Me & my AK-47

[Geezah]

20-something female walks into a gun shop, wearing a pink sweater and pearls, and asks to buy an AK-47. Half-dozen men, several in flannel, look up from the rows of gun displays.
They had holsters. She had heels.

I knew I looked out of place at a gun store, but I wanted to see how difficult it would be to buy an assault weapon in Pittsburgh, just days after Keith “Spud” Watts Jr. was murdered with an AK-47 knock-off outside Carrick High School.

I went alone to Firearms Unlimited in Bridgeville two days after the shooting.

I parked in back of the wooden-paneled shop, built into the side of a hill off Route 50 and rang the doorbell to gain entrance. Inside, it was packed. A hundred rifles lined the walls where glass cases of handguns didn’t.

Manager Randy Canella looked up from a sale and asked if I needed any help. “I’m looking for a long gun,” I said. “I want an AK-47.”

Canella took a drag of his cigarette.


“I have some in back,” he said. “I’ll be with you in a minute.” He brought out three models and set them on the counter. I stood with crossed arms while he explained the guns’ features, rotating them on their sides and pointing out the magazine. I tried not to flinch.

Canella finally asked, “Why do you want this gun?”

I answered, “Why not?”

The men in the store laughed, and I asked how to load the bullets.

The Romanian Century Arms, WASR-10, 7.62-x-39 mm rifle was the cheapest at $389.95, or $422.25 after tax. It was a clone, like most AK-47s in America. The first President Bush made it illegal to import the Russian and Chinese military models. The knock-offs look like AK-47s, fire like AK-47s and are very accurate at short distances. I said I’d take it.

Canella stopped me.

“I don’t mean to be nosy, but if you want a gun for self-protection, a shotgun would be better,” he said, assuming that’s the only reason for this blonde in a twin sweater set to need an AK-47. “It’s easier to load for people who aren’t familiar with firing a gun, and it does a lot of damage.”

“My dad recommended this model,” I said, searching for an excuse.

Except for a possible stray bullet in the chamber, I shouldn’t have been worried. In America, it’s legal to buy guns.

Even this one, a semiautomatic rifle developed for Soviets tank crews to kill from a mile away. Joe Dominick, Allegheny County’s chief deputy coroner, said shots from an AK-47 inflict trauma all over the body. The bullet can blow through several body parts, cutting through a hand to the torso through the other hand. And rarely is an AK-47 fired just once. At least eight shots were fired at Watts’ Geo Tracker.

Under Pennsylvania law, gun shops can sell a rifle to anybody 18 or older from any state with no criminal record. An AK-47 is a rifle, and I could purchase it on the spot. I didn’t need a reason or even a gun permit.

But there was a catch. As a new resident in Pennsylvania, I did not have a driver’s license from the state. I thought my U.S. passport would be sufficient to buy a rifle, but Canella disagreed. He wanted a government-issued photo ID with my present address and sent me across the street to the Driver’s License Center.

I waited four days for New York State to fax a transcript of my driving record to PennDOT. With my new driver’s license in hand, I went back to Firearms Unlimited last Tuesday. Cop cars blocked several stalls when I pulled into the parking lot. Three people were being questioned. A woman had her hands behind her back. A violent crime impact team from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was investigating a possible straw purchase, when a person with a clean record buys firearms for convicted criminals. I left the engine running for a second and hesitated to unlock the doors. I was the only one not armed.

But I was here to pick up my AK-47. I sidestepped the commotion and climbed the rickety stairs to the entrance.

“I don’t have to sell anybody a gun I don’t want to, and I don’t have to have a reason,” Canella said when I got inside. “It’s more gut than anything else. It’s a major concern for us, and it’s a duty.”

He recognized me, “the AK-47 girl,” and tried to steer me toward the shotgun again. “If you were my wife, daughter or sister, I would tell you to get a shotgun, but if your mind’s made up, your mind’s made up,” he said. “It’s my job to advise, but you make the decision.”

