Jump to content
Want daily summaries and Breaking News alerts?
As of Wednesday, January 16, 2013
© Copyright 2013
For more squawks, pick up a copy of today's Albany Herald.
To submit a squawk, Click here.
Read George Orwell's book Animal Farm. It explains it all.
Good analogy. LOL
I think there is a difference between armed professionals, who must account for every bullet they chamber, and armed billy bobs who post pictures on Facebook holding/shooting an AR-15.
Exactly like the cops in NY last summer who shot dozens of times and hit everyone but the perp.
I feel you may be placing too much weight on the shooting skill of the majority of Police. They are basic shooters. Without funding or personal resources to become skilled combat shooters. I have too often wittnessed the shooting skills of Law Enforcement to believe they are one iota better than an average Good Old Boy or Girl.
They aren't armed with AR-15s either unless they are SWAT. Civilians don't have any business owning military weapons or high capacity magazines.
Purely your opinion, which is drastically different from mine. It isn't the weapon, it is the person holding it.
Many Local Law Enforcement Officers do have AR-15 rifles; Walt is right, there is not much difference in ability between the average Police Officers shooting ability and the average civilian shooter; while there are exceptions to the rule, a civilian gun enthusiast is likely to be more proficient with his arms than than the average cop. I have made my living providing training to both.
It's more about knowing how to properly safe guard a weapon and knowing when to use it more than it is hitting a target and 15 feet. I respect what you are saying, sas. I am more worried about billy bob having an AR-15 that he doesn't properly store than a gun enthusiast having a smaller caliber, low capacity magazine weapon.
I agree, Walt, it is about the person holding it. And just how would you characterize someone who thinks they need a rapid-fire assault weapon with mega-rounds-at-the-ready capacity for carrying around day-to-day, not in a professional capacity? A well-balanced, rational person? Yikes.
How the hell did this man get reelected? People that get SSI and taniff usually don't vote... so it's more than the entitlement people... everyone I've talked to did not vote for this guy.. minorities make up what about 12 or 15% of the population.... I guess my Republican party just don't have the muscle that they once had...
It is estimated 300,000 evangelists were told not to vote for Romney because he was a member of a cult. Stupidity runs deep in this country.
That was a worry of mine.
It is estimated that millions of voters did not vote for President Obama because he is a Black man. Stupidity runs deep in this country.
It is estimated that 93% of African American voters did vote for Obama simply because of he is the first black president. Stupidity runs deep in this country.
You don't like black people do you? You are saying that 93% of African Americans are too stupid to vote for the issues, rather they voted purely on race? Ok, how many white people DIDN'T vote for Obama because he is black?
Actually I have no issue with black people. I have several as friends. I have an issue with stupidity when it comes to voting for the leader of our country and anyone whether they voted for Obama because he was black or voted against Obama because he was black falls into the stupidity category.
And again, you took my comment to mean how I feel. It was in response to GG126 stating that millions of voters DID NOT vote for Obama because he was Black. I was simply pointing out that there were also millions who voted for him because he was Black.
My point, that you missed entirely, is that to vote for anyone because of the color of their skin is stupidity.
Whatever helps you sleep at night. I agree with your last sentence.
My vote had nothing to do with that. I would've easily voted for Allan West or Condoleeza Rice.
There is a lot more than muscle that your Republican Party is lacking in.
Good grief. The man IS the president of the United States of America. He did order the death of Osama bin Laden. There are only a million people who would like to kill him or his family. And, unless al-Qaeda is coming for you, you can have almost any weapon your heart desires to defend yourself and your family. You don't need a AR-15 or an AK-47 or a 30 round clip for your Glock for protection.
Who wouldn't have ordered the death of Osama Bin Laden? Obama just happened to be president at the time, not that hard to figure out what to do.
George W. Bush
He would have if he was president at the time. It doesn't matter, Obuma did nothing special. It was the navy seals that found Laden, not Obuma.
Hold on there partner. The facts show differently. #43 diverted the search and arrest efforts of Osama BL and subsequently stated his capture was not essential to the war on terrorism. It is also true that Clinton had the opportunity to take him out in his term but passed it over.
I was gonna mention Clinton passing him over, but didn't, glad you mentioned it.
Bush was too busy invading Iraq for oil to worry about terrorists.
