Fire at will!

[BlueStarLizzard]

Some commentary, that is, if you like.

A local newsrag has this as their cover story this week.

He's not as bad as the Yewman character, but his slant is predetermined and his condesention is a little annoying.

[irl] http://www.c-ville.com/my-first-gun-looking-for-safe-ground-in-the-middle-of-the-gun-debate/ [/irl]

[lee n. field]

A grown man.  With a pink Cricket. 

So far it's all emotion.  I  be surprised if I didn't still think "idiot" by the time I get to the end.

[vaskidmark]

Thank you for the opportunity to beat my head against a brick wall.

If nothing else, it feels great when I stop doing it.

stay safe.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Thank you for the opportunity to beat my head against a brick wall.

If nothing else, it feels great when I stop doing it.

stay safe.

You're welcome!

[Hawkmoon]

He's an idiot.

Because a question had been nagging at me for a long time. Did they, the rabid gun owners and Second Amendment defenders, at the very least understand why, after what happened in Newtown, some people might want to ban guns like the AR-15?

Yes, I understand completely why. Because the mass media has indoctrinated "some people" into actually believing that the post-ban (neutered) semi-automatic AR-15 that so many of us own is the same exact "killing machine" as a full-automatic, military issue M16. THAT's why "some people" want to ban AR-15s ... because they think they're M16s.

More even than a change of mind, I think I was looking for empathy, just one person on the other side of the issue who could admit that in the first few seconds after hearing that 20 children and six adults were shot and killed in an elementary school, he paused for a moment, looked at his gun collection and thought, “What the hell am I doing with these?”

Why would I look at MY guns and wonder why I have them? I know why I have them, and the fact that some nutcase many miles away chose to use a firearm instead of a bomb or a commercial jet aircraft to kill people is in no way related to my ownership of firearms.

Not so long ago an immigrant in Tucson, AZ, used a Jeep to run down and kill his daughter and the mother of the girl's boyfriend. I own a Jeep. By this dweeb's logic, I should open my garage door, look inside, and ask myself, "Do I really want to own one of these instruments of mass murder?"

[Perd Hapley]

Ugh. I can't help but read every new, hand-wringing column by these amateur anthropologists. "Ooh, the gun gave me the vapors! If only gun nuts were as lovably moderate as my ignorant and emotionally-disturbed self!"

Why do keep reading this stuff?

[BlueStarLizzard]

Ugh. I can't help but read every new, hand-wringing column by these amateur anthropologists. "Ooh, the gun gave me the vapors! If only gun nuts were as lovably moderate as my ignorant and emotionally-disturbed self!"

Why do keep reading this stuff?

Better yet, why do you have to keep inspiring them to write such drivel?

[T.O.M.]

After the last one, I'm passing.  Enough idiots in my life.

[Perd Hapley]

He thinks that marketing guns to children leads to the kids accidentally shooting each other. So I guess I'll just stick to grown-up guns. Kids never touch those.

[Tallpine]

"some people" want to ban AR-15s ... because they think they're M16s.

Actually, one could make the argument that only guns suitable for current military use are proctected by the 2A 

[Hawkmoon]

Actually, one could make the argument that only guns suitable for current military use are proctected by the 2A 

One cannot make that argument with any semblance of intellectual honesty since Heller and McDonald.

[CNYCacher]

Actually, one could make the argument that only guns suitable for current military use are proctected by the 2A 

US v Miller seemed to say exactly that.

Although most of the commentators leading up to the Heller case would have you believing something that was almost the opposite.

[Levant]

How about this: We shouldn't market guns to kids. We shouldn't let kids use guns at all, the way we don’t let them drive a car or operate a skill saw. Isn't that something we can all agree on? If we can settle that, then maybe we can talk about universal background checks, armor piercing bullets, and guns designed specifically to kill people quickly, right?

Proof that once you put infringements on the table, now we're just debating how far we can infringe.

[Hawkmoon]

US v Miller seemed to say exactly that.

Although most of the commentators leading up to the Heller case would have you believing something that was almost the opposite.

Yes, Miller did say that. But Miller did not go on to say that the core right protected by the 2A is the right to have the firearms in current use for self defense.