Gun rights/control/ownership

[philpot123]

Historically it hasn't, though. There's precedent. At the time Lincoln made the Emancipation Proclamation he knew it was technically Unconstitutional, and it was only in effect in certain States (those in the CSA, funnily enough). The Thirteenth Amendement was pushed through an end-of-term Congress the way it was because Lincoln knew fell well he'd be open to legal challenges over it.

 

I would also argue that dispute coule be made over the wording of the Second Amendment in the first place. Although that could turn into a very tedious discussion. Which I don't feel inclined towards.

 

Suffice it to say it would not be the first time a President had changed a law first, then amended the Constitution afterwards.

Lol. The Emancipation Proclamation. Let's issue a proclamation that only applies to the states "in rebellion" who we know won't follow it. It doesn't apply to us. One of the least productive and most historically lauded documents in our history.

 

I would argue that just because there's precedent for Presidents ignoring the constitution does not by any means require us to continue that trend. If we refuse to adhere to our founding documents that are supposed to fence the power of the national gov't, then the powers they possess are both arbitrary and conceivably totalitarian. Where does it end? Where is the limit? Apparently it's not the constitution. Where or over what does the government NOT have power? Because everything I see from the other side makes me think the answer is nothing. If we take the actions of statist presidents like Lincoln as precedent to allow our government to do whatever it wishes, then we may as well throw then entire document out and say "have at it, do whatever you think is best." I'm not going to stand for that.

 

You could argue it, but you'd be arguing against years and years and cases on top of cases of Supreme Court precedent, which is actually valid judicial precedent, unlike Lincoln's actions.

 

Oh I know. That doesn't make me any happier about it.

[AngelKitty]

The biggest barrier to gun control right now is the culture of paranoia that pervades so much of the country and has since the 50's. And, amusingly, that's the fault of the government.

 

There's some hefty and entirely reasonable gun control being enacted in New York right now; it was enacted while I was visiting for Christmas and you had to hear my family's complaining.

 

Now, I have no problem with normal guns. But no regular citizen in this country needs an assault rifle or a high-capacity weapon to do anything legitimate with. You do not need an AK-47. No, an AK-47 is not necessary for hunting. No, an AK-47 will not protect you from the tank-and-nuke-armed government. No, you don't need an AK-47 for the imagined upcoming armageddon. No, your risk of becoming a victim of gang violence is not high enough to justify your owning an AK-47. No, you do not need an AK-47. Stop saying you do.

 

I'd rather have a bow myself.

[philpot123]

Now, I have no problem with normal guns. But no regular citizen in this country needs an assault rifle or a high-capacity weapon to do anything legitimate with. You do not need an AK-47. No, an AK-47 is not necessary for hunting. No, an AK-47 will not protect you from the tank-and-nuke-armed government. No, you don't need an AK-47 for the imagined upcoming armageddon. No, your risk of becoming a victim of gang violence is not high enough to justify your owning an AK-47. No, you do not need an AK-47. Stop saying you do.

Oh wow. Where to start. Where to start...

 

First, define "normal guns"? What guns do you not have a problem with? Because nowadays, saying "semi-automatic firearm" is like saying "gasoline car." My AK is functionally identical to most hunting rifles.

 

 

Second, I'm sorry you don't like my choice of firearm. Excuse me while I borrow some internet meme argumentation, but I need this...

 

About as badly as Rosa Parks "needed" to sit at the front of the bus. It's not a question of quantifiable necessity, it's a question of rights. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms that they have an immediate need for shall not be infringed."

 

Third, my rifle above is EXACTLY the same gun as this.

It IS a hunting rifle. It can be legitimately used as a hunting rifle. It is functionally the same as a hunting rifle. Your definition of "normal gun" is arbitrary. Even if you COULDN'T hunt with an AK, which it's perfectly reasonable to do, the 2nd Amendment was not drafted to make sure we could keep our hunting weapons. So that's a silly argument.

