Why are there no charges concerning the weapon? Answer: The gun was probably in the residence legally...Because the federal assault weapons ban expired in 2004, if you can pass a background check, you can legally own such automatic guns...[Sigh]
We don't need to get into the cliche debate of general gun control, but I hope few would argue the need for automatic assault weapons within city limits.
Yes, the Constitution protects the right to bear arms, but we know that is not a license to hold exceptionally dangerous weapons such as bazookas, machine guns or assault weapons. As the federal government decreed in 1994, assault weapons just don't belong in our communities.
I urge the city council to further investigate this matter and consider, at least, passing a measure requiring all owners of assault weapons to be registered with the police department. I would personally advocate a ban of such guns within the city.
Say what you will about him, Josh Sugarmann has done his work well.
College liberal arts juniors. Is there anything they don't know? No wonder campuses are in such sorry shape.
Go ahead and write this child if you think it will do any good.
[Via HZ]
27 comments:
I already wrote him. Haven't received a response yet. Not holding my breath, but I had to call him out on this "automatic" nonsense.
It won't do any good. I believe it was Mark Twain who said "You can't reason a man out of a position he didn't reason himself into."
Mark Twain was a genius, SA. Thanks for that quote.
Despite Twain's admonition, I did send this child a note:
Maybe you can explain something to me.
I have a civilian-made semi-automatic rifle. It is 7.62mm, gas-operated, with a pistol grip and a detachable magazine. It and others like it have been in continous production for over 60 years. It cannot fire full-automatic like a machine gun because it wasn't designed to.
My son is a sergeant in the Marine Corps. He carries a military issue M4 Carbine. It is 5.56mm, gas-operated, with a pistol grip and a detachable magazine. It and others like it have been in continuous production for over 40 years. It is a select-fire weapon, meaning that with the rotation of a lever, it can fire either full-automatic, or semi-automatic.
Why is it that my civilian semi-automatic rifle is an "assault weapon," but the Marine Corps calls my son's military M4 a "rifle?"
Won't help him to think, but it made me feel good.
"I spoke with Dombkowski last week and he said the state requires permits for handguns but not necessarily for other weapons, such as rifles."
When did Indiana start requiring permits to own (as opposed to carry) handguns?
They haven't, jdedge. Permits are to carry only, not to purchase. Unsurprisingly, he doesn't know what he's talking about, which makes him a perfect "Auuthorized Journalist" writing on gun matters in the making.
Why should they be limited to writing what they know when they can write what they believe, or better yet, what they hope for?
See:
http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/INSL.pdf
Re: "It won't do any good. I believe it was Mark Twain who said "You can't reason a man out of a position he didn't reason himself into."
Good quote, Straightarrow, it applies perfectly to this Westervelt character. What do you think the chances are that you'll ever see that it applies perfectly to you,too?
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2008/01/and-then-there-were-five.html#comments
Better to write a letter to the editor, or a letter to the publisher of the paper. As straightarrow points out, it's unlikely that contacting him directly will do much.
Stieger -
What do you think the chances are that you'll ever see that it applies perfectly to you,too?
Cheap shot, man.
I re-read the post you cited, and I cannot see any applicability between your comment and his. Why are you picking a fight with one of your own?
I've been reading straightarrow's posts for years, now, and I've yet to read anything he wrote that was unsupported by reason, including some bitter sarcasm which was well-deserved by it's target.
Don't shoot at the guys in your own trench, private.
Wonder if this dweeb realizes that he has 3 ads selling firearms on his page.
Fat White Man, but,but, but that's just commerce.
Man, the first amendment in action. He supports the bill of rights, weeellllllll, right up to the part where somebody exercises their rights to actually purchase and possess what his rights allow him to advertise.
What are you some anti-first amendment nut? Or worse, an honest man pointing out his hypocrisy?
Its people like you that cause a need for regulation of free speech.
for any who don't get it, that's sarcasm.
