Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Place An Ad | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

The word ‘assault’ is getting old

June 9, 2013

DEAR EDITOR: Now I’ve heard it all. I was reading the “Warren man faces weapons charges” article in the Tribune when I came across the description of the gun the punk used. It was a “....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(49)

WarrenProud

Jun-09-13 5:43 AM

Assault rifles, assault pistols, what does it matter what they are being called. People are dying because the NeoCon Republicans have bent over holding their ankles to NRA's LaPierre over gun control. We need to get all of these weapons off the streets and only in the hands of those who can pass a background check.

9 Agrees | 21 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Daniel

Jun-09-13 6:59 AM

Very, very well said Tom. People need to educate themselves so that they can determine what makes it an "assault" weapon.

Well, back to my breakfast with my semi-auto assault fork.

15 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Purecountry495

Jun-09-13 7:47 AM

Tom, you are absolutely correct in your thinking. Today the news media plays everything up to make it more news worthy. Assault gun is fully automatic, not semi-automatic. An to own a fully automatic gun, you need special gov't permits which is not easy or cheap to get. Some people are living in a dream world to think that gun control, is going to keep guns out of criminals hands. Sure there are people that own guns that probably shouldn't, but gun control is not going to change that. Back round checks is only to find out if you have a record or not. It does not include whether or not your a loose cannon or not. The only way gun control would work, is a mental examination which would be quite expensive. An even that would not stop someone from getting a gun, if they really want one. Gun control is not going to stop that 12 or 13 year old from getting a gun, that's all to common today. Gun control back ground checks is just a money making scheme, and a political way of getting votes.

11 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JustMyTwoCents

Jun-09-13 8:15 AM

Once again your ignorance is showing through WarrenPeeBrain....Why don't you go complain to people like minded as yourself where they may actually listen? You must be one big ole goody tooshoo!!You'd better hope you are never in a situation where a WEAPON is needed but a bullet won't be wasted on you just because of your views. Your comments make me sick half the time, once in a while something intelligent comes out of your mouth but hey the sun shines on a dogs *** every once in a while!

14 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

XWarren

Jun-09-13 9:17 AM

EVERYTHING is now an assault weapon. I'm waiting for the assault Nerf ball. The gov't is trying to demonize weapons ownership and pave the way to confiscation by turning gun ownership into the new smoking.

This morning, there was a story in the news about an Ohio school organizing a water pistol buyback (you can't make this stuff up) because use of water pistols glorifies gun ownership and is a gateway to future gun violence.

The sad part is they got a lot of participation in this propaganda stunt courtesy of a lot of pretty stupid parents.

I wonder if they gave the kids food stamps, a voter registration card, and an Obamaphone too...

13 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

FamilyGuy

Jun-09-13 9:59 AM

I'm sure that the key characteristic used to define the fire arm as an "assault pistol" was that the item was black and scary looking.

Most people are totally clueless as to any characteristic that might define a firearm with the bogus description of "assault".

People are afraid of what they do not understand.

15 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

reallytiredofit

Jun-09-13 10:11 AM

Actually any weapon that is used for offensive purposes could be rightly called an assult weapon. In that sense any weapon used for defensive purposes would not be an assult weapon regardless of how it looked or how its firing system functioned. To assault means to attack. An attack is always an offensive maneuver. "Assault rifle" is a name that the press made up to describe a weapon that has the looks and feel of a military issue weapon.

10 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

HowlandStruggler

Jun-09-13 11:24 AM

So WarrenProud says, "People are dying because the NeoCon Republicans have bent over holding their ankles to NRA's LaPierre over gun control."

I guess der Fuherer must get more cell phone records to keep the country safe, then, eh?

14 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ArticWoof

Jun-09-13 12:26 PM

Warrenproud, lets suggest a fantasy for a minute and say I agree with you. Ok, with that said. I ask you one simple question. Can you reply with a answer? How are you going to do this? How will you suggest we get EVERY gun off the streets that do not belong to a person who passed a background check? How will you get ALL the guns away from every thugm punk or crook livinh in the inner cities? And to be fair, how will you get every gun from the rural country people, every radical red.n.eck out there? Also, if you look at the voting records in Washington, many democrats opposed Obamas gun control. I am all for getting the guns out of the hands of people who use them for evil, but, the fact remains, you have no answer on how to accomplish this. It simply will not happen.

11 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

reallytiredofit

Jun-09-13 12:53 PM

Articwoof the first step is to require a background check on EVERY firearm sale made, whether the gun is new or used. If such a law was in effect then the only way a disqualified person could get a gun would be through the blackmarket. Today all a disqualified person needs to do is to answer an ad for a gun for sale by either you or me. Would that prevent all illegeal gun sales? No it would not, but it wiuld certainly close up the sieve that exists today.

7 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ViennaResident

Jun-09-13 1:13 PM

Does anyone expect accurate, truthful, nonbiased reporting from the Trib? They spin almost every story that they report. They want all of the evil guns gone. They want no one to have the ability to protect themselves. They think that if the guns disappear than so will crime and this is how they will spin their reporting. What a fantasy world they must live in!

7 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eyesonyou2

Jun-09-13 1:37 PM

I think I'm going to assault my liver right now with a assault wine.