I don't recall Bush invading Iraq for oil., I believe that about as much as Obama went in and got Bin Laden.
The second amendment states the citizens armed militia is for the security of the FREE STATE. The militia must have equivalent weapons in order to properly defend the state.
So we need drones, RPGs, tanks, F-22s and all that other stuff? What have you been smoking?
Jimbob, with this muslum extremist as prez I'm sure alot of people would feel alot better if we did have all that equipment. This guy is more dangeruous to this country than Hitler ever was.
I don't need to comment on this...
What do you think the 2nd means? What freedoms are you willing to give up?
I don't believe the founding fathers intended to allow each and every person with the means to purchase, have every weapon known to mankind. There is simpley no need for the things shown on TV to be flying off the dealers shelves.
You will please note he gave up SEAL Team Six so that the Terrorists knew it was them and not him. By the way, there is no SEAL Team Six, I believe they have an actual different Team designator. At least they used to, and I believe they still do. Many of them were concerned for their famlies safety after they were outed.
The team stationed at Little Creek Va. will disagree they do not exist. However, I do agree that all teams were at one time highly secretive in public so as not to endanger families.
Devgru ring any bells, and I don't mean the bell in California
Jimboob - Want to see an severely ignorant comment? Read one of your earlier posts = "Assault type weapons and large cap mags have no business in a law abiding citizens home".
When you make these kind of short sighted comments you have no credibility! In case you don't see it or fail to see it, it is the part that says "in law abiding citizens home". What do you fear from law abiding citizens? What we should fear are the MENTALLY IMPAIRED who have no respect for human life. So please don't try to insult the law abiding citizens who may have these types of weapons.
They are no more a threat to society than you may be if you had a high speed sports car. These fast cars have been known to be involved with multiple deaths, even though in most cases the irresponsible driver is really the cause and the one to blame. Just like it is not the type of gun or the multiple round magazine used, but the irresponsible persons actions for pulling the trigger . But then again with your failure to rationalize events with common sense you may actually be more of a threat. THINK!!!!
Have no business because there is no need for them. What do you do with a 30 round mag? Is it because you can't hit what you aim at ? 3 ten round clips do the same thing.
Jimboob - you are on a roll by making another foolish and uninformed comment. If " ten round clips do the same thing", then why target a 30 round clip for banning? It is not the clip or the type of weapon. It is the person pulling the trigger. Why is that so hard for you and others to understand?
Charging clips load magazines..Magazines go into weapons.
Every president for years has had their families protected with armed security. It is the law. Targeting the family of a president regardless of the party is poor judgement. Criticize the man leave the children out of it. What a low life to do that.
You mean the type that will surround himself with children in order to garner support for taking law abiding American citizens rights away? You mean that type of low life?
Or the type who would imply that the President of the United States of America is a "low life?" Agree or disagree with his policies, he is far from a "low life."
I am not the one that called him a low life. I was just using the reference that Fryar threw out there about someone using someone else's kids for political purposes. If the NRA ad was from a low life then that in turn it means the Obama administration is low life. Both used kids to make their point.
Okay, my mistake. For the record, though, do you think he is a low life?
I don't argue that the President's children don't need protection. I'm sure we have NO idea the danger that they live with every day. But, is any child's life less important. This entire charade is about "protecting the children."
I feel the current POTUS is a lowlife bottom feeder, whose sole purpose in his presidency is to destroy the United States of America. In 60 years I have never seen a President bow to a foreign leader from an islamic state.
I think anyone calling Obuma a lowlife is just being nice. He is below a lowlife. I don't think Obuma is submitting these gun laws to protect the children rather than using it as a tool to use it to his advantage for his own agenda.
For the record I do not view any human being as a low life. I do think there are those who are evil, who have no morals, have no conscience, etc. but low life is not a term I would use to describe anyone. Nor would I use White trash or Black trash to describe someone.
According to the Secret Service President Obama has received more death threats than any other President in US history. The threats began in 2007 as soon as he announced his run for the Presidency. The threats have extended to his immediate family. He and his family deserve protection from the lunatics of this world.
The point of the NRA ad and one you gun control advocates seem to miss is that if Obama's children are important enough to protect with armed guards why aren't ours? I do not care if he is the president or the speaker of the house or the attorney general or the governor or whatever public office you can name, his or her kids are not anymore important than mine or my brothers or my sisters or my neighbors. When will you all wake up to the hypocrisy of our leaders who preach one thing and then do another?
When you are the President of the U.S. there are threats specifically against you and your children everyday. If you or your children had personal threats against you, then you would either be in protective custody or have armed police officers close by.
I don't like the message you send to our kids with armed guards in the school, metal detectors, and whatnot. With that being said, I don't have a problem with an armed security guard at a school to prevent needless mass shootings from occurring if they are plain clothed and the weapon is concealed.
You are so wrong about that. If someone made a personal threat against me I would neither be in protective custody or have armed police protecting me because there are not enough resources in law enforcement for that to happen. It would be investigated but I would not be protected.
Then you would cease to exist after a short while.
And that is one of the many reasons I am against gun control that is unreasonable. At this particular moment in time I would not cease to exist because I currently have the right and freedom to protect myself in a multitude of ways. However, if the liberals and Obama were able to do gun control to the extent they want to do gun control then I potentially could cease to exist because my right to defend myself would not exist.
I have no issue with the POTUS having armed protection for his family. None. What I do have an issue with is that he thinks we do not need it for ours.
That goes beyond absurd as are all of your remarks on this thread.
Really? You say that because one of his requests from Congress was funding to put armed guards in schools? No, that was not one of the actions he wants Congress to take. You say that because he plans to provide funding through an executive order that would provide armed guards at schools? No that is not one of the 23 executive orders being implemented. Absurdity is your acceptence that the families and children of the POTUS and Congress are more important than yours or mine.
The children of the POTUS are in more imminent danger than yours and mine.
What is your point? That just because there is a greater possibility of a tragedy they deserve protection but ours don't? Obviously, based on the Newton tragedy, our kids are in danger as well or we would not even be having this discussion. The solution to protecting his kids is armed guards. Why is that not the same solution for our kids?
I have previously stated that I disagree with the President on that front. We obviously don't have the resources to have a 1:1 ratio of students and armed guards, nor do we need that. I think a plain clothed officer with a concealed handgun would suffice in each school or for every X amount of students.
Yeah, we should stick to criticizing HIm for sending His daughters to an elite private school rather than D.C. public schools. That makes more sense.
Well of course Obama has armed guards, as he should. He is (cough, cough) the president of the United States. The president can't be a sitting duck for anyone who might attempt to assassinate him
Come and get them. That will be the motto of the gun lovers. We have ours and they are not going anywhere. Well hidden in a remote rural area. State law will take over and trump federal law. The feds do not have the manpower to enforce it. The military has the Constitution disallowing them to attack a civilian citizens. Weren't our forefathers so much more in knowing what was going on. Wonder what the Constitution would read if it was written today.
That is where they should be....well hidden!
Its funny how alot of my post are not aloowed by this Obumma suckup libtard paper. No swearing, nothing the libtard media don't print the other way. I think they believe we will stop telling the truth about Obumma if they don't post it, wrong.
I'm greatful the Herald lets us post. However, they have to insure civility, and make certian they aren't drug in on any law suits over postings here. It is called limiting liability. You should be able to communicate without swearing. About like in the service when you referred to an Officer as an individual you hope who's Momma will run out from under the porch and bite him on the leg. See, ne swearing, but you still get the gist.
In the words of Jack Nicholson (as Col. Nathan R. Jessep) The Truth! You can't handle the truth!
In reference to anyone who says "You do not need a 30 clip (magazine) for your weapons, let me ask you one question. How many actual gunfights have you been in that makes you capable of making such a statement? As to the constitution of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA, what part of "shall not be infringed" is being misunderstood. The POTUS as one as stated, is attempting to become the first dictator of the United States. ALL the dictators of the 20th century, 1. Claimed thier actions were for the good of the people and 2. Surrounded themselves with your children to make people believe the dictators were protecting them. Hundreds of millions of dead children throughout the world, would most certainly be alive if it was not for the genocide ordered by the government in control at the time. Will Obama order genocide, Of course not, he is not in a complete dictatorship, but one should be able to see his socialist agenda. The weapons being purchased are knockoffs of the military weapons produced and are not in themelves evil. They look evil to some and awesome to some, it is in the eye of the beholder. I have never seen any weapon discharge on its own, unless it had been fired so many times the barrels were to hot. We kill more children in this country, by allowing a 16 year old behind the wheel of an automobile than by weapons, and yet, we think it is an entitlement or a rite of passge to hand over the keys. YET, no one is standing on his soapbox stating we need to stop the auto manufactures from producing 2000 pound killing machines. Common sense has to prevail in all things we are doing. It has not been tht long ago we were killing one another with rocks and knives made of rocks. Disarming the Law abiding citizens of a country, is the agenda of a government who is in fear of its agenda being discovered. Remember, in 1776, we were the insurrectionist fighitng an overbearing country, we won, due to the citizens of this country raising their weapons and fighting the tyrannical KING (Obama I).
paragraphs are your friends.
Disarming the American public especially now while in economic distress is a recipe for disaster. During dire economic times, criminal activity increases. These bad guys will be armed or will be able to overpower you. They don't attack unless they have the advantage. Guns are the equalizer especially if you are older, more frail, or are outnumbered.
If this proposed ban passes, it will not be the end of it. This won't stop at a 30 round magazine law or "assault weapon" ban. It will then go to the next step of taking handguns. Then rifles and shotguns. Just as it has in liberal nations like England.
On another note; The government doesn't have to worry about how bad they piss you off if you are unarmed. Our forefathers recognized our God given right to protect ourselves. They decided to preserve that right with the 2nd Amendment. Who else to be better trusted with powerful arms than the American people? Citizens Own Guns - Slaves Don't
Cartman: "Disarming the American public especially now while in economic distress is a recipe for disaster. " No one is proposing this. There is no slippery slope. Just because there are traffic controls doesn't mean cars are going to be confiscated. No less a person than Justice Antonin Scalia said of District of Columbia v. Heller that the US Constitution has left open weaponry control. Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was in force for 10 years and it worked. No one's home was invaded to seize hand guns, rifles or shotguns. It passed constituional muster. The discussion is about military weapons in the hands of the general public. Folks need to stick to the subject and not get hysterical.
What would be accomplished by an AWB? And you think an AWB would be the end of it? Really?
"What would be accomplished by an AWB?"
the exact same thing the last one accomplished- nothing...
Cartman, I do believe the legislatin can be defined effectively to address specific objectives for control of military style weapons and large capacity magazine firearms. I do not believe the 2nd ammendment rights will be encroached upon. The 1994 AWB contained a political definition of assault weapons forced to protect armament manufactors and not second ammendment rights. A clear conscientious objective definition and limits will be a better approach. The 1994 legislation did have a strong positive impact on criminal behavior with assault weapons and LCM firearms. I am attaching a copy of a very thorough report which sets forth the effects of its implementation. It's a very thoughtful paper and requires a bit of objective attention.
Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and
Gun Violence, 1994-2003
Report to the National Institute of Justice,
United States Department of Justice
Christopher S. Koper
Daniel J. Woods and Jeffrey A. Roth
Jerry Lee Center of Criminology
University of Pennsylvania
3814 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
A June 2004 University of Pennsylvania study found that the ban succeeded in reducing crimes involving assault weapons. But the benefits at the time were outweighed by increased use of non-semiautomatic weapons, which the study said were used more frequently in crime. The researchers could not credit the ban with a drop in overall gun violence over the same period.
The study did point out that since assault weapons were used no more than "8% of gun crimes, even before the ban," its impact was likely too small to reliably measure
The following is copied from the report: "The Assault Weapons Ban’s Success in Reducing Criminal Use of the Banned Guns and Magazines Has Been Mixed
• Following implementation of the ban, the share of gun crimes involving AWs declined by 17% to 72% across the localities examined for this study (Baltimore, Miami, Milwaukee, Boston, St. Louis, and Anchorage), based on data covering all or portions of the 1995-2003 post-ban period. This is consistent with patterns found in national data on guns recovered by police and reported to ATF.
• The decline in the use of AWs has been due primarily to a reduction in the use of assault pistols (APs), which are used in crime more commonly than assault rifles (ARs). There has not been a clear decline in the use of ARs, though assessments are complicated by the rarity of crimes with these weapons and by substitution of post-ban rifles that are very similar to the banned AR models.
• However, the decline in AW use was offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with LCMs in jurisdictions studied (Baltimore, Milwaukee, Louisville, and Anchorage). The failure to reduce LCM use has likely been due to the immense stock of exempted pre-ban magazines, which has been enhanced by recent imports."