“Cheap shot, man.”
That was return fire, MAN. A cheap shot is someone calling “bullshit” on me then running away when I respond to the charge.
“I re-read the post you cited, and I cannot see any applicability between your comment and his. Why are you picking a fight with one of your own?”
The post was absolutely appropriate. Your claim not to see that is not my problem.
“I've been reading straightarrow's posts for years, now, and I've yet to read anything he wrote that was unsupported by reason, including some bitter sarcasm which was well-deserved by it's target.”
So, are you two buying furniture yet?
It is clearly not reason supporting straightarrow’s belief in the government’s claim that a Boeing 757 somehow defined the laws of physics to maneuver and strike the Pentagon. As a matter of fact, I believe something other than reason underlies your claim not to see the hypocrisy in straightarrow’s use of the Twain quote in context with his “call bullshit” post. FYI: a common tactic for government disinfo trolls is to team-up, one poster supporting the other. It’s also a common modus operandi for neurotic sheople (i.e. “sheople” :-). And, no, I don’t think straightarrow and Gaviota are with the NSA.
“Don't shoot at the guys in your own trench”
It’ll be one cold day in hell when I find myself in the trenches with the likes of either straightarrow or you.
2A people must buck the tide, standing always in opposition to the mass of sheople (Media’s playback robots :-) Or so most 2A people think, what small percentage it is that understand (for just an example) that America’s largest and arguably most effective gun control syndicate is the NRA. Anyone taking issue with this last should refer to the myriad of WoG posts on the subject or complain the nice folks at CalGuns or just keep it to yourself. Just don’t bother me with it.
As I know to my guts that an armed citizenry is Liberty’s fire extinguisher, I know also that an informed citizenry is Her linchpin. We must retain both. So when it comes to liberty-stripping Hegelian acts like 911 and the resultant Patriot Act, why then do so many of you believe the same Media that almost inevitably publishes lying propaganda when the issue at hand concerns 2A?
Re: Nicki’s: " Wow, conspiracy theories... skull and bones... that's where I respectfully bow out. There's no rational conversation with the tinfoil hat fruitcakes.” (http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2008/01/and-then-there-were-five.html#comments)
Crap like that could come out of some Neocon-Nazi think tank. Defining current heresy, it’s telling you sheople what you should not look at! Get it?!
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
~ Leo Tolstoy
Ron Paul: hope for America.
It’ll be one cold day in hell when I find myself in the trenches with the likes of either straightarrow or you.
That's a mighty hostile response to someone who agrees with you. I was just asking for a little civility. I wasn't aware that you had a previous problem with SA.
Okayfine. Hope you have a lot of friends in your trench when the SHTF, but given the anger you seem prone to display when people in your own camp have minor disagreements with you, that might be probematic.
Good luck, and have a good life.
Uh, that's problematic.
Dang it.
Gaviota, I wasn't aware that Steiger had any relationship let alone a personal problem.
Perhaps he just doesn't care for others having opinions he doesn't dispense.
Peculiarly, I agree with his opinion of the NRA not being in our camp politically, and as for the Patriot Act, I was arguing against just that kind thing before it was ever publicly proposed. I warned that post 9/11 was apt to see us inundated with myriad new usurpations of power and denials of liberty using the attacks against us as an excuse while passions were high and reaction was more likely to be emotional, rather than logical.
I was not alone in that, by any means. David C. was on top of it and many others followed his guidon, including me. Unfortunately we were not the majority. And the majority bought the sham.
It would seem to me that Steiger, like a broken watch, is still capable of being right,on occassion.
The laws of physics worked perfectly on the towers and the Pentagon and if Steiger had any knowledge of physics he would know that. I didn't need to rely on the government telling what hit the Pentagon. My son who there, told me. Does Steiger really believe that of all the thousands of people who worked there are complicit in a fraud this large, without any one of them revealing the truth? Yeah, I call bullshit on that.