 

Fourth, the "protecting one's self against the government" idea is not that I'll set up in my basement and fend of the US armed forces. It's the principle that the government knows the AR-15 is the most widely sold and owned rifle in America, so they might be just a LITTLE hesitant to grossly overstep their bounds. At the least, die-hard gun owners would be a costly blip in their path. Do I REALLY think I'll ever shoot at a living person with my rifle? No. Gosh no. But why on earth does that deprive me of the right to own it?

[Darien]

Stop saying you do.

 

Well I do need it, it saved my life last year when a black man broke in too my home and tryed too kill me in my sleep. I had too shot too kill too stop him, so yes I did need it and thank god for it...

Edited January 24, 2013 by Darien

[hazeh]

Well I do need it, it saved my life last year when a black man broke in too my home and tryed too kill me in my sleep. I had too shot too kill too stop him, so yes I did need it and thank god for it...

You didn't need that kind of gun.

 

A regular hand gun or pistol could have done the job.

[AngelKitty]

Well I do need it, it saved my life last year when a black man broke in too my home and tryed too kill me in my sleep. I had too shot too kill too stop him, so yes I did need it and thank god for it...

Why do you need to point out that it was a black man, first of all? That's unimportant.

 

Second of all, you didn't need an AK-47 to do that. You could have defended yourself with any gun.

 

First, define "normal guns"?

 

Normal guns = non-military-style guns. Assault weapons.

 

It's not a question of quantifiable necessity, it's a question of rights.

 

I won't question your right to own one at the moment, but I won't fight against laws that ban assault weapons while allowing people to keep non-assault weapons. They're gratuitious, IMO. And I'll argue with people who say that they NEED one, which I hear a lot of. Just because it exists doesn't mean people need to have it.

 

Also, comparing the civil rights movement to gun ownership...what. No. The oppression of an entire race =/= taking assault weapons away from people.

 

It's the principle that the government knows the AR-15 is the most widely sold and owned rifle in America, so they might be just a LITTLE hesitant to grossly overstep their bounds. At the least, die-hard gun owners would be a costly blip in their path.

 

Uhh I don't think so. The government has much more advanced and efficient weaponry than any of us will ever have, not to mention a military full of trained, professional soldiers with top-of-the-line protective gear and vehicles. If a dictator took over this country and decided to stop an uprising of people with assault rifles, it would be a matter of ants vs. anteaters.

[Darien]

You didn't need that kind of gun.

 

A regular hand gun or pistol could have done the job.

How do you know what I need and as for a hand gun they said as high as he was a hand gun wouldn't had stop him...

[hazeh]

How do you know what I need and as for a hand gun they said as high as he was a hand gun wouldn't had stop him...

Because no one but military personnel need that kind of weapon.

 

There is no reason someone needs an "AK-47" over a pistol. None. A handgun is enough to stop any advancing person out of self defense. Using an AK-47 on another person is down right sadistic.

[Alpha1]

Because the Constitution gives them that right to be armed even if the military was with them. Plus, unfortunately, there well be a sizeable chunk of the military that will side with the government regardless of their oath (sadly).

Also, numbers: there are almost 400mil people in the country, while only roughly 400 thousand are currently in the military (that number flutates and Obama wants to reduce that number by roughly half). Even if most of the miltary does break their oath and side with the government, they will have a lot of trouble fighting despite their better equipment. You just have to look what is going on in Iraq and Afganistan: we are better equiped and trained, but the terrorists there still take a heavy toll on our numbers using Guerrilla tactics and IEDs.

 

Those numbers I think are more like 315 million and 1.5 million.

 

The casualty rate over in Afghanistan is small, and I don’t think it is a good comparison. We follow certain rules, it’s on the other side of the world and Afghanistan has trouble because of poor literacy, poor infrastructure, opium production, etc.

 

The site is kind of off-tangent, but links the study

 

That "study" is a thesis.

 

I looked at the citations it referenced for that part and only found this: "Some observers have focused on children’s access to handguns as the cause for the high fatality rates associated with youth violence in America.[8] Others have looked for cultural explanations.[9]".

 

Anyways, if guns in house = aggression, why are black Americans more likely to support gun control, and white households significantly more likely to have a gun? Well, actually, I think a lot of that has to do with many blacks living in urban areas.