Again I note the report should be read entirely, carefully and thoughtfully with the understanding that the ban excluded (because of political definition) only certain LCM and AR. The study clearly shows the clear and positive impact on lessening criminal behavior with the excluded armaments. To understand think of it this way: Let's assume a vaccine for cancer is developed but the law only permits the vaccine to be administered for 10 years to a certain type of cancer. At the end of 10 years a study shows positive effects on the identified cancer but also reports that cancer generally is increasing. It is fallacious reasoning to state that because there hasn't been reversal in the number of general cancer patients the vaccine isn't effective.
I have had what you call assault weapons of various types for a few decades now. I currently own about 8 weapons which would fit that definition. I've never shot up a school. Make me understand again why these need to be taken from me?
Well, that is a good point. The law will probably not be retroactive. It will more than likely impact future manufacture, sell, transporting of rifles and probably disallow more than X number of bullets in the magazine.
Tell that to the poor people of NY. They have been given one year to sell their guns and magazines to someone out of state, or destroy them.
I believe this has gotten so far out of hand that further comment is pointless.
It was pointless from the beginning. No minds are going to be changed. Just like I have said before banning guns of any kind will accomplish nothing. Plain and simple! It only benefits the criminal element.
I am waiting for the day to come to make it illegal to use and sell dangerous drugs. Wait........
VSU: "It (this blog) was pointless from the beginning. No minds are going to be changed." On the contrary, the blog has been very constructive and civil. It is proof that in America we can disagree, even passionately, and listen to each other people. It is also a very serious matter and people on each side have legitimate concerns and rights. We all have a dog in this fight.
Certain dog breeds should be outlawed.
When I stated it was pointless from the beginning was in reference to the squawk about Obama and his family having armed guards. In recent history the president and his family having armed guards has been pretty much the norm so in my opinion the squawk was pointless. I only meant that I felt everybody knows where each person stands on the issue and no minds will be changed, but with that being said, I enjoy reading peoples comments and their views and concerns and I agree with everything you just said. I appreciate your comments.
@Sherwood_Eagle_Alum: you're fallen quite a long way from being the most interesting man in the world over the last few weeks.
@FryarTuk: You and your hero Ron Paul are far apart on this issue. What happened to your blind worship of Mr. Paul??
Ron Paul on Gun Control
Ron Paul on Gun Control pt2
I do admit a strong admiration of Dr. Paul as for blind worship, just a little shy of that methinks. Paul is not a single issue person and would not throw people out of the tent because of disagreements. I would still vote for him today over either of the 2012 candidates inspite of our differing positions.
Well answered, my friend. What brand of Scottish Single Malt were you referring to?
The Macallan. Sis you old curmudgeon, you're a treasure.
@Sis, I just choose to think for myself, instead of relying on what mainstream media AKA sponsors AKA the NRA want me to think. I am not saying that you are like this, because you drink your own kool-aid, lol, but there are many who frequent this site who do not think for themselves.
And unfortunately we also have many who do not THINK rationally, many who do not use common sense, and many basing their opinions on emotions rather than making informed comments.
You are making an assumption for which you have no proof. Just because someone has a viewpoint that happens to coincide with the NRA viewpoint does not mean that they did not come to that conclusion on their own.
I, for example, never paid attention to the NRA other than reading news articles related to their defense of the second amendment. I was not an NRA member until recently. But based on your statement above, simply because I support limited gun control on law abiding citizens and my views and thoughts related to the 2nd amendment happen to be close to those of the NRA I do not think for myself.
Based on your statement above, I could argue that you do not think for yourself because your views on this particular issue are pretty close to the liberal viewpoint and in support of major gun control.
Insulting other peoples intelligence and ability to think for themselves scores you no points and actually makes you look and sound like a snob who thinks you are better than others.
Not so fast. I never said you or anyone specifically don't think for yourselves. I obviously don't know you, so I would be foolish to pretend that that is the case. With that being said, too many people on both sides of the fence (gun control, abortion, gay marriage...etc) don't think for themselves.
I don't think for myself because I live in the Deep South, I'm white, I was raised in church, college educated with multiple advanced degrees, excellent job, no financial problems, happily married, parents who are hardcore right-wingers...and I have some liberal views? Does that sound like someone who doesn't think?