I had to fill out a federal form with my basic information and answer 13 easy questions about whether or not I was a fugitive, had mental illnesses or was an illegal alien. The store called Instacheck, a state program that surveys police records, and assigned me an approval number within five minutes. Instacheck replaced the former, mandatory five-day waiting period and the state police have found approximately 60 percent of individuals trying to buy a gun can be approved instantly. Firearms Unlimited owner Robert Carola guessed that number is closer to 95 percent.

Police do not know how the gun used to kill Watts was obtained. Derwin Milligan, 17, of Climax Street in Beltzhoover has been charged with criminal homicide in the death, and is not old enough to purchase a firearm legally. The murder weapon has not been found yet, police said.

I did not buy any bullets. I did not want to have any rounds lying around when I didn’t even know how to load a gun; I told Canella I wanted to wait until after I took the gun safety course he recommended. He was proud. A poster on the entranceway advertises National Rifle Association training courses. I ripped off one of the slips of paper with the Web site address, www.safe-tee.net. Carola said he takes pride in selling guns to “upstanding citizens” for sport or self protection.

Firearms Unlimited followed all of the laws. Canella even cajoled me into a four-day wait period while I applied for the Pennsylvania driver’s license.

I had entered the store at 1:22 p.m. Store clerk Brandon Moore loaded the gun into my trunk at 2:22 p.m. The actual purchase took an hour because of cash register technicalities.

Six days after Watts was murdered, four days after I applied for a driver’s license, one hour after entering the store and five minutes after a criminal record check, I legally owned a semiautomatic AK-47-style rifle.

Josie Roberts can be reached at jroberts@tribweb.com or (412) 380-5609.

Link (http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/trib/regional/s_318331.html)

A strawman purchase is not only where you buy a firearm for a convicted felon, it is also where you fill out the Yellow Form but you are purchasing it for someone else. Sarah Brady made a Strawman purchase for her son.

[ShotOver]

Well thats pretty detailed information on how you lot purchase firearms.
But, i don't understand what this was posted for? Not being rude or anythin, could you explain?

[Legion]

Even this one, a semiautomatic rifle developed for Soviets tank crews to kill from a mile away.

Maybe it's just me but, wouldn't a Soviet tank have a better weapon to kill someone from a mile away?

[Lokos]

The AK-47 was not used by Soviet tank crews.

And an AK-47 killing someone a mile away is more luck than design, in any case.

Lokos

[Howitz]

Even this one, a semiautomatic rifle developed for Soviets tank crews to kill from a mile away.

Maybe it's just me but, wouldn't a Soviet tank have a better weapon to kill someone from a mile away?

I would also like to shake the hand of the man who can get a kill with a cheap AK from a mile away.

It looks like the point of the article is to show that "evil" guns like the Ak-47 can be purchased shortly after a high profile incident. So basically, it's a blatant arguement for knee-jerk banning of guns in this country. It will also convince the ignorant the these AK clones are somehow deadlier than any other gun on the market, and have the mystic ability to fire themselves to kill innocent people.

It's when people get there information from BS articles like these instead of actually doing reasearch do they start to support **** like the assault weapons ban.
Gah! :fork: already wrote a letter to my senator (Levin), about this: http://www.gunlawnews.org/senatebills/sb645.php

[ColoradoJeff]

I believe we all need to writing our senators and representatives and not just about http://www.gunlawnews.org/senatebills/sb645.php. Let's get on the horn and start making noise in support of
http://www.gunlawnews.org/senatebills/sb397.php and
http://www.gunlawnews.org/housebills/hr47.php and
http://www.gunlawnews.org/housebills/hr800.php and
http://www.gunlawnews.org/housebills/hr1288.php and
http://www.gunlawnews.org/housebills/hr1384.php.

The bottom line is that there are alot of good bills out there. We need to support them just as much as we ding the bills that piss us off.

There is more to freedom than just trying to maintain the status quo. Let's get out there and take back some of the ground we have lost over the last forty years. Let's get out there and show them a real ground swell of support.

And finally, let's email the sponsors and cosponsors of these bills and show them the appreciation they deserve.