 

Columbine had an armed guard.

 

They basically waited outside after they exchanged fire. I think this has changed since then.

 

Virginia Tech had its own police dept.

 

Because of the way the entrances are, Cho was able to chain them. I’m sure campuses have reacted to this.

 

Ft. Hood was a military base.

 

“1-1.30pm: Makes his way across the world's biggest military base to the Soldier Readiness Centre, one mile away. Inside, an estimated 300 soldiers, some preparing for deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan, some recently returned, are awaiting vaccinations and eye checks. They are unarmed, in keeping with military rules on the base, which is the size of a small city.”

 

And today, there were armed guards at Lone Star College.

 

An armed guard isn’t as useful when it isn’t mass shooting.

 

They shouldn't. But again, we have a situation that could have been prevented with simple gun safety. A gun lock or a gun safe could have saved 20 lives.

 

She took him to a gun range frequently.

 

First, define "normal guns"? What guns do you not have a problem with? Because nowadays, saying "semi-automatic firearm" is like saying "gasoline car." My AK is functionally identical to most hunting rifles.

 

Yes, but an internal box or hinged floor plate obviously isn’t as effective as a semi with a detachable magazine with 10 or more rounds.

 

If we refuse to adhere to our founding documents that are supposed to fence the power of the national gov't, then the powers they possess are both arbitrary and conceivably totalitarian. Where does it end? Where is the limit? Apparently it's not the constitution.

 

Do you agree that fully automatic weapons should be limited? I know many that seem to have no problem with this, but if someone concedes this, how is the Constitution barring them from regulating semi-autos?

 

About as badly as Rosa Parks "needed" to sit at the front of the bus.

 

Wut? Segregation isn’t even comparable.

 

It's the principle that the government knows the AR-15 is the most widely sold and owned rifle in America, so they might be just a LITTLE hesitant to grossly overstep their bounds.

 

They could just gas you out with nerve agents.

 

I don’t think they would need to hesitant even then. The government has already condoned the killing of over 50 million since Roe v. Wade, yet there has been no armed resistance.

 

You didn't need that kind of gun.

A regular hand gun or pistol could have done the job.

 

Rifles are hardly ever used, and the “assault weapons” are just a small subset of that. In the same time that rifles were responsible for 300 deaths, hands and feet were responsible for more. The worst school shooting was with pistols, and it’s preferred because it’s easy to conceal.

 

 

[catstaff]

Because no one but military personnel need that kind of weapon.

 

There is no reason someone needs an "AK-47" over a pistol. None. A handgun is enough to stop any advancing person out of self defense. Using an AK-47 on another person is down right sadistic.

You do realize that it's been pointed out several times in this thread that there is NO REAL DIFFERENCE between a "hunting rifle" and a so-called "assault weapon", right? The differences are in the bells and whistles: the material it's made of, etc. But when it comes to the nuts and bolts of it, they're both semi-automatic rifles that fire .22 caliber bullets, one bullet per trigger pull, with removable clips that come in a variety of capacities.

 

Frankly, the more military-looking weapon is the better one for a hunter: it's made of lighter materials that are going to be a lot more forgiving that the shiny wood of the "hunting rifle" if it's dropped from a tree stand by accident, or gets rained on, etc. Not to mention, being lighter, it's easier to tote around the woods all day while looking for game. A collapsible stock means it's adjustable, for a more comfortable grip if the weapon is perhaps used by more than one family member; each user can adjust it to their size.

 

Oh, and pistols? Can come with big-capacity clips too. My ex has a Ruger P-90, which is a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol, one bullet per trigger pull. If I remember correctly, it held 15 rounds in the clip plus one in the chamber. It doesn't have the range of a rifle, true, but it makes a much bigger hole than a hunting rifle does.

[Darien]

Because no one but military personnel need that kind of weapon.

 

There is no reason someone needs an "AK-47" over a pistol. None. A handgun is enough to stop any advancing person out of self defense. Using an AK-47 on another person is down right sadistic.

