Front Page  »  

When grandma packs, we all feel safer

February 24, 2011

Roger Freberg

OPINION By Roger Freberg

Have you ever had to defend yourself or someone you love from an intruder?

Part of the worries of a modern world is waking up in the middle of the night to the sounds of someone breaking into your home. What would YOU do? Call 911 and hope someone comes along to save the day?

This very situation happened to me during a home invasion by two men in, yes, San Luis Obispo. Although no one was hurt, I think that placing my handgun between the eyes of one burly intruder persuaded both of them to run away. I was asked why I didn’t shoot and I said that I thought being faced with the possibility of imminent death was punishment enough. When the police came, Laura was very quick to point out that my gun wasn’t as scary as the fact that the intruders were faced with a large man with a gun, who also happened to be very naked. Thanks Laura for making that part of the record.

Unfortunately, all too often today, nice well-meaning people expect that someone else will teach our kids what they need to know, help us through our interpersonal relationships and defend us from all the nasties in our world. Too few citizens rely on themselves or take responsibility to solve their own challenges. This is not only sad, but not realistic. For example, with a handful of police officers on the streets of San Luis Obispo at any one time, what would you do to ensure your safety and those you love during a home invasion or possible period of social unrest? In San Luis Obispo, I hear people saying that they would ‘reason’ with the intruder; well, that might work.  ;)

You might think we’re a long way from needing a weapon outside the home, but the combination of impending drops in public services (police included) coupled with ever-increasing drug gang and cartel activity (Salinas is a war zone and Santa Maria is becoming one of the most dangerous cities of its size in California) makes this less certain in the very near future.  Possession of firearms and ammunition in Mexico is “illegal,” at least if you’re a law-abiding citizen.  With beheadings becoming a regular occurrence in such formerly safe spots as Acapulco, we shouldn’t be too smug here.

“To know what is right and not do it is the worst cowardice.” — Confucius

In most places in the U.S.A. today, carrying a concealed weapon is considered “normal,” providing you have the proper license and training. There are some places in the world that have lagged a bit behind in this progressive thinking, like New York, Iran and California. Let’s talk a little bit about conceal and carry.

First, let me frank, the CCW license gives you the right to conceal a handgun, but not to use it. Should you find a dire need to use a weapon, chances are you will be initially arrested and treated as the criminal that you might be, until everything is sorted out. However, there is an old saying that “it is better to be judged by 12 (jury) than carried by 6 (pallbearers).” I think that those who care about you might agree.

There is this other little thing called “states’ rights” that many in the federal government like to forget or ignore, but “states’ rights” has a big effect on CCW permit holders (Carry & Conceal Licenses). It has to do with “reciprocity.” When one state recognizes the permit of another, this is called “reciprocity.” For example, your state permit(s) may be recognized in Utah but not in New Jersey, so those who carry and travel (a lot of truckers, for example) hold multiple state permits.

There are many states for which handgun conceal or carry permits are not a question:

“Vermont is (a state) where firearms carry of any kind (open or concealed) is properly viewed as a right not subject to regulation. The state does not require a license to carry a firearm. Individuals may carry handguns on their person in a concealed or open manner almost anywhere in the state.” (from “Travelers Guide to Firearms laws of the fifty states 2010) For more information, consult: GUN LAW GUIDE.

So, how does one obtain a permit? Well, in some cases, you have to be a resident of that state; however, there are many states granting permits to nonresidents: Virginia, Florida, Texas and Utah to name just a few. Secondly, you usually have to demonstrate proficiency and understanding of handguns, sometimes even the specific handgun you wish to carry. There are many local instructors who will help you in this process, including a frequent sponsor of this site. Thirdly, you have to be finger printed and clear an FBI check, and you can’t have a history of mental illness. These precautions were put in place to restrict access to weapons of deadly force to certain folks like: criminals, politicians, and public employee unions.

Let me be clear that I don’t feel that everyone should be “packing a 9,” especially politicians. I know that not everyone has grown up hunting, fishing, and viewing the NRA as the great organization it is — as I have–but it may be time to reconsider whether or not you really wish to go quietly in the night as our world becomes a little less friendly or stand tall.  I have always been haunted by the story of an Algerian father who attempted to pry a brick off his roof to protect his family.  Before he was murdered, his attackers made him watch as each of his loved ones was killed.

BTW, it goes without saying that you should never own or carry a gun if you can’t visualize ever using it; so if you buy one, take the training and practice often so that you feel comfortable.

Be safe.

Roger Freberg is a San Luis Obispo resident who is using his retirement to write a culinary-inspired blog, comment on important local events and occasionally enjoy getting sued for his journalistic excellence.


Loading...
Subjects:         
Related:


114 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Here is a document that tears down hundreds of the gun control crowd’s arguments: http://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/5.1/gun-facts-5.1-screen.pdf


They use citation’s of studies rather than just spewing useless and unfounded numbers.