[Geezah]

Well thats pretty detailed information on how you lot purchase firearms.
But, i don't understand what this was posted for? Not being rude or anythin, could you explain?

Well I thought it was a pretty good article coming from a person I would call an anti-gunite, she went in to purchase an AK and proved that there are currently checks and balances in place to stop any Tom, **** or Harry just going in and coming out with any firearm 5mins later.
And seeing as firearms are a very policitcal subject that's why it's posted in here ;)

[ShotOver]

Well thats pretty detailed information on how you lot purchase firearms.
But, i don't understand what this was posted for? Not being rude or anythin, could you explain?

Well I thought it was a pretty good article coming from a person I would call an anti-gunite, she went in to purchase an AK and proved that there are currently checks and balances in place to stop any Tom, **** or Harry just going in and coming out with any firearm 5mins later.
And seeing as firearms are a very policitcal subject that's why it's posted in here ;)

Ah ha, i get ya. Shes an anti-gun chick and she got put in her place with her own article, how very sweet :D

[Geezah]

Well thats pretty detailed information on how you lot purchase firearms.
But, i don't understand what this was posted for? Not being rude or anythin, could you explain?

Well I thought it was a pretty good article coming from a person I would call an anti-gunite, she went in to purchase an AK and proved that there are currently checks and balances in place to stop any Tom, **** or Harry just going in and coming out with any firearm 5mins later.
And seeing as firearms are a very policitcal subject that's why it's posted in here ;)

Ah ha, i get ya. Shes an anti-gun chick and she got put in her place with her own article, how very sweet :D

I don't think she was so much put in her place, she tried to paint the picture that it was still too easy to purchase an AK after a shooting.
But I will give her credit that she was somewhat fair in her report.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Nice article Geezah much appreciated. It seems a good process that you do have over there in what needs to be done to be able to purchase firearms.

I'm still disapointed in insofar as the type of weapons (ak-47 copy) I can not get my head around such weapons being in public hands. Doesent matter how much stats and **** you show. I will never get my head around it.

But yeah seems to be a good system. Probably the only way I could see improvements is that they should have the safety course mandatory before you can purchase and also make it mandatory to be a member of a (name any gun owners organisation)

I'll leave all the other **** out of this one.

But yeah cheers cobber

[ColoradoJeff]

Let me start by saying that I believe in education and training. Lots of training with lots of ammunition ( ;) ).

That being said, the government should require nothing. Any government requirement requires an infrastructure to track compliance. It builds databases of education and can be used to track purchasees. Increasing government requirements can be a way to restrict the free exercise of our rights.

Ultimately government requirements of any nature, are an assault on the ideals upon which this country was founded.

Personal Responsibility is the key.

[joe mama]

I think her point was to see how easy it was to get the rifle, and even though it may not have been as instant as she thought it would be, she still very much feels that it was far too easy. She, of course, convienently ignores the fact that the criminal who killed the guy in the crime that inspired her broke the law saying he couldn't buy the gun (he's underage), broke the law (probably) saying you can walk around with a loaded rifle, and broke the law saying you can't kill someone unless it's in self defense. She's a law abiding citizen that passed a criminal background check, why shouldn't she be allowed to buy this gun? Because she MIGHT comitt a crime with it? If we're going to treat people like criminals because of what they MIGHT do, we need to lock everyone up right now. Does she actually think a guy who would kill someone like this would have not done it if it was illegal for law abiding citizens to buy this gun? It was already illegal for him to have the gun, and that didn't stop him, how is making something that's illegal even more illegal going to stop him?
At least she put some information in there about having to pass the background check, it almost balances the misinformation about the rifle.

[Eat a bullet]

Let me start by saying that I believe in education and training. Lots of training with lots of ammunition ( ;) ).

That being said, the government should require nothing. Any government requirement requires an infrastructure to track compliance. It builds databases of education and can be used to track purchasees. Increasing government requirements can be a way to restrict the free exercise of our rights.

Ultimately government requirements of any nature, are an assault on the ideals upon which this country was founded.