 

 

How do you know that?, just so you know a hand gun want alway stop a person and I don't own a hand gun I used what I had at hand and as for calling me a sadistis its easy too say that when your not the one being shot at...

Edited January 25, 2013 by Darien

[Rachel72]

Well I do need it, it saved my life last year when a black man broke in too my home and tryed too kill me in my sleep. I had too shot too kill too stop him, so yes I did need it and thank god for it...

[~Kat~]

It does not matter what gun control bans there are.

 

You can not stop the bad guys from getting a hold of them.

 

Like Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said ... the proposal would have done "nothing" to prevent the Newtown tragedy and vowed to fight to defeat the bill.

[Syaoransbear]

How do you define a 'bad guy'? Everyone was a good guy at some point.

 

Our criminals sure seem to have a tough time getting guns illegally because we mostly have stabbings. And most of those people survive. In a small town close to here a man stabbed his wife 40 times and she still survived.

[hazeh]

You do realize that it's been pointed out several times in this thread that there is NO REAL DIFFERENCE between a "hunting rifle" and a so-called "assault weapon", right? The differences are in the bells and whistles: the material it's made of, etc. But when it comes to the nuts and bolts of it, they're both semi-automatic rifles that fire .22 caliber bullets, one bullet per trigger pull, with removable clips that come in a variety of capacities.

 

Frankly, the more military-looking weapon is the better one for a hunter: it's made of lighter materials that are going to be a lot more forgiving that the shiny wood of the "hunting rifle" if it's dropped from a tree stand by accident, or gets rained on, etc. Not to mention, being lighter, it's easier to tote around the woods all day while looking for game. A collapsible stock means it's adjustable, for a more comfortable grip if the weapon is perhaps used by more than one family member; each user can adjust it to their size.

 

Oh, and pistols? Can come with big-capacity clips too. My ex has a Ruger P-90, which is a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol, one bullet per trigger pull. If I remember correctly, it held 15 rounds in the clip plus one in the chamber. It doesn't have the range of a rifle, true, but it makes a much bigger hole than a hunting rifle does.

You realize I said nothing about hunting, right?

 

If you're a hunter, then fine. Have a hunting license and your weapon registered.

 

If you don't, there is absolutely no reason you would need a weapon like that over a simple pistol.

 

 

You can not stop the bad guys from getting a hold of them.

 

No, but you can sure as heck make it a lot harder for them to get one if gun control is in effect.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Shiny Hazard Sign

[Alpha1]

You do realize that it's been pointed out several times in this thread that there is NO REAL DIFFERENCE between a "hunting rifle" and a so-called "assault weapon", right? The differences are in the bells and whistles: the material it's made of, etc. But when it comes to the nuts and bolts of it, they're both semi-automatic rifles that fire .22 caliber bullets, one bullet per trigger pull, with removable clips that come in a variety of capacities.

 

I'm guessing you're just making a comparison between 22 caliber rifles, but hunting rifles have a variety of cartridges. You've also mentioned that they both have detachable magazines. What if the magazine is fixed?

 

It doesn't have the range of a rifle, true, but it makes a much bigger hole than a hunting rifle does.

 

A .45 ACP only has slightly more momentum than a .223 Remington. However, the rifle will have 3 times as much muzzle energy (ft-lbs). I'd rather get hit by a 450 ft-lb pistol cartridge vs. a .223 at 1300 ft-lbs.

 

 

 

[philpot123]

Normal guns = non-military-style guns. Assault weapons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Assault weapon" is a manufactured term used to refer to a scary looking gun, it has nothing to do with functionality. A fully automatic rifle is considered an assault rifle. An "assault weapon" is loosely defined, and as a term was created for the sole purpose of banning certain weapons BASED ON LOOKS.

 

I won't question your right to own one at the moment, but I won't fight against laws that ban assault weapons while allowing people to keep non-assault weapons. They're gratuitious, IMO. And I'll argue with people who say that they NEED one, which I hear a lot of. Just because it exists doesn't mean people need to have it. Also, comparing the civil rights movement to gun ownership...what. No. The oppression of an entire race =/= taking assault weapons away from people.

 

So I have a right to own one unless the government decides to take it away? Then that's not a right, it's a privilege. But the constitution grants RIGHTS. So somebody is wrong here.

 

Uhh I don't think so. The government has much more advanced and efficient weaponry than any of us will ever have, not to mention a military full of trained, professional soldiers with top-of-the-line protective gear and vehicles. If a dictator took over this country and decided to stop an uprising of people with assault rifles, it would be a matter of ants vs. anteaters.

 

You assume the military would be fully on board and willing to fire on civilians.

 

Because no one but military personnel need that kind of weapon.

 

There is no reason someone needs an "AK-47" over a pistol. None. A handgun is enough to stop any advancing person out of self defense. Using an AK-47 on another person is down right sadistic.

 

No military in the world uses the kind of rifle I own. The semi-automatic variant of the AK-47 is NOT a military weapon. That's a "small" detail that's actually kind of a big one.

 

Sadistic?? How? Do you have any idea how much bigger the wound cavity would be if I used my .45 with hollowpoint rounds instead of my AK?

 

She took him to a gun range frequently.

 

Still could have prevented access to the gun that wasn't his. That was her fault.

 

Yes, but an internal box or hinged floor plate obviously isn’t as effective as a semi with a detachable magazine with 10 or more rounds.

 

There are hunting rifles with 10 round fixed magazines that can be reloaded with stripper clips in a very short amount of time.

 

Do you agree that fully automatic weapons should be limited? I know many that seem to have no problem with this, but if someone concedes this, how is the Constitution barring them from regulating semi-autos?

 

No, I don't think they should be. Now obviously that's never going to change, but according to what I believe to be the proper interpretation of the 2nd Amendment AS IT STANDS, civilians should be allowed to possess a fully automatic firearm if they so choose. Whether or not that's OKAY is up for debate, but I believe that, properly understood, the constitution grants that right.

 

Wut? Segregation isn’t even comparable.

 

Define comparable. I'm not saying gun rights is the same as civil rights, but I'm saying that in regards to this specific situation, Rosa Parks did not "need" to sit at the front of the bus. She had no demonstrable, quantifiable need to sit in that particular seat. She had a fundamental right to do so if she so wished, and she exercised that right. Whether or not I need my AK is not the issue, the issue is the fact that I have the fundamental right to own it.

 

They could just gas you out with nerve agents.

 

I don’t think they would need to hesitant even then. The government has already condoned the killing of over 50 million since Roe v. Wade, yet there has been no armed resistance.

 

They sure could. I don't have any illusions of winning if it ever came to such things.

 

Abortion is a much more subtle approach to slaughtering innocents. I imagine you're just playing devil's advocate here, though.

[Kestra15]

Our criminals sure seem to have a tough time getting guns illegally because we mostly have stabbings. And most of those people survive. In a small town close to here a man stabbed his wife 40 times and she still survived.

Indeed, the UK and Germany don't have the same level of gun violence even on a scaled basis, what with guns not being easily accessable.

How do you know what I need and as for a hand gun they said as high as he was a hand gun wouldn't had stop him...

Really? Coz last I checked, no matter how 'high' someone is, a couple of rounds to the chest will stop someone through the simplest of biology.

Like Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said ... the proposal would have done "nothing" to prevent the Newtown tragedy and vowed to fight to defeat the bill.

I was under the impression the Newtown shooter was using his family's legally-owned weapon. Tighter controls probably could have prevented it.

 

How do you know that?, just so you know a hand gun want alway stop a person and I don't own a hand gun I used what I had at hand and as for calling me a sadistis its easy too say that when your not the one being shot at...

And neither will a rocket-propelled grenade; so by that logic, everyone should be allowed a tank.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Kestra15

[AngelKitty]

"Assault weapon" is a manufactured term used to refer to a scary looking gun, it has nothing to do with functionality. A fully automatic rifle is considered an assault rifle. An "assault weapon" is loosely defined, and as a term was created for the sole purpose of banning certain weapons BASED ON LOOKS.