0

Isn’t it weird that internally America requires so much registration and control of guns but will sell the hell out of them mounted on jets, ships, tanks, bombers and what have you to anyone with oil or the money required? The only background check we require of them is their ability to pay. To think all this ordnance will be floating around forever as govt’s and regimes change shows just how forward looking we aren’t. We sell approx.ten times the weaponry the next largest gun runners in the world do. (Italy is next, if you can believe it). I believe this is the worst crime this country perpetrates in the world.


0

To extrapolate from Herr Freberg, the world will be a safer place if everyone in it is armed. If that Algerian farmer that haunts him so had a concealed glock, this article could have had a delightful, upbeat ending.


0

Actually, the FBI stats say that about 2.5 million people every year, use a firearm for self defense. That doesn’t mean that 2.5 million people pull the trigger, just that 2.5 million would be victims protected themselves and were alive after the attack to report the crime. That makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.


0

Another warm and cozy stat. Don’t know how current.


“Every year just over 30,000 people die in the US from gunshot wounds. Every two years more US citizens are killed by gunshot wounds than were lost in the entire Vietnam war.


Lets look at this another way. With a population of 310 million and an annual death rate of 8.3/1000 , we can calculate that 2,573,000 people die in the US each year.

Of which 30,000 die of Gun Shot – so if you live in the US you have a 1.166% chance that you will die of Gun Shot wound. The rate of gunshot deaths is about 8 times that of economically comparable nations.


Approximately 8,000 homicides annually occur with gunshot wounds. About 16,000 commit suicide with handguns. Nearly 1,000 die in gun related accidents each year. The number of persons shot by police is slightly elusive.”


0

Well yeah, you’re right , so long as you include suicides, and criminals killing each other with guns. If you eliminate those deaths, accidental shootings and a lawful gun owner shooting an innocent person is relatively insignificant.


So what you need to do now is go back to your stats and compare suicide rates in economically comparable countries, to suicide rates in the U.S. as well as deaths of criminals at the hands of other criminals and see what you come up with.


This claim, that it’s a more efficient way of killing is a red herring, and attempts to suggest that those suicides and criminal on criminal murder wouldn’t have happened if only guns were banned. It’s bogus, disingenuous, doesn’t prevent violent crime, and realistically, if you take guns away from the physically weak, it makes it easier for physically stronger criminals to complete their violent crimes. To quote an old saying, “God made men, but Samuel Colt made men equal”, is a very real observation.


0

I have to agree. Too bad the suicidal guy that intentionally drove up the wrong side of the grade a few weeks ago didn’t own a gun. An innocent victim who was minding his own business when he was hit head on might have been spared. It’s also a fact that the majority of shootings are criminals shooting other criminals. The gangs will have guns regardless of what the law subscribes to.


0

The only comparable rate of gun homicide/suicide is Finland. They are so depressed, you know. They also have 50% gun ownership. They don’t seem to kill each other as much as we do, however. Hope this reproduces. If not, it is at


http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm


Gun Deaths – International Comparisons


Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident)


USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36

Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07

Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10

Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04

Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10

Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10

France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49

England/Wales (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03

Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02

Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0


0

Junk science numbers. National Center for Health Statistics, average rates for years 1981 through 2003 shows that 54% of the number that you reference are suicides. So, adding suicides to US numbers and then removing them from other countries numbers makes the numbers highly skewed.


Now, how many people are killed, maimed, and injured in car accidents each year? Again, it always amazes me how many anti-gun types have no problem jumping in a car (another inanimate object), but are completely scared of a firearm (inanimate object). Certainly would not seem to be a healthy or sane fear.


0

Exactly, this year accidents caused by people texting will out number the people killed by guns this year. Don’t see them stopping texting which is CLEARLY more dangerous then guns. Nothing but a bunch of control freaks afraid of the wrong things.


0

Let’s be really clear here: The Supreme Court of these United States has ruled that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to both KEEP and BEAR arms. This means that the 2A is an individual, fundamental civil right. It is exactly and completely equivalent to our other individual fundamental rights such as speech, press, assembly, and religion.


Now, we can all individually chose to exercise our civil rights or not to exercise our civil rights. I have no business trying to tell you that you must or must not engage in your freedom of religion. You are free to go about exercising your rights as you see fit.


If you chose to try and restrict my individual fundamental civil rights, there is a word commonly associated with people who suppress civil rights: BIGOT


Just because you don’t like what the street corner preacher is preaching, that dislike does not give you the right to suppress his exercise of his civil rights. Likewise, just because you personally don’t like someone else exercising their individual fundamental civil rights involving firearms, that dislike does not give you the right to suppress the exercise of that civil right.


If someone claims that they are afraid of guns because they are dangerous, they should first lobby against automobiles. Autos kill, maim, and injure far more people in this country than guns do. Fear of an inanimate object simply is not healthy. Autos and their use is not enumerated in our bill of rights, but keeping and bearing arms is. Yet, even though autos are more dangerous, people will get in their cars to drive to an antigun event. Insanity.


I will leave with a quote from history. See if your point of view aligns with this anti-gun advocate: “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms.” This man was responsible for his own 1938 gun control act; which our own 1968 gun control act borrowed heavily from. It was penned by Adolf Hitler. United States citizens are living under the wording and methodologies of Nazi Germany. Those who promote gun control are continuing a long tradition it would seem.


0

Thomas J. Dodd was a prosecutor at Nuremberg and just by co incidence introduced the gun control act of 1968.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Dodd

mail order weapons/ juvenile delinquency early concerns


0

So you’re saying that because a man did one thing right by prosecuting Nazis, his gun control act must be right ? How does one justify the other ? The heinous crimes that the Nazis were convicted of, were committed against disarmed people as a result of gun control.


Geez, that’s not even a good try.


0

So you’re saying that because a man did one thing right by prosecuting Nazis, his gun control act must be right

I said no such thing,you are mistaken I leave it to readers to decide for them selves with out an “enforced ” point of view

My link is for reference a FYI type thing (off topic: some research suggests that Oswald was secretly working for Dodd by buying weapons mail order, see Family of Secrets )


0

SoCalCop:


Dodd was an assistant during Nuremberg Trials circa 1946. At that time he studied Nazi gun control laws and obtained his own personal copy of Hitler’s 1938 gun control act. Fast forward to July 1968. There are official records of Mr. Dodd requesting translation of his copy of those laws by the Library of Congress. Mr. Dodd then proceeded to help author our own 1968 Gun Control Act. When placed side by side, the Nazi law and our law are strikingly similar.


http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/origins-gun-control-act-1968-warning-long-26881/


Of particular note, the whole ‘sporting purpose’ argument comes from that 1938 Nazi law. Seems Nazi hate laws and their associated talking points know no bounds, even in modern day America.


0

That’s all good, but I’m still not getting Zaphod’s point.


0

What a great response!


1) Contrary to one poster, my little article was not meant to replace the exhaustive handgun safety class one must take to purchase a handgun in California nor replace the qualifications test and class needed to obtain a CCW. My effort was merely to provide an overview of a topic very few know about and is often suppressed in our community.


If you take a class, then you will have a greater understanding of the issues involved.


2) Yes, the rural areas of our country definitely have their challenges, but since I know many folks who live away from civilization, this little article wasn’t meant for this very knowledgeable and well prepared group. BTW, I always wave a white flag before I enter California Valley! ;) Safety First!


3) What caused my interest in writing this article was in part due to a visit a couple of weeks ago to a local range. I witnessed an instructor providing lessons to women and I was amused because although they were of different ages, they all very attractive. Later, I asked him if he had any male clients and he responded that ‘6 San Luis Obispo women had signed up this week.’ He also mumbled something about ” they needed the protection more than a grizzly old guy” and I wondered if he could possibly be talking about me? However, Gun ownership is serious business and I was pleased the care that was placed in their instruction.


4) BTW, The best way for children to understand what guns are all about is to grow up with them, know the risks and dangers, and learn to hunt and fish… as did mine.


5) As for mentioning the majority of states that have progressive laws on gun ownership, it’s called ‘state’s rights’ and they have made their own determination. What they should or shouldn’t do is not for us to decide.


6) Yes, I am picking on politicians, but then who doesn’t? As for Public Employee Unions, I think any group that doesn’t have a check on their behavior is not beyond criticism. BTW, at a Public Employee’s convention yesterday, they spent $1.5 million the first day alone.


7) As for the link to the New York Times and Paul Krugman, well… didn’t he get tarred by his connection to the infamous ‘JurNO’ list? These sources are indeed questionable.


Oh yes, I am sure you’ll love my upcoming articles on parenting and relationships….


Roger


0

Another homerun Roger…


0

In your article you said: “First, let me frank, the CCW license gives you the right to conceal a handgun…”


I disagree. The Bill of Rights is about limiting government intrusion into inalienable rights that we are all born with. NOTHING on this earth gives me my rights. I am born with them.


I have the right to bear arms.


The government is intruding on my rights if they limit the exercise of that right. Those who support oppression of civil rights are bigots. This is all very simple.


0

Your perfect right to write this article on a very controversial subject that has been dragged out to extremes by extremists across our land. But your constant reference to ‘public employee unions’ and politicians that would not qualify for what you think is a basic right leaves me wondering about your credibility. Are those who make our laws, and do our work, somehow lesser citizens?


I am very alarmed at the emergence of gun legality in public places (schools, courthouses etc) in certain states. Scandalous and childish behavior on the part of neo con fools who have been illogically handed the reigns of power. I will feel very unsafe knowing that anyone could be packing wherever I go, and might, in a fit of emotional upset, use their gun.


Sure, just like everyone else I have the old time fantasy of the cowboy foiling the bad guys with a gun; how often has that happened in relation to fatal household accidents and other unintended consequences of our love affair with guns?


0

Hey Hotdog:


If you’re that afraid of normal law abiding citizens carrying guns, then I highly recommend that you avoid states like Arizona, Alaska, and Vermont who don’t require a citizen to get a permission slip to exercise a constitutional right.


Let me also add that soon, other states will have what is referred to as Constitutional carry, such as Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and a number of others. In fact, if you really want to “feel” safe, you should stick to states like New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, you know, states that believe like you do. Sadly, places like Washington D.C. has very restrictive gun laws, and the body count to go with it. As a cop, I mourn for all of the innocent people who have died because they were disarmed by the state. But hey, you go right ahead and believe what makes you feel good.


0

Well spoken Roger.

Those of us who live in the rural parts of our rural county can expect a delayed response time from the SOs office. Here where I live, only one mile from highway 101, it can be as long as 45 minutes, according to the SOs dispatch officer. And many of the most heinous crimes being committed in this county recently have been perpetrated with a mile of my home. Where was the LEO even after they were called? Why did the perps chose to come here to act out their crimes in my back yard? Why are the majority of death penalty crimes sentences not enacted to the letter of the law? Why was Rex Krebs let back out so he could continue his life of murder and rape? Why can Charles Manson get a cell phone inside prison? Simple, because the system broken and is controlled by the liberal 9th circus who can and will overturn sentences and laws at their whim.

Those of us citizens who have successfully gone through the very painless process of registering our legal firearms after the nation wide waiting period, have all passed through the DOJ back ground check because we have no record of crimes, no history of mental illness and only then get our firearms. The process works for law abiding citizens, but then again criminals do not go to wallyworld to buy their guns or ammo, they break into one of our homes and steal them…


“Too few citizens rely on themselves or take responsibility to solve their own challenges.”


Some of us law abiding citizens do everyday, Roger.


0

You have your guns, the govt and the liberals aren’t trying to take your guns. Do you have a problem with having to go through background checks etc.? You yourself said that it was ‘painless’ so can’t you comprise at all with those of us that want gun regulations? Has it become a standard now that the right is completely unwilling to compromise and work together for a common good? I was sickened when I saw the nut cases at those Tea Bag rallies with weapons in full view. That’s moving backwards, it’s not moving in the direction that we should moving.


0

I don’t mind 2A regulations and background checks if you don’t mind 1A regulations and background checks…


A civil right is a civil right.


0

Typoqueen:


Contrary to what you think, the government is trying to take guns from the law abiding, and will continue to try to take guns from the law abiding. Even now, with the second amendment affirmed to be an individual right, and incorporated to the states by the US Supreme Court, California legislators seem to be working overtime, just thinking up new draconian gun bills to introduce and enact. The newest Obama appointee to the Supreme court, Sonia Sotomayor said during her confirmation hearings that she believed in the second amendment and would abide by the Heller decision, yet she after she was appointed, suggested that Heller should be overturned. While 80% of the states are slowly loosening their grips on a fundamental right to keep and bear arms, the other 20 % are attempting to put a tighter stranglehold on our rights.


Typoqueen, you’re wrong, states are trying to take away a law abiding citizens right, and you bought into their disinformation, hook, line, and sinker.


0

SoCalCop:


Luckily, here in Kalifornia, we’re blessed with a load of Progressive/Liberal/Socialist/Communist/Collectivist (pick your term) legislators who are so blinded by their desire to control the public that it clouds their ability to comprehend the US and California Consitution which has the results of laws being passed that are either easily overturned or have loopholes in them large enough to drive a Mack truck through. AB962, then Assemblyman Kevin De Leon’s ammunition registration scheme has been struck down by the courts and soon the ban on large capacity magazines will be rendered moot, all because those who write the laws are by and large mental midgets. I imagine the Assault Weapon ban (whatever an assault weapon is) will follow suit. Already the courts are ordering local sheriffs to issue CCW permits to pretty much anyone who wants one, based on the Heller and MacDonald rulings.


The harder the gun grabbers push, the more ground they lose, but they don’t learn. It must be painful to donate to such groups and see your money wasted on largely ceremonial efforts.


BTW, thanks for your service to the community. I hope the majority of your brother LEO’s feel the same way you do, contrary to what one might think from the press releases and quotations of various chiefs and sheriffs, but then I suspect most of the head LEO’s are no longer really public servants, rather they’ve become part of the same political class that just wants to control us law abiders.


0

I don’t agree with any of you. I don’t hear or see the majority of libs trying to take your gun rights away. Yes we want stricter conditions than you but most of us don’t really care if you want a gun. Yes the lead shouldn’t kill condors, yes guns shouldn’t be sold to crazy people, yes guns should not be carried at political rallies, yes there’s no need for guns at OUR national parks. That is what most of us want. Most of don’t feel safe with whack jobs running around with guns especially in public and personally I don’t feel that’s too much ask for. You people take things to the extreme, the lib boogeyman is not hiding behind your door to take your gun. That’s just more right wing fear mongering.


0

Typoqueen:


You are like the proverbial ostrich, because pre-Heller, it was unlawful to own a handgun and/or a functional rifle or shotgun in D.C. The same goes for Chicago, which is why we now have the McDonald decision. San Francisco attempted to ban handguns, and, with the help of the voters, who were fed a lot of propaganda and disinformation, would have succeeded had it not been for numerous gun rights groups taking a stand suing San Francisco. Currently, California has a ban on certain rifles, not because of how they perform, but how they look. The anti-gun extremists call them assault weapons, but, as a former military policeman in the United States Army, I can tell you that NONE of what is banned under the Roberti-Roos act meets the definition of assault weapon because none of them have select fire, that allows them to fire fully automatic or at least 3 round bursts. Another rifle that is banned in California is the .50 caliber rifle. Anti-gun extremists used fear mongering to convince the hoplophobic and ignorant, that these rifles will shoot down airplanes. To reinforce the fear, they said that it will shoot through engine blocks and kill police, and terrorists will use them. What they failed to tell everyone is that there is not one record of any incidents in the United States of anyone using these very heavy and very expensive rifles to commit a crime.


Still not convinced ? How about the recent attempt to prevent law abiding citizens from carrying an unloaded firearm in public ? First it was Assembly member Saldana, who used rhetoric and hyperbole to push AB1934, and now it’s Assembly member Portantino with his rhetoric and hyperbole, pushing AB144. There is not one incident of these citizens threatening another citizen. In fact I’m not aware of any incident where the gun carrying citizens have so as much as gotten into an argument with an unarmed citizen. There have been at least three attempts to get right to carry passed in California, but all three attempts have failed because our legislature is full of anti-gun extremists who just don’t think you can be trusted to defend yourself.


So Typoqueen, before you disagree with any of us, I’d suggest you do some further research. The anti-gun hatred of the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution is alive and unhindered. The pro-gun patriots are winning and are pulling your load to protect your rights. It’s too bad you don’t appreciate it.


Just a note, the condors weren’t dying from lead poisoning, they were dieing from a bird disease. This is information I received from a California Department of Fish and Game warden who said that he was present when they added diseased condors to a list that was supposed to be used for condors who died from lead poisoning. In other words, the anti-gun extremists were fudging on the numbers because they couldn’t find condors who were dead from lead poisoning. But hey, don’t believe me.


0

Please provide your source that explains what an assault weapon is. It’s subjective IMO. You say it means one thing and others say another but as an obvious right winger I’m sure that your definition is the only one that counts. IMO AKs and ARs are assault weapons and there is no need to own one. I haven’t fired one but I’ve seem others use them. That’s just me, I grew up with guns, I shot skeet, trap and targets almost every day after school and on most weekends and have yet to see a clear definition of what an assault weapon is. If you don’t use it for sport then you don’t need it.


” The pro-gun patriots are winning and are pulling your load to protect your rights.”


I have the right to feel safe from your so called ‘patriots’.. Don’t do me any favors. Some of these tea baggen patriots are just the people that shouldn’t have any weapons.


And you have secret information about what almost killed off the condors. Enough said.


0

It’s funny you should ask that because even law enforcement seems to be confused as to exactly what constitutes an “assault weapon”. The best suggestion I can make is to go to http://www.ag.ca.gov and then go to the Bureau of Firearms webpage and see what they call an assault weapon.


Per Choprsrul’s suggestion, I checked out his Calguns,net website and found what they call an assault weapons flow chart. I’d strongly suggest down loading it because it seems to hit on every point that helps a person determine what is and isn’t, by definition, an assault weapon.


So because you see no need, you think others shouldn’t have them. Okay, enough said.


Using “tea bagger” as a pejorative explains a lot. The bottom line from my experience with those who claim affiliation with the Tea bag party is that they’re polite, and come in all colors. If you want to see a real contrast between the tea party right wingers and the SEIU/ACORN/Progressive left, take a look at this article.


http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/03/liberal-one-nation-working-together-rally-leaves-lincoln-memorial-ridden-with-trash-much-dirtier-than-glenn-becks-restoring-honor-rally/


Or how about these “tea baggers” http://www.anitacrane.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/New-Picture-5.png


As for the “secret” information, nothing secret about it, because I was told. But who am I ?


0

SoCalCop: I think that you will find the information on the foundations’s wiki site to be most informative also: http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Main_Page


0

The teabaggers are a wholly owned subsidiary of Koch Industries The tea baggers use the aesthetics of the 60’s anti war movement

but were not involved in the movement at the time, now is their chance to demonstrate in their phony flag shirts for the corporate agenda.


0

“So because you see no need, you think others shouldn’t’ have them. Okay, enough said”


Some people feel that they need crack cocaine, some people feel that they should be able to kill others,,I see no need for those things either.


Regarding the condors issue,,,ooooh you were told,,,,it must be true, notify the press.


0

Typoqueen: Judging by your response you don’t realized that Crack cocaine, murder, weather people want them or not, are not protected by the Constitution.


0

TypoQueen’s words: “IMO AKs and ARs are assault weapons and there is no need to own one. I haven’t fired one but I’ve seem others use them…. and have yet to see a clear definition of what an assault weapon is. If you don’t use it for sport then you don’t need it.”


Fail on multiple levels. To begin with, a fully automatic AK47 and a semi automatic AR15 are in completely different classes of firearms. Secondly, you can legally purchase and own a semi automatic version of the AK47. Unknowledgeable persons like to refer to these weapons as “high powered”. Nothing could be further from the truth. Or own soldiers in the sand box are finding that the Taliban and Al Queda have changed tactics because they know that our weapons are actually under powered. The FUD spread by the anti crowd is amazingly inaccurate and ignorant.


An assualt weapon is a weapon that is capable of fully automatic fire among other things. The term was coined by the Nazi’s to describe their Sturmgewehr 44 which fired the weak 7.92x33mm Kurz round.


Lastly, your words ” If you don’t use it for sport then you don’t need it.” is directly in opposition to the decision rendered by SCOTUS in the Heller case: “…premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad).” In other words, I have the FUNDAMENTAL INDIVIDUAL CIVIL RIGHT to keep and bear arms for reasons other than your “…sport…” confines.


Actively working against someone else’s exercise of their civil rights is nothing but bigotry. Leave my civil rights alone and I will leave your civil rights alone.


0

Oh geez, same old same old. I don’t have time nor to I want to argue about this topic, it’s like shooting ducks in a barrel (no pun intended). It’s just to easy and these talking points have been answered time and time again. You are not going to convince me and I’m not going to convince you. I can’t believe that I got sucked into this silly discussion over a silly article in the first place.


0

Anti gun == Anti Civil Rights


Anti Civil Rights == Bigotry


Disagree all you want, fine. Actively pursuing oppression of my civil rights makes you a bigot.


End Of Story.


0

Anybody remember Jim Brady? the liberalest lefty that there ever was. (spits) grins.


0

Mr. Freberg: Just the title of your article gives me pause; I for one do not feel safer when Grandma “packs”. It is too easy for those who should not have access to a handgun to be able to buy one. The unregulated states that you touted in your article should make it harder to purchase a handgun, not easier. All handguns should be registered and anyone buying a handgun should have to complete both a safety course and a shooting test to make sure that they have some familiarity with the weapon before they can take possession. Felons, people with any severe mental issue, children and people who are not citizens of the US should not be able to buy, possess or carry a handgun, ever. And if I could be the one to decide the issue, I would require that all ammunition be made with an identifying marker and that all ammunition would be required to be registered as would the person who buys the ammo. The makers of gunpowder should also be required to put identifier markers in batches of gunpowder so that the gunpowder would also be registered as well as the buyer of gunpowder for those who like to re-load their own ammunition. No law abiding citizens should object to these requirements since you have “nothing to hide”, right? And registering ammunition and gunpowder is not a violation of the Second Amendment, so there should be no claims of going against the “intent of the forefathers”.

So keep your firearms, just keep them to yourselves, please. And for those who carry, with or without a permit, be mindful of where you carry; courthouses, federal buildings, prisons and airports are not very fond of private citizens “exercising their Second Amendment rights” and you will be arrested if you are caught carrying in any of those places. If you ever do have to fire your handgun in defense of your life or the lives of your loved ones, please consider the “background” of your intended target since any bullets that miss can travel a very long distance and I’m sure none of you would want to harm any innocent bystanders.


0

I wouldn’t want to be in your house IF the sheet hits the fan in this country as it has in others. Try to defend yourself with that baseball bat in your closet when thugs come to your door demanding all of your food and water. You think it cannot happen here? Let’s pray you are right. You take that chance. Just don’t expect everyone else to be willing to do so.


0

Paranoid much?


0

More like. Educated much. Period. if you read any of your history you’d know what has happened before. It is said (rightfully) that history repeats itself. How are we exempt to this? What magic charm is on your life that makes you so secure? I turn the question on you.


Arrogant much?


0

Duck and cover to save you from the A bomb, color code terror alerts, reefer madness, McCarthyism, the paranoia goes on and on with your right wingers. That’s how your leaders create power over you. What I have learned from my history of growing up during the Cold War and with right wing diatribe is to not live my life in fear because living in fear is not my idea of living.


0

BFS: “Mr. Freberg: Just the title of your article gives me pause; I for one do not feel safer when Grandma “packs”. It is too easy for those who should not have access to a handgun to be able to buy one.”


SSB: How so, Bob? Every state in the nation requires purchasers of handguns to go through the Federal NICS background check. Some states like California, require a 10 day waiting period before being allowed to pick up the handgun or long gun. The state of California is using the same Federal NICS system as all the other states, it just takes the DOJ longer to get around to it. It’s warm, fuzzy feeling kind of thing.