Personal Responsibility is the key.
I like the new guy. :D

[Legion]

Let me start by saying that I believe in education and training. Lots of training with lots of ammunition ( ;) ).

That being said, the government should require nothing. Any government requirement requires an infrastructure to track compliance. It builds databases of education and can be used to track purchasees. Increasing government requirements can be a way to restrict the free exercise of our rights.

Ultimately government requirements of any nature, are an assault on the ideals upon which this country was founded.

Personal Responsibility is the key.

Amen and welcome ColoradoJeff woot

[joe mama]

I'm still disapointed in insofar as the type of weapons (ak-47 copy) I can not get my head around such weapons being in public hands. Doesent matter how much stats and **** you show. I will never get my head around it.


Let's make a comparison - what do you think of fast motorcycles and fast cars being in public hands? Lots of people are hurt and killed by and in them. No one "needs" them. They can be even faster and more powerful than the bikes and cars the police have. They can be used to drive to work and obey all laws and take the kids to get ice cream and other legal uses...well, so can guns. Millions of guns never shoot anything more than targets.
What do you think? (I don't think for a second I'll change your views, I'm just wondering if you're willing to look at these guns from a different point of view.)

[Geezah]

Nice article Geezah much appreciated. It seems a good process that you do have over there in what needs to be done to be able to purchase firearms.

My first firearm I got a proceed back on after my background check, ever since then I'm delayed(which means they are performing further checks) but it always comes back as proceed about 2days later.



I'm still disapointed in insofar as the type of weapons (ak-47 copy) I can not get my head around such weapons being in public hands. Doesent matter how much stats and **** you show. I will never get my head around it.

The only thing that are the same are the cosmetic features, unless you count the size of the round but then if you're looking for something that will hold 30rnds you could always get a Ruger Mini-30 ranch rifle.



But yeah seems to be a good system. Probably the only way I could see improvements is that they should have the safety course mandatory before you can purchase and also make it mandatory to be a member of a (name any gun owners organisation)

The system works but it only works for those criminals that are stupid enough to buy a firearm from a gun dealer, but don't get me wrong I am in favour of it.
For anyone not familar with firearms then yes but if you have family memebrs or friends that are willing to go shoot with you and teach you the basics then it serves no purpose. But I have been at the range and it would be nice if a few of the people there could buy some common sense.



I'll leave all the other **** out of this one.

I'd prefer you to be yourself rather than tell me you agree with it when you really don't?



But yeah cheers cobber

No problem, I'll have you liking firearms sooner than you think, and believe it or not they don't go bang by themselves p-)

[joe mama]

Hey dudes, I sent this reported an email, and I actually got a reply! Although she may be anti, at least she seems willing to discuss things...below is what I sent and her reply. I've cut out my email, but left her info in since it's published in the article.

-----Original Message-----
From: Josie Roberts [mailto:jroberts@tribweb.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 11:09 AM
Subject: RE: re Me & my AK-47

Thanks for your e-mail. I'm glad to hear you raising those questions because that was part of the reason for writing the article -- to start a
discussion. I wanted to illustrate Pennsylvania's gun laws in action. Many
of my readers didn't realize that AK-47 clones are legal rifles. Some people have asked, "Is it too easy to get this kind of gun?" For others, it
confirmed the 2nd Amendment is working as prescribed.

I wish I knew how to keep weapons out of the wrongs hands.

Thanks for reading and sharing your opinion.

------------------------
Josie Roberts
Trib pm
412-380-5609
503 Martindale St.
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
jroberts@tribweb.com

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 11:03 AM
To: jroberts@tribweb.com
Subject: re Me & my AK-47

I'm curious, was your point in writing this article to show that
you, a law abiding citizen who passed a criminal background check should be allowed to purchase an item that, if used irresponsibly, could be used for committing a crime, however millions of items like this one are used
everyday without hurting anyone or committing any crime? Or that, even
though you're a law abiding citizen who passed a criminal background check, you should be treated like a criminal and not be trusted to have such an item because you might break the law with it?
Can your car exceed the speed limit? And/or be driven dangerously and hit someone? And/or be driven while you are drunk (if you drink)? And/or be stolen by a criminal and then used to commit a crime? Isn't it insane that the government would allow you to buy such a car? After all, look at what MIGHT be done with it.
The criminal that committed the crime that inspired you to buy this rifle broke numerous laws. If he bought the gun, it was illegal for him to buy it, as he is 17. More than likely his possession of the gun was illegal. His use of the gun was certainly illegal. Since he obviously didn't care about these laws and they didn't stop him from killing his victim, do you think he would care about a law that said that you, a law abiding citizen, couldn't buy this gun?