 

I figured "assault weapon" referred to fully- or semi-automatic guns. That's what I was talking about.

 

So I have a right to own one unless the government decides to take it away? Then that's not a right, it's a privilege.

 

There's a difference between rights granted by laws and human rights. Having a gun isn't a human right. The constitution grants legal rights. You don't have a right to own slaves. You don't have a right to own a nuke. People used to have a right to own slaves, now they no longer do. No civilian has ever had or will ever have the right to own a nuke.

 

You assume the military would be fully on board and willing to fire on civilians.

 

You assume everyone in the military would be against firing on civilians.

[philpot123]

Indeed, the UK and Germany don't have the same level of gun violence even on a scaled basis, what with guns not being easily accessable.

Which makes sense. No guns = little to no gun violence. The question is whether or not it would materially affect the violent crime rate overall, and whether or not disarming the many who defend themselves every day would lead to an increase in muggings, rapes and the like.

 

Really? Coz last I checked, no matter how 'high' someone is, a couple of rounds to the chest will stop someone through the simplest of biology.

 

Depends on where you hit em and what you're hitting em with. Soldiers overseas have reported that the .223 round is pretty ineffective against someone who's pumped up on adrenaline. You can hit them a lot of times, but unless you hit the right place, they'll just keep coming. Really the only guaranteed "stopping shot" is a head shot or a well-placed chest shot, but that kind of accuracy is difficult with a handgun.

 

I was under the impression the Newtown shooter was using his family's legally-owned weapon. Tighter controls probably could have prevented it.

 

By that I suppose you mean civilians simply not being allowed to purchase that type of rifle? Yes, it's conceivably possible that if we were not allowed to own ARs that the shooting wouldn't have happened, but the VT shooting happened with pistols and 10 round mags.

 

And neither will a rocket-propelled grenade; so by that logic, everyone should be allowed a tank.

 

Well, if you can afford it...

 

I figured "assault weapon" referred to fully- or semi-automatic guns. That's what I was talking about.

 

Fully automatic guns are illegal and possessing them without a Class 3 permit is a federal offense, felony. The vast majority of guns owned are semi-automatic. Most hunting rifles, any pistol that isn't a single action revolver. If you banned semi-auto weapons, that's basically a blanket ban on almost everything that could be effective for any conceivable use.

 

There's a difference between rights granted by laws and human rights. Having a gun isn't a human right. The constitution grants legal rights. You don't have a right to own slaves. You don't have a right to own a nuke. People used to have a right to own slaves, now they no longer do. No civilian has ever had or will ever have the right to own a nuke.

 

Self defense is a human right. I should have a right to defend myself in the most effective manner possible. Nukes aren't effective for self defense, so I really don't want one.

In my opinion, a true right is something that can only be granted by God. Legal authorities merely affirm or deny those rights. I would argue that in the modern systems of slavery, no one ever had the right to own slaves, they had the legal permission to do so.

 

You assume everyone in the military would be against firing on civilians.

 

I assume nothing. I know there's plenty of people in the military who would fire on me if they were under orders to do so. I'm just saying there's more than one possible outcome to a crazy hypothetical civil war.

[~Kat~]

The key of so called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available.The rate of gun ownership is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but the murder rate is higher in urban areas

 

Guns are not the problem. People are the problem, including people who are determined to push gun control laws, either in ignorance of the facts or in defiance of the facts.There is innocent ignorance and there is invincible, strong opinionated and self righteous ignorance. Every tragic mass shooting seems to bring out examples of both among gun advocates and control advocates.

 

 

[Vhale]

The daily /facepalm

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/20707...hter-for-grades

 

ST. PAUL, Minn. (KMSP) -

 

A St. Paul man has been charged with terroristic threats for pointing an AK-47 rifle at his daughter during an argument over the fact that she got two B's instead of straight A's in school.

 

According to the charges, 52-year-old Kirill Bartashevitch recently purchased the AK-47 due to fears that such weapons would be banned under President Obama's push for gun control legislation.