If he wants to talk about the laws of physics not agreeing with the official story and he means the Murrah Federal Building, I would agree with him. No way that happened the way it was said to have.
Be that as it may, I appreciate your defense of me. Though, I am sure, we don't agree on everything. Just as I have unbridled respect for David C., I still have some disagreement with him on very rare occassion, but I could never justify my disagreement with him on those few issues by impugning his cerebral abilities.
While he is a hero of mine, I am not his robot. It appears Steiger is incapable of grasping that concept.
So in closing this comment, I guess you and I will not be buying any furniture together, Steiger's cheap shot notwithstanding.
As a Paulunteer who works hard to win get the message out I can tell you the biggest obstacle is when people tie him in with nazis and says 911 was our fault. Steeger, do you think this helpin win people over? Ron Paul says he is against rascists and also says he doesn't beleive the goverment blew up the biuldings. I also think the commision report was not thorogh but you are not doing us anyfavours by turning off average people who we need to win over. Dave I think this is either a anti Paul troll trying to make us seem whack-O or else he is sincrere but not to be saying this here. The average person is what we need now and this will chase them off. If you want people to look at this the Ron Paul campagne is the wrong place unless you want him to loose. With freinds like him who need enemys.
Steiger, I was unaware of your last comment on the previous thread. I have now answered it. Though, I assure you, you won't like it. And I don't care.
As for the Paulunteer, I stand with you on at least this much. Anyone who says Ron Paul is a racist or a Nazi, is a Goddamned liar.
Paul is a man of outstandingly good character and humanity.
I’m not wasting my time trying to convince tweedledumb & tweedleumber, here, of anything, particularly truths about the 911 horror, truths that are bound to take any smart, caring and honest American outside their comfort zones. I’m writing this for just that one such individual with the guts and need to search out those truths. So Gaviota & straightarrow, you do not matter, you’re simply convenient vehicles for me the use to make my points.
Re: The laws of physics worked perfectly on the towers and the Pentagon
If you mean the laws of physics correspond to what the government claims happened to WTCs 1 & 2 (“pancake’ collapses @ freefall speed, and that a Boeing 757 can fly @ 500+ mph at near ground level (<20 feet), no the laws of physics do not correspond at all to what the government says.
Re: “if Steiger had any knowledge of physics he would know that.”
All one needs is a high school level understanding of physics most basic principals, a little arithmetic, and just a dash of personal integrity.
Re: “I didn't need to rely on the government telling what hit the Pentagon. My son who there, told me.”
Where, exactly, was your son when he actually saw the Boeing 757 into the Pentagon?
Re: Does Steiger really believe that of all the thousands of people who worked there are complicit in a fraud this large, without any one of them revealing the truth? Yeah, I call bullshit on that.
A tiny minority of the thousands people working at the Pentagon were in a position to see whatever actually hit the structure, the rest just needed to believe what they were told had happened, or at least keep there mouths shut about not believing it. But here are two who witnessed the event, two Pentagon Police who saw the plane come in from a totally different direction, flying a different path than the government claims it did.
P
lease goto http://patriotsquestion911.com/, and search down for “Sgt. Chadwick Brooks and Sgt. William Lagasse”
This is a(n overly?) dramatic little flash presentation that points to the fundamental flaws in the governments version of the 911Pentagon attack. Kindly turn your speakers on, but leave the volume low (it’s real screechy :-) http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/pentagon.swf
Pilots for 911 Truth press release: “Official Account Of 9/11 Flight Contradicted By Government's Own Data” http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pressrelease.html
As a good example of the many debunkings of government’s bullshit rendition of the World Trade Center collapses, here is a link to Dr, David Ray Griffin’s Peer-Reviewed Paper, “The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True, Authorized Version (with references & notes)” http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
Ron Paul:
He is asking for a new & independent investigation of 911 (which, btw, is all I and thousands of other 911 Truthers want. RP is neither neurotic, slow-witted, corrupt, nor cowardly. He obviously therefore sees that official 911 version is nonsense. But should he actually say so, the Media would stop its ignoring of him to institute a wholesale crucifixion of him.