8 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ArticWoof

Jun-09-13 1:45 PM

reallytiredofit

I agree with your comment.

Now, the next step is the biggest one. We can dow hat you suggest, and I agree with it. But you have to admit, the biggest problem is not me seeling a gun to john doe. It is blackmarket guns getting sold in back alleys. So, unless the military comes knocking door to door, and the people COMPLY to turning in guns that have no registration of background checks. Yo are still left with the problem of thugs and every other creepy person who wants a gun, will get one. I am NOT in favor of huge gun control, I own many myself. And will fight to keep them. not one is registered, most were handed down to me from my dad. Again, I understand your comment, respect it. But the bottom line is, we can pass every law in the book, do background checks, it will NOT stop the criminals from doing what they want to.

7 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ArticWoof

Jun-09-13 1:46 PM

Plus, I was hoping to get WP to actually say something other than rhetoric.

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

reallytiredofit

Jun-09-13 2:08 PM

You are correct in your assessment of the current situation. Background checks are not a panacea for gun violence but it would be a great start. I like you have been around guns my whole life and I own many, almost all of mine are registered since I bought most of them when I held a FFL so they are listed in my bound book. The next step is very stiff mandatory sentences for anyone caught buying or selling a gun through the back ally. Sorry I jumped in there but I knew that WP could not respond.

12 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

repubslie

Jun-09-13 2:49 PM

The deceased California shooter, from 2 days ago, had clips in his possession which held over 1,100 rounds.

High capacity clips need to be outlawed.

7 Agrees | 14 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ArticWoof

Jun-09-13 3:15 PM

Again, I agree with your comments. No problem jumping in. I knew she would not also. But I still have to at least try :)

You are correct, I have said similiar things. If you commit a murder by gun, you die by die. No parole, no plea deals, simple, you commit murder, you get shot. Pretty simple. After a fair trial of course. You get caught with a gun in a crime, you get a very stiff sentence. There should be a way for people like me to grandfather in. I will take a background check, then allow me to register my weapons as " gifts ". Like I said, most have been in my family for many years. Heck, by todays standards, they are old fashioned. Except one which I bought from a friend. I could prove where all of mine came from. No if someone could not prove anything, well, then we need a guidline or rule to go by for registering guns not already done.

6 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

horatio

Jun-09-13 3:28 PM

Thank you for this letter.We would not want cold,bloody, dead bodies in the streets of America being slaughtered by guns that are wrongly named.It is a tragedy that you see the wrongly named guns as the victims.@Viennaresident,in what universe did you find the TRIB to be biased AGAINST guns?They LOVE them.They always make great headlines,and ALWAYS bring heated debate.Guns are VERY GOOD for the TRIBS' business.

6 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ItIsntEasyBeingFree

Jun-09-13 3:37 PM

The next step is very stiff mandatory sentences for anyone caught buying or selling a gun through the back ally.

Yep that will do it!

3 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

FamilyGuy

Jun-09-13 3:38 PM

Registration is the first step towards confiscation.

When scarcely no one follows up on rejected or untruthful responses on the current background check program, and Joe Biden has admitted that, how will an enhanced program benefit anyone except the data miners in the new Utah NSA facility?

Again, going after the lawful citizen does absolutely nothing to curtail the traffic among the unlawful.

Notice that it is only guns that the grabbers are going after - not knives, explosives, box cutters, hammers, ball bats, automobiles, not demented or criminal individuals, just guns - the vast, vast majority of which are in the hands of law abiding citizens - because that is what stands in the way of complete government control.

Good grief, if you don't want to own a fire arm, then you are free to not own one.

But pleased leave the rest of us law abiding citizens alone.

9 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

liemonger

Jun-09-13 4:00 PM

"High capacity clips need to be outlawed. "

Yea... they are in Commifornia, dipshift.

Maybe you should and all those commies should move to China.

6 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

liemonger

Jun-09-13 4:05 PM

"I own many, almost all of mine are registered since I bought most of them when I held a FFL so they are listed in my bound book"

About fits in with her carrying a 40mm Glock and firing a 50 cal.

All lies.

Pathetic.

7 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

reallytiredofit

Jun-09-13 5:02 PM

Familyguy, please explain how you would keep guns out of the unlawful? While I appreciate your right to comment you have said NOTHING constructive about how to control the sale of guns to those who intend to use them for unlawful purposes. I have been background checked many times, starting at age 19 when I entered the U.S.Army. Those background checks have NEVER deprived me of anything I wished to do. Today there are many employers who will not hire a new employee without having a background check performed. EXACTLY HOW, familyguy, would a background check prevent you from lawfully purchasing a firearm?

6 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

reallytiredofit

Jun-09-13 5:07 PM

..... And finally familyguy, if a persons past criminal activity is not allowed to be accessed to determine their eligiblity to own a firearm then why even keep records of a persons criminal history? What purpose do such records have IF they cannot be checked?

5 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ItIsntEasyBeingFree

Jun-09-13 6:08 PM

Get over it you liberal Bolsheviks lost this debate Gun Control has been tabled!

9 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 49 comments Show More Comments
 
 

 

I am looking for: