Back 
Gun rights advocates listen to Thom Buzard speak from the Capitol steps during the .223 Day of Resistance Rally on Saturday. About 60 people attended.
Photos: .223 Day of Resistance rally
Posted: February 23, 2013 - 10:48pm | Updated: February 24, 2013 - 1:13am
Comments (95)
Add commentAngel, But we don’t infringe
Angel,
But we don’t infringe someone freedom of speech until AFTER they yell fire…why…because it is their Right to have free speech. Now if they abuse that right then the right can be taken away….But what Feinstein and the rest want to do is infringe on every bodies right to bear arms BEFORE they abuse it…
Imagine if we did that with the first amendment and infringed everyone right to free speech because a few people yelled fire?
So Bobc
For the sake of argument, let's say that congress passed a bill, the president signed it, and SCOTUS determined it to be constitutional, to require that all owners of AR-15's must turn in those weapons (and be fairly compensated for them).
Now I completely do not support such an action, and it will almost certainly never happen, but for the sake of discussion...
Since this law has gone through all of the checks and balances provided by our Constitution, would you not agree that anyone violating that law would then be a felon?
really
I own a bunch of guns, then one day go nuts. I become schizophrenic...it happens. Now what?
Is there a 'loony list' that I would go on for background checks? Who would put me on it? Could I ever come off of it if I was successfully treated?
What if I become an alcoholic or drug addict? Would that disqualify me from purchasing a gun?
And what about all of the guns I own? Since they haven't been registered, how would you even know that I had them, even if you did know that I was nuts? Would the government be entitled to come search my house for guns?
@really
There will always be people at the extremes, those on the one end that see absolutely no use for private firearm ownership in a modern society, and those that think that the 2nd amendment gives them complete and unfettered access to whatever weapon they want. You'll never please everyone, it's just not possible.
The majority of responsible gun owners see wisdom in certain restrictions, like the both of us appear to in regards to straw purchases. So why aren't they in place? Too much power has been invested in the hands of gun manufacturers and their lobbying arm, the NRA. Their well-funded but minority voice ends up drowning out people like us.
It's worth worrying that the government will over correct, but not a single politician, appointee or agency I have heard of has advocated a ban or repeal of the 2nd amendment. A slippery slope argument against any reforms just ends up sounding psychotic.
Well Lat, those are the type
Well Lat, those are the type of questions that we should be looking into rather than trying to take guns out of the hands of legal owners.
Would you rather take way the civil rights of a legal and sane gun owner or the civil rights of a mentally unstable or drug addicted person? Is there a happy medium? What will truly make us as a society, safer?
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".
Benjamin Franklin
Angle,
That law, straw man, IS in place. It is not used, and my opinion is that the issue is wanted by some, to fix the problem is to lose the issue. And most media, really, really want the issue, it SELLS!
And Lat, the right is NOT dependant on the constitution, it simply exists. Evil dosn't like it, and I suppose that would make me a felon(in your eyes)
@noroad
Living in a society with rules and restrictions means that you are taught you have the right to free speech, but the restriction to use that right responsibly. That's not an infringement. The same is true for firearms. No right is absolute. We, as a nation, can place proper restrictions and responsibilities on these rights, and do all the time.
Lat, So since a few gun
Lat,
So since a few gun owners may go crazy you think we should restrict everyone’s rights?
@bobc
Beyond the hype about the 'Fast and Furious' program is that it started out as Operation Wide Receiver under the Bush administration. Under that operation, agents identified a straw purchaser that had, over the course of a few months, bought and sold over $400,000 in firearms (while still qualifying for food stamps). The FBI knew the gun stores he was using, and that he was making private sales near the Arizona/Mexico border. They couldn't arrest him because he wasn't breaking any laws, state or federal.
Angle,
And we have, and they are enough, we need no further restrictions untill we use what we have!
Edit to your last post, now pay atten! The mayor of Chicago, on national TV several years ago complained that the known strawman sells IN HIS CITY numbered in the thousands, do YOU know how many prosecutions there were ? Zero, Zip, None and that is a FEDERAL crime! The guy that bought a rifle for the DC Sniper, know what he got?? 6 months probation! NO, the use of existing law is a joke, and the onloy reason we have today the big push, is to get private weapons outlawed! Period, otherwise why are the laws NOT being implimented??
Angel, Correct…you must use
Angel,
Correct…you must use your right of free speech and your right to bear arms responsible. If you fail to do that then AFTER you misuse the right it may be removed…but not before the misuse or based on what might happen or based on what some crazy kid in New Jersey did.
It is a right that cannot be infringed by anyone but you.
@bobc
You say the current laws are enough, the majority of the American people say they are not.
Straw man purchases are only illegal if you knowingly resell to someone that is not legally allowed to own one. Absent a background check, you'd never know--plausible deniability for the straw man. But background checks of private sales are an infringement on 2nd amendment rights, yes?
Nope,
I don't believe a free society will let evil triumph, at least not yet. There are not enough of you.
Pacifist Irony
"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Mohandas Gandhi,
Warm weather
I'll be glad when the warm weather arrives and the trolls will have something to do besides sitting at their computers crying about how the world should be.
Until any of you can prove
Until any of you can prove anyone with a chance is trying to take your guns away your just deflecting the discussion. Stop spreading lies. No one is trying to take guns away from you. Drop the scare tactics.
Stu..they are most definitely
Stu..they are most definitely trying to take a way my future ability to buy an assault rifle.
They already took away that right for ten years starting in back 1994…
From Wiki:
Senator Diane Feinstein announced she would introduce a Federal assault weapons ban bill in the U.S. Senate[26] following the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.[27] The bill as of January 25, 2013 has a provision where the sunset clause which was part of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban will be eliminated and will be directed at firearms with detachable magazines and at least one single military feature.
Guns for hunting are the only guns really needed in Alaska.
Guns for self-defense, likely not needed, but tolerated, despite the fact they lead to many more accidents and suicides than actual use for self-defense.
Assault weapons? High-capacity magazines? Not needed for anything but mass slaughter and "entertainment".
America has too many guns in the hands of too many paranoid people and folks who consider these guns toys and entertainment.
Plenty of Alaskans, including gun-owners, are also parents and grandparents and are in favor of sensible, restrained gun safety legislation.
really
Totally agree.
Let's figure this out rather than focusing on pointless gun bans or chest-thumping about defeating despots and walking around the streets carrying rifles.
The discussion is lacking reasonable voices.
The headline is wrong...
Surely, the headline is wrong. Because we've been being told that guns are evil and shoot people all by themselves and that people who own or carry guns are prone to all manner or indiscriminate violence because someone didn't say hello to them on the street or because someone looked at them wrong. So, this headline is surely wrong because I'm certain if all these people had been downtown with these firearms, there would most certainly be dozens if not hundreds of dead fellow Juneauites strewn about the streets. Isn't this what the we've being told? Oh... I know... I bet none of these guns had more than ten round magazines or plastic stocks. THOSE are the ones that are evil. These must not have been scary looking. Okay... Makes sense now. Thanks. I was concerned there for a moment that the news had totally missed a larger story.
The rally could have been organized
WITHOUT the emphasis on the round used to kill those kids---There are lots of other semi-auto rifles around, and whoever thought up the ".223 day of resistance" thing seems intent on partisan theater, as well as rubbing our noses in a national tragedy. How would you feel if it had been YOUR kids?
Yeah, hooray for the 2nd Amendment! Hooray for all those other amendments too! As the parent of a 6-yr-old, I'm just sorry those kids had to die that way.
Sure, march around with your guns (I'd feel a little silly doing that with mine, but I know that's just me), and make it known that this horrific tragedy isn't going to be used as an excuse to round up assault weapons, just because some crazy got his hands on one and decided to kill a bunch of little kids with it, with several .223 rounds each.
I understand the statement, but it could have been done more tactfully.
As far as many of the comments posted above (and below)---Wow. A lot of you guys have so much resentment for your fellow Americans, it makes me wonder what your posturing with your guns is really all about;
223
Dang people are so ignorant. Follow the news. NBC of all people reported a couple weeks ago that the Newtown shooter left the bushmaster in the car. That does not mean that the two mutts dressed in camo seen fleeing the scene did not use an AR, but I do believe even the medical examiner changed his story and said all those kids were shot with a handgun.
Now, to those of you who bad mouth those of us who actually use an AR to hunt with, because even in 223 caliber it is a pretty damn effective round for deer, do some research.
The NRA doesn't kill kids.
Planned Parenthood kills kids.
and skirkz...
Planned Parenthood's primary role is reproductive health---Providing contraception and exams; not abortion, which by the way is NOT "killing kids"---This statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Planned Parenthood's role in the community.
What, do you guys make up your own facts as you go, or get them from a parallel universe? (I suppose that universe has a lot of UNplanned parenthood...)
but I have a question
For those who attended this event: How many who attended were counter-demonstrating? I hear reference to at least one in these threads---Were there more? Did they talk with any of you? What was said? To anyone who feels like answering, I'd be grateful.
Jamison Paul
@tiki
A common statement from pro-gun commenters is that gun control means dictatorship and genocide.