[Geezah]

I think her point was to see how easy it was to get the rifle, and even though it may not have been as instant as she thought it would be, she still very much feels that it was far too easy. She, of course, convienently ignores the fact that the criminal who killed the guy in the crime that inspired her broke the law saying he couldn't buy the gun (he's underage), broke the law (probably) saying you can walk around with a loaded rifle, and broke the law saying you can't kill someone unless it's in self defense. She's a law abiding citizen that passed a criminal background check, why shouldn't she be allowed to buy this gun? Because she MIGHT comitt a crime with it? If we're going to treat people like criminals because of what they MIGHT do, we need to lock everyone up right now. Does she actually think a guy who would kill someone like this would have not done it if it was illegal for law abiding citizens to buy this gun? It was already illegal for him to have the gun, and that didn't stop him, how is making something that's illegal even more illegal going to stop him?
At least she put some information in there about having to pass the background check, it almost balances the misinformation about the rifle.

PreCrime.....it works p-)

[Geezah]

Hey dudes, I sent this reported an email, and I actually got a reply! Although she may be anti, at least she seems willing to discuss things...below is what I sent and her reply. I've cut out my email, but left her info in since it's published in the article.

-----Original Message-----
From: Josie Roberts [mailto:jroberts@tribweb.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 11:09 AM
Subject: RE: re Me & my AK-47

Thanks for your e-mail. I'm glad to hear you raising those questions because that was part of the reason for writing the article -- to start a
discussion. I wanted to illustrate Pennsylvania's gun laws in action. Many
of my readers didn't realize that AK-47 clones are legal rifles. Some people have asked, "Is it too easy to get this kind of gun?" For others, it
confirmed the 2nd Amendment is working as prescribed.

I wish I knew how to keep weapons out of the wrongs hands.

Thanks for reading and sharing your opinion.

------------------------
Josie Roberts
Trib pm
412-380-5609
503 Martindale St.
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
jroberts@tribweb.com

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 11:03 AM
To: jroberts@tribweb.com
Subject: re Me & my AK-47

I'm curious, was your point in writing this article to show that
you, a law abiding citizen who passed a criminal background check should be allowed to purchase an item that, if used irresponsibly, could be used for committing a crime, however millions of items like this one are used
everyday without hurting anyone or committing any crime? Or that, even
though you're a law abiding citizen who passed a criminal background check, you should be treated like a criminal and not be trusted to have such an item because you might break the law with it?
Can your car exceed the speed limit? And/or be driven dangerously and hit someone? And/or be driven while you are drunk (if you drink)? And/or be stolen by a criminal and then used to commit a crime? Isn't it insane that the government would allow you to buy such a car? After all, look at what MIGHT be done with it.
The criminal that committed the crime that inspired you to buy this rifle broke numerous laws. If he bought the gun, it was illegal for him to buy it, as he is 17. More than likely his possession of the gun was illegal. His use of the gun was certainly illegal. Since he obviously didn't care about these laws and they didn't stop him from killing his victim, do you think he would care about a law that said that you, a law abiding citizen, couldn't buy this gun?

That's sweet, I normally don't send emails to the people writing these articles as I often expect no response. I need to changer that.

[Geezah]

Let me start by saying that I believe in education and training. Lots of training with lots of ammunition ( ;) ).

That being said, the government should require nothing. Any government requirement requires an infrastructure to track compliance. It builds databases of education and can be used to track purchasees. Increasing government requirements can be a way to restrict the free exercise of our rights.