This is all I’m doing tonight.
"Dave I think this is either a anti Paul troll trying to make us seem whack-O or else he is sincrere but not to be saying this here. The average person is what we need now and this will chase them off. If you want people to look at this the Ron Paul campagne is the wrong place unless you want him to loose. With freinds like him who need enemys."
Hi, Anonymous, thanks for weighing in. I’m glad you did. Who I am & how I get money really doesn’t matter SINCE ALL I’M TRYING TO DO HERE IS PERSUADE GUNNERS TO CHECK THE FACTS BEHIND WHAT I SAY!!! Nonetheless, my bona-fides are in order. Just ask around.
To the rest of you: I’m glad I could get your attention :-) Now, what you think of me honestly doesn’t matter. That’s because—next to the well-being of my children & grandkids—I simply do not matter.
Many of you know already that a majority of Americans want a new & independent 911 investigation. Those who still honestly believe the government Alice-in-Wonderland tale about 911 are people who seem to me to be divided into two loosely defined and overlapping groups.
Members of the first often exhibit some fair degree of bravado; though ,inside, they’re cowering neurotics . They’ll never expose themselves to anything not already in lock-step with their assumptions because they just can’t stand the intense pain that comes from examining “contrary” information. Racked by chronic cognitive dissonance, their lives are an endless quest for warm words and pats on the head. We adopted an abused Border Collie that’s just like that.
Please goto http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2008/01/and-then-there-were-five.html#comments
The other group are those who believe their television sets. They also look only at material that coincides with their perspectives. They don’t look for anything else because to do so never occurs to them.
Please stay right here, as this is the correct thread for a good example of those I just-described.
Sorry, you lose. I know more about dynamic loading and pancaking than you do. And obviously more than your source does.
Was it Rosie O'Donnell? After all, I believe that paragon of engineering, chemical, and physical properties knowledge,was the one who said steel couldn't be weakened enough by fire to collapse. Steel just couldn't be melted by fire. And you bought it?
And you think we are the ones unwilling to look at uncomfortable truths?
You're a walking bundle of neuroses.
“Sorry, you lose. I know more about dynamic loading and pancaking than you do.”
OK, you know more about dynamic loading and pancaking than I do. I’ll admit it. I strike my colors. So then you’ll can explain exactly how WTC I&II’s pancake collapsed as the official 911 Commission Report says, in other word, tell us all how those two buildings fell at about freefall speed (as with controlled demolitions, etc.) but given that the floors were overloaded sequentially, not simultaneously (+/-) (as with controlled demolitions).
And since you’re smarter, better educated, and obviously in better emotional health than am I, be sure to account for the 40+ massive steel vertical columns , columns which are what actually supported those two buildings, columns the official 911 Commission Report does not even mention, let alone account for with it’s pancake collapse fairy tale.
“….I know more about dynamic loading and pancaking than you do.”
And [I know] obviously more [about dynamic loading and pancaking] than your source does.