BFS: “The unregulated states that you touted in your article should make it harder to purchase a handgun, not easier.”


SSB: Why, Bob? You should read the gun crime stats from those states as well as ALL of the stats on CCW carry throughout the nation. Please show us the data where the possessors of CCW Permits are responsible for criminal use. It’s virtually NON-EXISTANT!


BFS: “All handguns should be registered and anyone buying a handgun should have to complete both a safety course and a shooting test to make sure that they have some familiarity with the weapon before they can take possession.”


SSB: All Handguns ARE registered, Bob. In the state of California, to purchase a Handgun, the purchaser must have taken a test and submit their BFSC (Basic Firearms Safety Certificate) when purchasing the handgun. No BFSC, No Sale. BFSC must be renewed every 5 years.


BFS: “Felons, people with any severe mental issue, children and people who are not citizens of the US should not be able to buy, possess or carry a handgun, ever.”


SSB: It’s already against the law for any of the above to “buy, possess or carry a handgun, ever.”


BFS: “And if I could be the one to decide the issue, I would require that all ammunition be made with an identifying marker and that all ammunition would be required to be registered as would the person who buys the ammo. The makers of gunpowder should also be required to put identifier markers in batches of gunpowder so that the gunpowder would also be registered as well as the buyer of gunpowder for those who like to re-load their own ammunition. No law abiding citizens should object to these requirements since you have “nothing to hide”, right? And registering ammunition and gunpowder is not a violation of the Second Amendment, so there should be no claims of going against the “intent of the forefathers”.


SSB: Please explain, Bob…other than to make it extremely cumbersome and insanely expensive so that your average citizen would never be able to afford such a purchase, what is the point of all this?

Oh yeah! Your point would be just another backdoor method of eliminating guns, right? I get it…WE get it, Bob!


BFS: So keep your firearms, just keep them to yourselves, please. And for those who carry, with or without a permit, be mindful of where you carry; courthouses, federal buildings, prisons and airports are not very fond of private citizens “exercising their Second Amendment rights” and you will be arrested if you are caught carrying in any of those places. If you ever do have to fire your handgun in defense of your life or the lives of your loved ones, please consider the “background” of your intended target since any bullets that miss can travel a very long distance and I’m sure none of you would want to harm any innocent bystanders.


SSB: Gee, thanks for the safety tips, Bob!


By the way, I fear the millions and millions of guns and gun owners in this country exponentially LESS than I fear the thought that there is more people out there that think just like you. GOD help this Country!


0

BFS: “The unregulated states that you touted in your article should make it harder to purchase a handgun, not easier.”

SSB: “Why, Bob?” Well, my reasoning would be that if it is too easy to obtain a handgun, doesn’t that equate with those who should NOT have a handgun being able to buy one?

BFS: “Felons, people with any severe mental issue, children and people who are not citizens of the US should not be able to buy, possess or carry a handgun, ever.”

SSB: {It’s already against the law for any of the above to “buy, possess or carry a handgun, ever.”} Okay then, explain why it is that at many “gun shows” in states with weak gun laws, undercover reporters have been able to buy almost any gun they wanted with no background check, no fingerprinting, and they were able to walk away with that firearm right then and there; do you think in those instances that felons and those with mental issues would be refused if they had the cash on hand? I don’t think they would.

In regard to registering ammunition; with law enforcement having the ability to track the ammunition that was used in the commission of a crime, they would be able to concentrate their search for the perpetrator with an additional tool. If all ammunition were produced in this manner, the cost would not be “prohibitive” since it would just be the way it is done; true the cost would be higher than it is now, but as in all instances of supply and demand, once the supply is brought up to demand, the costs comes down since this is how competition in the market place works. For me the issue isn’t about restricting your rights to own a handgun, it is about law enforcement having the needed tools to track those who use handguns in an illegal manner. If you do not use your handgun in an illegal manner, you really shouldn’t have any objections since you have nothing to hide, right ?

And to those who are giving the negative thumbs, please explain how it is that you think I want to have your guns taken away. NO WHERE have I advocated in my comments on this thread that you should not be able to have your guns. All that I would like to see is that you follow the laws and that law enforcement have the tools to arrest those who use firearms illegally.


0

Just one major flaw in your argument, who do you go after when the ammo has been stolen ? Putting serial numbers on ammo not only makes it more expensive for the private citizen, it also makes it more expensive for the tax payer who’s taxes are used to buy ammunition for police. With the elevated cost of ammo, police will not be able to practice as much because they will not have as much ammo as they did before rounds were serial numbered. Nice try though.


0

The whole ammo serial number/registration thing is completely unrealistic. There is roughly 5.5 BILLION small arms rounds manufactured in the United States per year. That doesn’t account for the several billion that are imported each year.


How in the devil would you go about tracking 7 or 8 billion of anything??? We can’t even keep track of illegal aliens coming into this country, foreign students trying to use WMDs, or even tax evaders.