Ultimately government requirements of any nature, are an assault on the ideals upon which this country was founded.

Personal Responsibility is the key.

Amen and welcome ColoradoJeff woot

X2 welcome woot

[BarkingSquirrel]

No problem, I'll have you liking firearms sooner than you think, and believe it or not they don't go bang by themselves p-)LIAR! I've personally seen a glock jump up, let out an eeeeeeevil shriek of delightful depravity, and stare at me with godless tritium eyes. Then before my very own eyes, it converted itself to full auto, then somehow how shot up the place with a never ending source of ammunition, and finally running into the night laughing maniacally!

The horror. THE HORROR. THE HORROR.





















Yeah, it's aim sucked though. Hit pretty much everything but me.

[mi35d]

As would be expected, she made the AK out to be some wonder weapon that has magic killing properties. A .22LR round can travel up to a mile - I assume if you took the round in your head and you died, she would want to ban ".22 assault rifles".

Her reply was worthless. She didn't answer his questions or engage in any dialog. She gave a canned answer most likely coached by her editor.

[Durandal]

I will never get my head around it.

That's the beauty of a free society that most people have problems grasping.

You do not need to understand, just tolerate with the understanding that people are different.

Be open minded. Be liberal, in the classical sense.

[TacoDelRio]

Geezah,

As far as I've ever done, you can fill out a Form 4473 (Yellow Sheet) if you are buying a gun for your child. Otherwise, kids would be unable to buy "youth" model guns, like those tiny .22 rifles, and youth shotguns, etc.

If you buy a gun, and fill out the 4473 for a person who no longer has the right to own a firearm (felon, etc etc etc) then that is a straw purchase.


If I'm wrong, then I've processed alot of straw purchases!

[Geezah]

Geezah,

As far as I've ever done, you can fill out a Form 4473 (Yellow Sheet) if you are buying a gun for your child. Otherwise, kids would be unable to buy "youth" model guns, like those tiny .22 rifles, and youth shotguns, etc.

If you buy a gun, and fill out the 4473 for a person who no longer has the right to own a firearm (felon, etc etc etc) then that is a straw purchase.


If I'm wrong, then I've processed alot of straw purchases!

You can purchase a firearm for someone else as a gift, but you cannot purchase a firearm for someone if they gave you the funds :cantbeli:
The reason I know this, I purchased an M44 for my father-in-law as a B-day gift and I told my FFL what I wanted to do, he checked it out with the BATF, came back with an ok.

Found this,

That in making a “strawman purchase”, (that is, obtaining a firearm for another persons and so allowing them to skip the background check), she broke the laws of the United States and apparently the state of Delaware as well. Laws she advocated with such passion that the Brady Law was in part named for her. (Just as a side note imagine what the popular press and BATF’s reaction would have been if Charlton Heston or Tom Selleck had admitted to the same breach?).

I know you work in a gun store, and have a better understanding of Federal firearm laws, so please do not take the above as an arguement, I think the strawman purchase as applies to Sarah Brady may be due to checks in Delaware? or the fact the son was underage and she purchased it for him, not for herself and would be used by her son?

[TacoDelRio]

Ah, gotcha! :D

Miniardui can't wrap (his, her, its?) head around gun stuff in the USA, and I can't wrap my head around our paperwork!!!!!!!

I hate paperwork!

[PhillyMobster]

Quick question for the anti-gunites.

Uhh, how is a semi-automatic AK-47 different from any other semi-automatic gun? I'd be able to kill someone much more effectively with an old Garand M1 then I would with some cheap, knock-off AK-47, restricted to semi-auto. Sure, it looks mean, but I'd be more afraid of someone with a 30.06 than I would of someone with a 7.62x39. Its not a gun thing with the libs, its an image thing.

If someone restricts an UZI to semi-auto, and gives it a ten round magazine, somehow thats still a horrible thing to have as a legal weapon, but my Webly MKI, .455 revolver would knock the snot out of someone a whole lot sooner. These anti-gun people are a bunch of ignorant hypocrites. :roll:

[Belrick]

Let me get this right. You Americans want to live in a country where your neighbour can legally own and operate military weapons.