Here’s a very small sampling of my sources:
Hugo Bachmann, PhD – Professor Emeritus and former Chairman of the Department of Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Author and co-author of Erdbebenbemessung von Stahlbetonhochbauten (Seismic Analysis of Concrete Reinforced Structures) (1990), Vibration Problems in Structures: Practical Guidelines (1995), Biege- und Schubversuche an teilweise vorgespannten Leichtbetonbalken (Structural Analysis of Linked Concrete Beams) (1998), Hochbau für Ingenieure. Eine Einführung (Structural Construction for Engineers. An introduction) (2001), Erdbebensicherung von Bauwerken (Earthquake-proofing Buildings) (2002). http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html
Jörg Schneider, Dr hc – Professor Emeritus, Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Former President, Joint Committee on Structural Safety, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Elected member of the Swiss Academy of Engineering Sciences. Former Vice President and honorary lifetime member of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering. http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html
James R. Carr, PhD, PE – Professor, Department of Geological Sciences and Engineering, University of Nevada. Licensed Geological Engineer, State of Nevada. Author of 60 peer-reviewed journal articles on geological sciences. Author of Numerical Analysis for the Geological Sciences (1995) and Data Visualization in the Geosciences (2002). Contributing author to Advances in Remote Sensing and GIS Analysis (1999). http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html
David Leifer, BSc, B.Arch, M.Ed, PhD, IEng, ACIBSE – Coordinator, Graduate Programme in Facilities Management, University of Sydney. Formerly taught at University of Auckland (1993 - 2001), University of Queensland (1986 - 1993), Mackintosh School of Architecture (1984 - 1986). Registered Architect. Incorporated Engineer. http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html
David A. Johnson, B.Arch, MCP (City Planning), PhD (Regional Planning), F.AICP – Internationally recognized architect and city and regional planner. Professor Emeritus, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Tennessee…. Author of Planning the Great Metropolis (1996). Co-author of The TVA Regional Planning and Development Program (2005). Contributing author to Two Centuries of American Planning (1988) http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html
Judy D. Wood, B.S. (Civil Engineering, Structural Engineering), M.S . (Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), Ph.D Former professor of mechanical engineering with research interests in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, optical methods, deformation analysis, and the materials characterization of biomaterials and composite materials. Member of the Society for Experimental Mechanics (SEM), co-founded SEM’s Biological Systems and Materials Division, and currently serves on the SEM Composite Materials Technical Division.
Her dissertation involved the development of an experimental method to measure thermal stresses in bimaterial joints. She has taught courses including
Experimental Stress Analysis, Engineering Mechanics, Mechanics of Materials (Strength of Materials), Strength of Materials Testing http://drjudywood.com/articles/a/bio/Wood_Bio.html
Again “I obviously more [about dynamic loading and pancaking] than your source does.”
So where did you get your PhD, straightarrow?
“Was it Rosie O'Donnell? After all, I believe that paragon of engineering, chemical, and physical properties knowledge, as the one who said steel couldn't be weakened enough by fire to collapse.”
As I don’t follow Rosie O’Donnel, straightarrow, I guess I’ll have to take your word for it. Regardless, those multi-degreed engineers you know so much more than tell us that for a heat-induced structural failure to have occurred, the UL-Certified WTC steel would have required a combustion temperature much higher than was present at 911.
“And you think we are the ones unwilling to look at uncomfortable? “
wtf?!
”You're a walking bundle of neuroses.”
Nar nar nar!
Thank you, straightarrow, I’m finished with you now.
Look, people, the only reason I’m dealing with this moron is to try underline just how foolish are the government’s 911 claims. And how truly foolish it is to believe those claims.
Controlled demotlition doesn't apply. Look at the film again.
I don't think you are smart enough to know why. But look at it again and see if you can tell the difference. I'm betting against you.
If, as you say, you are through with me, why don't you STFU? Idiot!
Re: "Controlled demotlition doesn't apply. Look at the film again.
We can talk later about WTCs 1 & 2. To start, though, here’s a link to some films for you, films showing the collapse of WTC 7’s from different perspectives, all show that it was felled in a classic controlled demolition., there’s one also that compares Building 7’s collapse with other, “known” controlled demolitions. See the top of the building drop in the middle, kind of like the building is folding on itself? Some films show the little explosive “squibs” at the sides of the building, more dead giveaways to the cause of this collapse. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html
This is from Italian TV: http://tinyurl.com/2ds7dk It features a European controlled demolition company president’s testimony that he is convinced that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.