 

St. Paul police learned of the Jan. 13 incident after Bartashevitch's daughter sent a text message to a Central High School classmate, saying her father pointed an AK-47 at her. The message was seen by the classmate's mother, who reported it to a school social worker.

 

In an interview with the social worker, the victim said they were arguing about her grades when she swore at her father and said she "hated" him. At that point, Bartashevitch grabbed his newly-purchased gun and pointed it at his daughter.

 

The girl's mother said she stepped between the two, and that Bartashevitch pushed her to the ground and pointed the gun at both of them. The daughter said she wasn't scared because she didn't think the gun was loaded.

 

Bartashevitch admitted having a physical confrontation with his wife and daughter, and admitted to pointing the gun at both of them. He said the gun was not loaded and that he checked the chamber before pointing it at them.

 

St. Paul police searched the Bartashevitch home and found ammunition and receipts for two gun purchases. One receipt was for Bill's Gun Shop, dated Jan. 22, 2013. An employee of the gun shop confirmed Bartashevitch sold an AK-47 style gun -- specifically a 7.62X54R -- for $150.

 

The other receipt was for Frontiersman Sport, Inc., also dated Jan. 22, 2013. The gun shop confirmed Bartashevitch sold a newer AK-47 clone rifle -- a Cal-Zastava PAP 70 7.62X39 -- for $375.

 

Kirill Bartashevitch is charged with two counts of terroristic threats for pointing the gun at his daughter and wife. Bail was set at $20,000 with the conditions Bartashevitch have no contact with his daughter or wife.

 

If convicted, each charge carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

 

Read more: Charges: Dad points AK-47 at daughter for getting two B’s - KMSP-TV http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/20707...s#ixzz2J3GQAriJ

 

Amusing comment about the article

 

Well, if the daughter (and the mom) had been carrying their own guns, this wouldn't have happened, now would it? He probably only felt empowered to do this because he knew they WEREN'T armed and were therefore easy victims. Remember: an armed society is a polite society. I'm glad we can have situations like this crop up every now and then to serve as just illustrations of that very important point.

[Slaskia]

Annnd to counter that with two articles with gun users successfully using their guns to defend themselves (as a plus: no shots needed to be fired in either case!):

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/25...y-was-he-wrong/

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/24...lding-an-ar-15/

[Vhale]

Excellent, good to see people took Vice President Biden seriously about defending their home

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/biden-s...--politics.html

 

Yet another /facepalm

The Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office is releasing ads telling people not to depend on 911 as it's not a good option, partially thanks to budget cuts and layoffs.

 

http://fox6now.com/2013/01/25/sheriff-clar...ur-best-option/

 

The kicker? Apparently people have noticed that the Sheriff's office doesn't do much. As in, the local college processes more arrests than the Sheriff's office despite a multi-million dollar budget. So people have been asking questions. Fear-mongering seems to be this sheriff's answer to trying to save his cash-cow.

http://urbanmilwaukee.com/2012/10/03/murph...lwaukee-county/

 

Last year, the administration of Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele released some eyebrow-raising statistics on the Sheriff’s Department, noting that:

 

    Milwaukee is the state’s only county with no unincorporated area, meaning there are municipal police patrolling every part of the county. Besides Milwaukee, there are 18 suburban police forces in action.

    In 2009, the sheriff reported only 19 crimes to the FBI, compared to 41,375 for the Milwaukee police, 3,288 for West Allis police, 1,908 for Wauwatosa and even 242 for the UW-Milwaukee police. That’s right, the UWM campus police handled 12 times more criminals than the Sheriff’s Department.

    Just 10 percent of Sheriff David Clarke’s requested property tax levy was for police services. As Abele put it, “the sheriff plays only a limited role as a traditional law enforcement agency.”

[Slaskia]

What does Biden have to do with it? The sad fact is, most stories like the ones I posted aren't even covered by the news because to the news agencies it ain't 'news' (no one was hurt/killed). Heck, I was surprise TheBlaze had those two (and a third I saw about a week back)...then again, maybe not so surprising considering the current 'anti-gun' mentality going around.