Why do you feel the need to have people killers?

ps: cars are'nt designed to kill people so a pretty lame analogy.

[Werewolf01]

No problem, I'll have you liking firearms sooner than you think, and believe it or not they don't go bang by themselves p-)LIAR! I've personally seen a glock jump up, let out an eeeeeeevil shriek of delightful depravity, and stare at me with godless tritium eyes. Then before my very own eyes, it converted itself to full auto, then somehow how shot up the place with a never ending source of ammunition, and finally running into the night laughing maniacally!

The horror. THE HORROR. THE HORROR.


OMG that happened to you too?!?!?!?! :cantbeli:





















Yeah, it's aim sucked though. Hit pretty much everything but me.

[Geezah]

Let me get this right. You Americans want to live in a country where your neighbour can legally own and operate military weapons.

What is it about you anti-gunites, the only thing that is military about them is the cosmetic features!



Why do you feel the need to have people killers?

OK, enough with the melodramatics, they are only people killers if used to kill, my firearms have only been used to shoot paper and a few pesky melons!



ps: cars are'nt designed to kill people so a pretty lame analogy.

Yet more people are killed each year in car accidents, but that makes cars ok, some how the point your trying to make doesn't compute!

[Legion]

Let me get this right. You Americans want to live in a country where your neighbour can legally own and operate military weapons.

Why do you feel the need to have people killers?

ps: cars are'nt designed to kill people so a pretty lame analogy.

http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_monopoly.jpg

[Geezah]

Let me get this right. You Americans want to live in a country where your neighbour can legally own and operate military weapons.

Why do you feel the need to have people killers?

ps: cars are'nt designed to kill people so a pretty lame analogy.

http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_monopoly.jpg
http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_order.jpg

[Durandal]

Let me get this right. You Americans want to live in a country where your neighbour can legally own and operate military weapons.

Why do you feel the need to have people killers?

ps: cars are'nt designed to kill people so a pretty lame analogy.

*chuckle*

I do not mind at all. My neighbors are law abiding citizens and diverse. I live in Northern Kentucky, right across the River from Cincinnati. My neighborhood is fairly progressive with a mix of old and young home owners in a downtown German style neighborhood.

Religious (various or none).
Ethnicity (about 75% white, 12.5% Black and Latino, 12.5% other).
Gay and Straight.
Male and Female.
Singles and Families.
Gun owners and non.
A couple poor and rich, but mainly middle class.
Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, Neo-Con.

Most know I have an arsenal in my basement. Others on my block do own and/or carry or do not own and/or detest guns. We all get along.

With your argument on cars...

I have a constitutional (State and Federal) right to own a gun. The State GRANTS me the privilege to use a car.

[joe mama]

Let me get this right. You Americans want to live in a country where your neighbour can legally own and operate military weapons.

Why do you feel the need to have people killers?

ps: cars are'nt designed to kill people so a pretty lame analogy.

I want to live in a country where the government doesn't try to be mommy and daddy and doesn't tell me I can't own something because of what I might do with it. And I want to live in a country where if the government becomes unresponsive to the people's will, and infringes on the people's rights, the people can do something about it. It starts with free speech and free press...but what if those things aren't working? Then what? We're ready to fight for our freedom if, worst case, it comes to it. You'd rather have the government feed you and clothe you and protect you from the bad people and wipe your ass for you. Funny, sounds like prison to me.

You're the one making the lame point, cars kill more people then guns, and since they're not designed to kill, doesn't that show that they're defective and/or that people can't be trusted to use them properly?

People are killed by guns, knives, bats, pieces of wood, hammers, axes, swimming pools, cars, dogs, and many other objects. Should we ban everything dangerous because of what a criminal might do with them?

[joe mama]

Let me get this right. You Americans want to live in a country where your neighbour can legally own and operate military weapons.

Why do you feel the need to have people killers?

ps: cars are'nt designed to kill people so a pretty lame analogy.