As an interesting aside: here’s a video of the BBC reporting AWTC-7’s collapse 23 minutes before it actually fell: http://tinyurl.com/2u5fuy
More on the magic Boeing that hit the Pentagon. The first reporter on the scene doesn’t see debris on the lawn (go figure Straightarrow). http://tinyurl.com/2ano6z
Re: “I don't think you are smart enough to know why.
Why don’t you (can’t you) answer the specific questions I posed? Questions you’ve ignored like those about those PhDs, those engineers, architects commercial & combat pilots, CIA agents? I’m a stupid neurotic, conspiracy wacko for not believing the government’s 911 stories—so are those people stupid neurotic, conspiracy wackos, too?
Re: "If, as you say, you are through with me, why don't you STFU? Idiot!"
You are just so cute when you’re mad, Straightarrow.
you're right, I am cute. Not mad though.
You asked some questions then supplied the answers, you know what they are.
No, I do not either believe everything the government tells me, in fact, I believe nothing they tell me unless I can verify it from sources without a dog in the fight.
I haven't answered most of your questions because there is no point. I recognize an emotional cripple when I see one. You need the attention of being viewed as brave and unafraid to speak out. I actually admire people with those attributes. But not when their emotional need forces them to inanity, where the fulfillment of their emotional need is more important to them than analytical and logical thought which actually supports their opinion.
I am an extremely emotional man, myself, so I understand its siren song. However, I guard against allowing my emotion to make my decisions when logic is called for.
Something you should learn.
Oh yeah, one more thing. Even though you think I am cute, you and I won't be buying any furniture together either.
Re: “I haven't answered most of your questions because there is no point.”
It’s my turn to call bullshit on you, Straightarrow, because there is indeed a point! That point being the questions I asked are a few of the very questions upon which the 911 Truth Movement is based, and just a few of the questions the government’s professional shills will not answer—at least directly, and never without omitting key elements.
Furthermore (furtherbullshit? :-) you haven't really answered any questions yet, That is, you’ve yet to produce a sustentative answer to any question—doubtless for the same reason those professional shills will not answer. Viz. they do not have such answers because such answers do not exist, and cannot exist. Those answers cannot exist because what the government says happened goes contrary to physical law, logic, and frankly common sense. But one has to examine the evidence from both sides to see that what I’m saying is true.
As always, Straightarrow, I’m spending time on this not for your sake, but for someone who might be ready to examine both sides of the evidence.
And one more time: my motives for posting 911 stuff on a 2A blog are, first, that the Patriot Act and its spawn are the greatest threats to the right of citizens to protect themselves from crimes by both individuals and—more importantly crimes by government.
Secondly, simply, I’ve noticed far too many 911 Truthers who need to be disabused of the silly notion that both political power and liberty sprout from something other than the barrel of a gun.
Bullshit! Your emotion is showing again.
Again, you've yet to produce a substantiative answer to any question I’ve asked. You expect to be believed because you say that your son believes an airline struck the Pentagon; though you admit that he, himself, did not actually see the event. So I guess he and you believe the official version because ...well just BECAUSE!!! So I’m tinfoil-hat bundle of neurosis because I can’t find the logic in that?
I offered a link to a video of the first CNN reporter on the scene, Jamie McIntyre, who said he saw no evidence that a plane had struck the Pentagon, no identifiable pieces of aircraft wreckage, just small pieces one could 'pick up in his hand. Did you actually watch that short video, SA?
Here is a link to that video: http://tinyurl.com/247vt2 And one more time, it doesn’t matter that you’ll likely not watch it. I didn’t intend it for you, nor for anyone else lacking the courage, intelligence, and personal ethic to actually investigate a matter before forming an opinion about it. But I am grateful to you, SA, for giving me the opportunity to again post that telling video.
Original link to the video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1743873445408549579&q=no+plane+pentagon&total=259&start=0&num=100&so=0&type=search&plindex=2
Post a Comment