View Full Version : This Type of Hysterical Reporting Hurts Us All
"These are killing machines. They are not designed for recreational use," Sheriff's Major John Clark said.
http://www.live5news.com/Global/story.asp?S=9773732
This hurts!
If the baddies have them.......I better have them too. I don't want to be out gunned in my own home or neighborhood. LEOs should definately have them too!
There is a statewide push to tackle the assault weapon problem. As part of his "Get Tough on Crime" package, Charleston Mayor Joe Riley is proposing legislation that would prevent anyone serving two years or more from possessing a military assault weapon.
Nice.
So kinda a get out of jail for good peole thing? If that is what I read into?
Heavy Metal
02-08-09, 20:39
Nice.
It seems he is proposing that felons cannot have military assault rifles.
Does he realise that it is illegal for felons to possess any rifle, much less NFA weapons?
"CHARLESTON COUNTY, SC (WCSC) - You are looking at a weapon cops say is designed to kill. This AK-47 assault rifle is one of several that's been seized by the Charleston County Sheriff's Office.
"These are killing machines. They are not designed for recreational use," Sheriff's Major John Clark said."
Pet peeve of mine: when someone gives an explanation of what they feel a firearm is designed for. Correct answer: a firearm is designed to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive. (some of you may recognize that from 921(a)(3)). They aren't designed to kill, just to shoot bullets, that's it. When, how often, and in what direction that occurs is usually dependant upon the human controlling it.
If guns were designed to kill people then any gun that has not or is not currently killing people must have a design flaw. :rolleyes: It's about on the same level as saying police officers were designed to take people to jail so if you see an officer who isn't arresting someone he isn't doing his duty.
If guns were designed to kill people then any gun that has not or is not currently killing people must have a design flaw. :rolleyes: It's about on the same level as saying police officers were designed to take people to jail so if you see an officer who isn't arresting someone he isn't doing his duty.
I like your logic. It makes sense to me.
brantley65
02-08-09, 22:13
No body listens Joe Riley Jr.
The sherriff's statement, while a bit dramatic, isn't really inaccurate. The AK-47 was designed from the ground up to be a simple, reliable, and effective battle rifle. It wasn't designed to punch holes in paper or hunt prairie dogs.
To deny the weapon's intended purpose is disingenuous and doesn't help our cause at all. The fact is, it was designed to kill. It also has other ligitimate uses such as punching holes in paper and hunting.
A mini van and an F1 race car both have 4 wheels and an internal combustion engine. One was designed to carry several snot nosed kids and lots of groceries, the other was designed to win races.
Bottom line is that anyone who is a convicted felon is already prohibited from having a firearm unless they have had their civil rights restored. So the mayor's call to prohibit ownership to anyone who serves more than 2 years is nothing short of idiotic. Does that mean if someone is convicted of a felony and only serves 18 months they are good to go? The mayor is an idiot and so is the Major Clark.
I just sent a nice long email to the writer of that particular story. Let's see what happens.
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-09-09, 07:24
Let's compare the number of times per year that ARs are used for sporting purposes (plinking, three-gun, highpower matches) compared to the number of murders with it. You can statistically prove that they are 99.999% sporting guns, I bet.
AKs are animals, let them lose their souls ;)
I really don't like the sporting v non-sporting use arguement though, that definately was not a clause in the 2nd.
Investigators say an AK-47 was used last Friday night during an apparent drug deal gone bad outside a James Island gathering spot. One man was killed. Deputies say 20 shots were fired from the assault weapon.
Yeah, Major Clark, let's focus more on the AK-47 and NOT the drug problem that is most likely the cause of crime in the area. Sounds like Miami mayor Manny Diaz and his BS.
Sttrongbow
02-09-09, 08:42
Let's compare the number of times per year that ARs are used for sporting purposes (plinking, three-gun, highpower matches) compared to the number of murders with it. You can statistically prove that they are 99.999% sporting guns, I bet.
AKs are animals, let them lose their souls ;)
I really don't like the sporting v non-sporting use arguement though, that definately was not a clause in the 2nd.
Yup... The sporting vs non-sporting is a red herring. If anything, the 2A is written to specifically protect weapons designed for killin' MFers!
I've noticed that Chief of Police and Sheriff usually make statements as politicians first, law enforcement officer second.
I've noticed that Chief of Police and Sheriff usually make statements as politicians first, law enforcement officer second.
Thats because that is exactly what they are.
I've noticed that Chief of Police and Sheriff usually make statements as politicians first, law enforcement officer second.
Elected official = Politician.