It is clear that gun control and gun freedom are not indicative of freedom or tyranny. Yes Egypt is a mess. It was a mess before the dictator was overthrown, and it is a mess now. what's your point?
My point is that Egypt, with a very low rate of civilian gun ownership, overthrew a tyrant. There are many, many examples of countries with tight gun control laws that are not genocidal dictatorships. There are also plenty of countires that are the opposite: tyrannical with high rates of civilian gun ownership. Gun ownership is not causative to tyranny or freedom. Rates of gun ownership are also not causative to gun violence...
My point is this: lots of guns does not mean lots of gun violence. What is it about us, as Americans, that we shoot over 100,000 Americans every year? If that was a cancer, we would have a blood red ribbon campaign for it.
Gorilla groups who bare arms
Guess they don't need shirts because of the fur.
OK, I guess J.E. doesn't allow external links
So me citing news sources about the Newtown shootings was an exercise in futility. One interesting one was a link to snopes.com which exposed a widely circulated conspiracy video about the shootings as a fraud. I also had a link to a fine cartoon by Tom Tomorrow and This Modern World which bore on the subject. I have now removed them all in respect for J.E. policy.
@ Jamison: You said:"WITHOUT
@ Jamison: You said:
"WITHOUT the emphasis on the round used to kill those kids---There are lots of other semi-auto rifles around, and whoever thought up the ".223 day of resistance" thing seems intent on partisan theater, as well as rubbing our noses in a national tragedy. How would you feel if it had been YOUR kids?"
Jamison. No one was "rubbing your nose in a national tragedy" which that incident surely was. How DARE you take a cheap shot like that? The .223 round is a very common semi-auto round and since the AR-15 and other .223 round semi-auto rifles are now targeted for the melting cauldron, those who took part in this demonstration, and did it on 2/23/13, decided to highlight the round itself because the rifle's in which they are chambered are usually these so called "assault rifles". They thought it was clever, and so, they did it. But they weren't rubbing anyone's noses in the deaths of those poor little Children as you have so tastelessly described.
The very fact that the Anti-Gun people have seized on and have absolutely politicized this national tragedy in order to further THEIR agenda (i.e., taking away our right to keep and bear these particular arms) is what is appalling and downright sickening. One of your colleagues here stated that "the NRA kills kids". Now, that is total bulloogey, and you know it! You seem like a smart guy and one who endeavors to think, but then, I see that you make the comment that those who pulled off the ".223 protest deal" were rubbing our noses in a national tragedy where little kids were killed.
How would I feel if it were my little kids? Well, as you can guess, I would be devastated that they were killed. Destroyed. And I do pray for those poor poor Families. But I wouldn't blame the government for allowing these guns to be legal. I wouldn't blame the NRA. I wouldn't blame fellow Americans who believe that these types of rifles should be legal, nay, no, not at all.
Look. Some MORON walked into a Wyoming school not long ago (after stabbing his Dad's girlfriend to death with a knife back at their apartment), and proceeded to shoot in the head and kill his own Dad with a compound bow. Gak! OMG! How horrific can it get?? I don't even want to think of what that scene looked like either. So, come on. What question do you think I am about to ask? Here it is anyway: Do we outlaw compound bows and also knives? Come on. You are smarter than that. The problem lies in taking care of the mentally insane by either helping them or, sequestering them and keeping them from Society, NOT in taking away our guns. And it just so happens that many many people VERY ANGRY about the possibility of our President and this Administration doing just that. So, you got a problem with people wanting to express their views? Personally, I think that the title ".223 Day Of Resistance" is a bit melodramatic too, but still, what this is about is we American Citizens retaining our right as Represented Citizens to have our 2nd Amendment Rights honored and not trampled on! I mean, come on dude! Obama has spoken clearly that he is considering using his Executive Privilege and an Executive Order and simply taking away that Right! That doesn't BOTHER you? We elected a President, not a KING! The "American Experiment" was about Self Rule, as opposed to the Might or Divine Right ruler ship by Kings!
And so, come on. Don't say things like you did about protestors rubbing our noses in a tragedy. That's just not true at all.
And, I am pro choice. But I durn shore do NOT believe that ANY taxes should pay for contraceptives. Contraceptives are for people who want to have fun having sex without gettin' pregnant or getting sexually transmitted diseases. Sex is fun! It's supposed to be fun! But why should the American people pay for other people to have fun?? Condoms are available at the local high schools and junior high schools already. And they can be purchased at many different local stores. I just bought a case of Trojan Magnums last week...
I don't think I have read
I don't think I have read this many douchebag comments on the same thread in a long time.