*chuckle*

I do not mind at all. My neighbors are law abiding citizens and diverse. I live in Northern Kentucky, right across the River from Cincinnati. My neighborhood is fairly progressive with a mix of old and young home owners in a downtown German style neighborhood.

Religious (various or none).
Ethnicity (about 75% white, 12.5% Black and Latino, 12.5% other).
Gay and Straight.
Male and Female.
Singles and Families.
Gun owners and non.
A couple poor and rich, but mainly middle class.
Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, Neo-Con.

Most know I have an arsenal in my basement. Others on my block do own and/or carry or do not own and/or detest guns. We all get along.

With your argument on cars...

I have a constitutional (State and Federal) right to own a gun. The State GRANTS me the privilege to use a car.

My only problem with what you've said is that it's not the constitution (state or federal) that gives you the right to own a gun, it's those constitutions that say the government can't take away your right to be armed. Some would say that right, like the right to free speech, free religion, etc, are god given, some would say they're natural, anyone can label them any way they want. I think point is the writers of the constitution believed that people deserve certain rights, regardless of where they come from, and the government shouldn't infringe on those rights, and one of those rights gives the physical means to resist that government if it does try to infringe on those rights.
In reality though, I agree with you.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Uhh, how is a semi-automatic AK-47 different from any other semi-automatic gun? I'd be able to kill someone much more effectively with an old Garand M1 then I would with some cheap, knock-off AK-47, restricted to semi-auto. Sure, it looks mean, but I'd be more afraid of someone with a 30.06 than I would of someone with a 7.62x39. Its not a gun thing with the libs, its an image thing.


Uhh, how is a semi-automatic AK-47 different from any other semi-automatic gun? I'd be able to kill someone much more effectively with an old Garand M1 then I would with some cheap, knock-off AK-47, restricted to semi-auto. Sure, it looks mean, but I'd be more afraid of someone with a 30.06 than I would of someone with a 7.62x39. Its not a gun thing with the libs, its an image thing.

[ex1cdo]

No problem, I'll have you liking firearms sooner than you think, and believe it or not they don't go bang by themselves p-)LIAR! I've personally seen a glock jump up, let out an eeeeeeevil shriek of delightful depravity, and stare at me with godless tritium eyes. Then before my very own eyes, it converted itself to full auto, then somehow how shot up the place with a never ending source of ammunition, and finally running into the night laughing maniacally!

The horror. THE HORROR. THE HORROR.





















Yeah, it's aim sucked though. Hit pretty much everything but me.

Normally, you and i would not agree. However, on this point, let us let bygones be bygones.

Bwahahahaaaa!

PS- my L1A1 feels exactly the same. It's a good thing I've restrained it, else it would have slain dozens! No, hundreds! Possibly thousands!

[Kilgor]

Let me get this right. You Americans want to live in a country where your neighbour can legally own and operate military weapons.

Why do you feel the need to have people killers?

ps: cars are'nt designed to kill people so a pretty lame analogy.

I would also consider a high powered scoped, semi auto hunting rifle to be just as lethal as some of the auto's

And the vests wont stop the bullets.

[mi35d]

SO people who collect knives or swords - which are designed with only one purpose to, kill and cut flesh are clearly o.k.

Guns are bad, M'kay?

[BarkingSquirrel]

No problem, I'll have you liking firearms sooner than you think, and believe it or not they don't go bang by themselves p-)LIAR! I've personally seen a glock jump up, let out an eeeeeeevil shriek of delightful depravity, and stare at me with godless tritium eyes. Then before my very own eyes, it converted itself to full auto, then somehow how shot up the place with a never ending source of ammunition, and finally running into the night laughing maniacally!

The horror. THE HORROR. THE HORROR.





















Yeah, it's aim sucked though. Hit pretty much everything but me.

Normally, you and i would not agree. However, on this point, let us let bygones be bygones.

Bwahahahaaaa!

PS- my L1A1 feels exactly the same. It's a good thing I've restrained it, else it would have slain dozens! No, hundreds! Possibly thousands!See, just goes to show, ya don't always have to agree with each other in order to have a little fun :D