1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Orlando Sentinel Editorial

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by divemedic, Mar 19, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. divemedic

    divemedic Member

    Nov 18, 2007
    30 minute drive from Disney World
    Full of half truths, propaganda.

    Quite expectedly, gun zealots are on the defensive following the recent shooting rampages in Alabama and Germany.

    "The enemies of Liberty will use anything as an excuse to rape our civil rights," read a recent blog post by a gun activist.

    Please, spare us the righteous indignation.

    Most sensible people understand the difference between the legitimate, constitutional right to bear arms and the rat-a-tat chaos inflicted by assault weapons.

    If people want to protect their homes they don't need an assault weapon.

    It's time to get new ones off the streets by reinstating the assault-weapons ban that expired in 2004.

    President Barack Obama has the political juice to make it happen, and it's on his list of things to do. He's said so on the campaign trial.

    Go for it, sir.

    Advancements in technology have enabled people to arm themselves beyond reasonable means. Coupled with the elimination of the assault-weapons ban, the prospect of more violence is alarming.

    Getting these guns off the streets would make them safer. Why else would so many police chiefs and sheriffs, people not generally associated with wobbly-kneed liberals, agree?

    In Alabama, 11 people — including the shooter — died after a barrage of bullets from a Bushmaster AR-15-style assault rifle and an SKS assault rifle. The shooter reportedly fired an excess of 200 rounds during the assault. He used high-capacity magazines taped together so when one was spent, it would be easier to reload.

    Gun enthusiasts will argue that in some instances, all it takes is a couple of cosmetic features to make a gun fit the definition of an assault weapon. After all, a garden-variety hunting rifle works the same way as the most sinister-looking assault rifle — one shot per trigger pull.

    But assault rifles mimic the design of military weapons that are meant to kill people, not deer, and sometimes feature such charming options as muzzle flash suppressors and bayonet mounts.

    Banning assault weapons will help protect us in other ways: It's expected to help slow the flow of guns going across the Mexican border, which has been a hot spot for violence in recent months.

    Mexican government officials are pointing accusatory fingers at the U.S. because of the availability of such guns from this country.

    As in Mexico and its drug cartels, assault weapons seem to become guns of choice in the drug subculture.

    Orlando Police Chief Val Demings understands the danger locally. She has no quarrel with true sporting-gun enthusiasts or those who want to protect their homes.

    But Ms. Demings has serious concerns over criminals and other dangerous characters having such easy access to assault weapons, as if arming themselves for Armageddon. That's what it looks like on some of our nation's streets today. She sees it. Most of those who argue so passionately to protect assault weapons do not.

    In Orange County alone, deputies have seized 321 AK-47s, AR-15s and other high-powered weapons between 2003 and 2007. And of the 42 murders in Orlando last year, five involved assault weapons, including the triple-murder at The Palms Apartments.

    We understand that banning the sale of new assault weapons isn't a cure for violent crime. Having a more effective way of tracing guns that are sold by their original owner is equally important.

    But reinstating the ban on assault weapons is a good place to start.
  2. cleardiddion

    cleardiddion Member

    Dec 4, 2007

    Well, jeez, I don't feel comfortable at all with this drivel.

    Maybe we should start regulating the first amendment too...

    And since when is an AR-15 a 'high powered weapon' :p
  3. Dookie

    Dookie Member

    Mar 30, 2008
    no kidding. since when is the second about hunting? It's about defense against a tyrannical government.

    Who has a bayonet on their "assault" rifle any way?
  4. Doggy Daddy

    Doggy Daddy Member

    Feb 12, 2007
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Ummm... because they're political prostitutes trying to make points with "wobbly-kneed liberals"? :scrutiny:
  5. N003k

    N003k Member

    Nov 21, 2008
    When did a 'Muzzle flash suppressor' start making a gun more deadly? Oh, and honestly, when was the last time someone was murdered with a bayonet that was attached to an 'assault rifle'? Seriously, if that's happened, I want to see the news story...
  6. Dookie

    Dookie Member

    Mar 30, 2008
    My theory on why the police don't want them is some are afraid of raiding the incorrect house and getting shot, and realizing that their power can be challenged by citizens who will not be pushed around. Keeps them in line, that is what the second is for.
  7. JImbothefiveth

    JImbothefiveth Member

    Aug 24, 2008
    Would banning 11 round magazines really have stopped those shootings?

    What about the elderly. An AR-15 is lightweight, low recoil, and the high capacity magazines might be essential if the criminal is not stopped immediately
    That won't get them off the street, merely stop manufacture.
    I hope he does and it gets filibustered.
    . Because 11 rounds is so much worse than 10.
    The DOJ said it was "inconclusive" whether the AWB reduced crime or not. Although overall violence dropped, "assault weapons" were used in crimes at about the same rate. I believe the drop in crime may have been to many states allowing CCW.
    These are politians, they need votes. I'd bet the average officer isn't so likely to support it.
    Would it really have been better if he had only used 10 round magazines?
    We know bayonet violence has been a major problem, and less muzzle light is great for criminals, because all cops are deaf.
    Aren't they using grenades and machine guns? They aren't getting them from America.
    They are politicians. That's what politicians do. Except me, I am above such partisanship, unlike the republicans.
    Yes, because all gun stores sell grenades and machine guns.
    Actually, those are handguns.
    The danger of her not winning a second term?
    Although is more than happy to blame violence on them instead instead of actually fighting it.
    Criminals cannot buy them, they would fail the background check.
  8. Cannonball888

    Cannonball888 Member

    Jun 7, 2007
    Don't forget to leave a comment at the bottom of the article.
  9. TimRB

    TimRB Member

    Jan 27, 2004
    I didn't read all the comments, since they are overwhelmingly pro-gun, but this one caught my eye:

    "Isn't this the same Sentinel that wrote and article a couple months back about how the state's attorney's office only takes a small fraction of the 10-20-life cases to trial and pleads the rest down to a slap on the wrist charge?"

    Good observation.

  10. LaBulldog

    LaBulldog Member

    Mar 19, 2009
    And where will it end? :confused:
  11. searcher451

    searcher451 Member

    Jun 15, 2007
    "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate for a moment to prefer the latter."
    -- Thomas Jefferson

    That having been said (and long ago), the simple fact of the matter is that some people get it and some people don't ... and never will. These guys apparently don't get it and likely never will on this topic, yet they still have the right to be wrong -- and not just because they own a bullhorn.

    It leaves the rest of us with a simple choice: Don't buy their product; don't accept the things they peddle. Move on.
  12. LightningCrash

    LightningCrash Member

    Jan 26, 2009
    Somebody obviously was proud of this article at the Orlando Sentinel. That must be why they didn't bother to sign their editorial.

    It's hit and run editorial at its finest, full of lame platitudes and reductio ad absurdum.

    Spare me the reductio ad nauseum, Orland Sentinel.
    The fact is, so-called "assault weapons" crimes represent a very narrow cross section of gun deaths, and the 1994 "Assault Weapons" ban did not quantitatively effect gun deaths inside this cross section anyway.

    I know I'm preaching to the choir. It just irritates me to see this asinine banter from gun grabbers.
  13. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Jan 3, 2003
    0 hrs east of TN
    Just link this idiot to the letter the 65 reps sent to Holder. That should confuse his drivel.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page