As for insulting others...I have made cracks at a theoretical individual who does not think for himself/herself, but rather votes or thinks how others say he/she should vote or think. I am not trying to "score any points," but rather get you thinking about the other side of the argument. Am I a snob? Eh...maybe...
First, my comment about insulting a person's intelligence was based on the following sentence from you comment above........"but there are many who frequent this site who do not think for themselves."
Second, I never said you did not think. Truth be told I enjoy most of your comments. I am not anywhere close to agreeing with the ones you and some others have on gun control, but I happen to like reading the viewpoints of the many people who post on these squawks whether I agree with them or not.
Third, when I said you have a liberal viewpoint it was in regards to gun control. Nothing more, nothing less. I do not know all your thoughts or views to be able to make a blanket statement about whether they are conservative or liberal. Simply, your gun control views lean more to the liberal side than the conservative side based on your statements.
The discussion of restricting military assault weaponry has been colored with a great deal of hysteria. We are not addressing issues of the 2nd amendment. The legislative discussion focuses on: 1. background checks for all gun purchasers to include gun shows (88% of the American people support this); 2. a database tracking gun sales (71% of the American people support this); 3. background checks on anyone buying gun ammunition? (76% of the American public support this); 4. ban on the sale of military style assault weapons (58% of the American people support this;) 5.ban on high-capacity ammunition clips, meaning those containing more than 10 bullets (65% of the American public support). The American people clearly support legislation to address the availability of military assault weapons.
Fryar - did you know that 63.7% of quoted statistics are made up on the spot? Have a great day!
Thanks I will have a nice day and the same to you. These came from the very highly regarded ABC-WaPo survey only a few days ago. You can Google the poll and read a lot more. The above reinforces the point that the overwhelming majority of the citizens of the United States want something done about the availability of mass murder weapons and military armaments. In a democratic society, the majority rules. Now, I am headed out to the farm to drink some strong coffee and shoot skeet with some visiting relatives from 'Lanter.
ABC....Liberal Media....Liberal Agenda....yep, I would trust that poll is accurate.
The poll is commissioned by the ABC Network and Washington Post not their reporters. Whatever their (ABC-WaPo) political division, the independent research firm wouldn't have any credibility if it sided with an opinion. It's not like a political pundit doing his or her own work.
"recent surveys conducted on behalf of CNN and Time magazine have shown that the public's support for stricter gun legislation is dropping."
"Despite constant hammering by the national news media, the National Rifle Association has a favorability rating of 54 percent in the latest Gallup survey, slightly higher than President Obama's rating of 53 percent."
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/randy-hall/2013/01/18/poll-shows-nra-more-popular-president-obama-usual-media-ignore#ixzz2ILmSGgkW
USTPC ---- Excellent. Thanks for the FACTS.
I am a supporter of the NRA. It does excellent educational programs. In the your Gallup poll it also said that 61% of NRA supporters disagree with some of the things the NRA promotes. I am one of them. I encourage you to research and read original material rather than just second hand quote a few references.
And Fryer_ rather than focusing on the NRA, you should read the documents related to why the 2nd Admendment was written into the Constitution along with the Bill of Rights. In summary, it clearly states the reason and purpose was to allow the CITIZENS the opportunity to defend themselves from a corrupt and tyrannical government (which was their concern from their experiences from the government in England at that time).
So fo all those who keep commenting their is no need for specific types of weapons, you are being short sighted and foolish - just like the people of Germany who blindly accepted the words of Hitler and his socialist followers..
I am not focusing on the NRA. I am a loyal supporter of the NRA and know they do good things especially in education but they do not speak for me on every single issue. I am a loyal United Methodist, but my pastor and bishop, both of whom I admire extravagantly do not speak for me. We need to think for ourselves and not just run the script through our minds every time Wayne LaPierre has a press conference. You know little about the development of the U. S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights was added as an afterthought. The smaller and less populated colonies were concerned they would pushed aside. Most of the framers never understood why they reasoned as they did but went along to get the deal done. As for your comments that "their (sic) is no need for specific types of weapons," no one is arguing that either. What most folks are saying is leave them in the hands of the military and enforcement agencies where they are needed and belong. Your comment about Hitler and socialist followers is so insane I'm beginning to wonder if you should have a drivers license not to mention an AK-47.