weapon that magically jumped up by itself and shot people dead, but i have know objects (CARS) that under control of "qualified people" that have killed millions and seldom heard anything to ban them. Seems your not up in arms about that. Hypocrites....

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.