They stopped being cops when they started getting stars on their collar:rolleyes:
Heavy Metal
02-09-09, 19:53
The sherriff's statement, while a bit dramatic, isn't really inaccurate. The AK-47 was designed from the ground up to be a simple, reliable, and effective battle rifle. It wasn't designed to punch holes in paper or hunt prairie dogs.
To deny the weapon's intended purpose is disingenuous and doesn't help our cause at all. The fact is, it was designed to kill. It also has other ligitimate uses such as punching holes in paper and hunting.
A mini van and an F1 race car both have 4 wheels and an internal combustion engine. One was designed to carry several snot nosed kids and lots of groceries, the other was designed to win races.
Actually, it was designed to inflict casualties and degrade the enemies ability to wage war. Whether it kills or not is incidental.
The desired goal is to overcome the opposition by inflicting casualties and degrading either their physical or psychological ability to advance or resist sufficiently to achive victory or prevent defeat.
Actually, it was designed to inflict casualties and degrade the enemies ability to wage war. Whether it kills or not is incidental.
The desired goal is to overcome the opposition by inflicting casualties and degrading either their physical or psychological ability to advance or resist sufficiently to achive victory or prevent defeat.
well said:D
"These are killing machines. They are not designed for recreational use," Sheriff's Major John Clark said.
To deny the weapon's intended purpose is disingenuous and doesn't help our cause at all. The fact is, it was designed to kill. It also has other ligitimate uses such as punching holes in paper and hunting.
Actually, it was designed to inflict casualties and degrade the enemies ability to wage war. Whether it kills or not is incidental.
While I'm sure I'll not change the beliefs of Heavy Metal, rugburn, nor Sherriff Clark I believe this forum allows for repsectful disagreement so I'll try to explain my previous post a little further.
In this particular case we're talking about either a semi-auto or select fire rifle. Hopefully, on this site, the majority of readers understand the cycle of function that is associated with it. When the trigger is pulled, if the firearm completes this cycle it has functioned as it was designed to do.
Consider this, if the rifle were designed to kill, then when it performs its mechanical function killing would occur, correct? If it were designed to kill, people are present, and operating the rifle does not result in death or injury has it malfunctioned? Many users of this site claim to have frequently used a properly functioning rifle and yet I don't hear of all the killing. How can that be?
Does it matter if were talking about an AK47, a Winchester lever action .30-30, or a Marlin .22? Are certain rifles designed for killing while others are designed for not killing? Regardless if the projectile that is pushed out of the end of the barrel crushes it's way through human flesh, or fragments off of a steel plate, goes through a peice of paper, or touches nothing other than air and dirt the firearm still performed the task it was designed to do. Killing is not a function of the firearm itself, it is a function of how it is used. IMO what is disingenuous and unhelpful to our cause is attributing characteristics to a mecahnical device that should be attributed to the operator of the device.
To use a car analogy, I use my car to go to the store. However, going to the store can't be designed into my car anymore than killing can be designed into a rifle. Cars drive, guns shoot. The how, when, and where that are controlled by the user will determine if it is harmless or deadly.
EvilSpeculator556
02-10-09, 03:35
What is wrong with owning guns designed for killing humans? I own a lot of other weapons designed for killing humans too. I know how to make lots of other weapons that have the same idea behind them. There is nothing wrong with owning weapons designed for killing humans if you follow the rules. Well at least until the rules make you defenseless then at that point who cares, the criminals will be the ones in charge. Don't give in to the PC Nazi's. If cops and military have weapons designed for killing humans then criminals will too. End of rant.
Living in a Commy state I do find myself arguing about guns with my liberal friends and co-workers quite a lot and as a results I guess I formed somewhat of an explanation that would satisfy not only me, but about any other thinking individual capable of rational thoughts and following simple logic. So here it goes: Guns are not weapons. Period! Guns do make good weapons maybe even best weapons, but they are not weapons. A word weapon implies certain intent to cause harm or death. Without that intent in my limited experience guns do neither. When a rifle is stored in my safe – it’s not a weapon, when I shoot it at the range – it is not a weapon, but when I grab it late at night because someone is trying to break in – it certainly becomes one. So to me it is just a mechanical device that does a certain function that I expect of it. I own many different devices that do different things (a car, a stove, a PC- you name it) and all of them could be used as weapons if needed. Same with guns. As I always say if there is a weapon in my house – it’s me.
Bottom line is that anyone who is a convicted felon is already prohibited from having a firearm unless they have had their civil rights restored. So the mayor's call to prohibit ownership to anyone who serves more than 2 years is nothing short of idiotic. Does that mean if someone is convicted of a felony and only serves 18 months they are good to go? The mayor is an idiot and so is the Major Clark.
Very well said
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.