So TypoQueen, exactly how would we track 8 BILLION individual rounds of ammunition? Get a clue.


0

SoCalCop: You stated: “Just one major flaw in your argument, who do you go after when the ammo has been stolen ?” If you are really a cop you should know better than to ask that; if there was no police report stating that the ammo had been stolen, then you go after the person who it was registered to. If there was a police report filed, then the information on the marker of the ammo is kept on file so that if ever the ammo is found to be used in the commission of a crime, that marker can also lead to the person who fired it being responsible for the theft of the ammo as well. If you keep your firearms in a gun safe, don’t you also keep your ammo there too? And I did not say to put serial numbers on the ammo; my suggestion was that there should be some sort of chemical marker incorporated into the gunpowder itself that would leave a residue on both the bullet and the shell. Leaving a residue on the shell seems very likely, but I am not certain of the possibility of the same on the bullet since the powder has “exploded” when the weapon is fired.

As for the cost of the ammo for police officers; don’t we have a majority of people who think that police officers are paid too much already? Wouldn’t the cost of buying your ammo be considered a “cost of doing business”? I never said that my proposal was the end all to be all; just a suggestion to make it easier for law enforcement to find out who used a weapon in the commission of a crime; as a police officer why wouldn’t you want a tool like that for you to use?


0

Well, let’s see, you could always call the Riverside Sheriff’s academy. I was in the 83rd basic from Feb to May of ’81. Finished near the top of my class. Went on later to train with several agencies including San Bernardino S.O., Orange County S.O., San Diego S.O. and West Covina P.D. I’m trained in collision investigation, and Narcotics detection, through the California Narcotics Officers Association, and I have countless hours of officer survival training, as well as EMT training. As for my military training, I participated with a number of police departments in the Seattle-Tacoma area where I attended the FBI SWAT academy in 1976 while stationed with the 296th Military Police Company, at Ft. Lewis Wa. I was also a member of the Military Police pistol team at Ft. Lewis and later at Ft. Hood, Tx.


I have numerous felony arrests to my credit, and I’ve worked on the Mexican border in Imperial Valley. That’s pretty much all I’m willing ti divulge in a public forum.


As for ammunition, just because someone locks something in a safe, doesn’t mean that the contents is completely safe. Yes, a person can report their ammunition as stolen, however, that still doesn’t answer the question, who do you go after when the ammunition is stolen ? The criminal isn’t going to register it in their name. In fact how many people do you think a box of 50 rounds can be distributed to ? 5 ? 10 ? As a police officer, I’m more concerned about a criminal having a firearm and less interested in them having the rounds. But in response to your question, how does a “marker” lead you to the person that fired the round, when the person firing the round was never recorded in the first place ? Even stolen firearms that have serial numbers can’t be traced to a shooter. So again, your logic is flawed.


Just one last thing. How do you record the sale, and register a bullet with a chemical marker ? Do you have a serial number on the box ? If so, how do you single out one round from BILLIONS of others. Please explain, this should be good.


0

SoCalCop: Thank you for responding. In my “suggestion” of a chemical marker for ammunition, the thought that I had was based on the idea that the chemical would be added to each “batch” of ammunition that is produced. The makers of ammo would only make x number of rounds for each batch for national distribution and the sellers of the ammo would have records of each individual who purchased the ammo, how much they bought and when it was bought. The idea isn’t to “tag” each bullet individually like some sort of serial number, but to have the marker on the rounds so that when there is a crime committed and a tagged round was used, the police have a much more limited scope of possible individuals for possible investigation. I agree that this proposal is not “foolproof”, but as an investigative officer, I ask you again, wouldn’t you like to have another tool for your use in investigating crimes that have been committed using a firearm? I am aware that the 9 mil round is probably the most popular, but not every gun crime had the same caliber weapon used. Certainly as an investigator you can tell if a 22 or a 45 or 9 mil round was used in most instances? Once you have narrowed down the caliber of the weapon, wouldn’t being able to have a smaller lot of ammo be of help in determining where the round came from? Again, I realize that this is not a foolproof method, but answer the question; would it be better from a law enforcement perspective to have some help in tracking down the possible shooter? Interviewing those who live in the area that purchased from the same batch would seem likely to give you a better chance of encountering the individual who fired the round; I am assuming that the interviewing officer would be able to dismiss many individuals based on their likely hood of not being a possible suspect, but then again, I am not a professional like yourself that has the experience to make the determination as to whether or not a chemical signature would be of any help, I am just attempting a logical exercise that seems like it would have viability.


0

Chemical markers have been used in explosives for years. It’s investigative abilities is extremely limited. Even if a tracer is found it is not enough to to make an arrest, question or ever obtain a search warrant. People with even half a brain can add any number of other chemicals to the mix to change the marker and give a false or none responsive marker anyway. It does how ever make a difference in the over all price of said expense to the purchaser instead. The other problem with chemical markers is, they have a limited number or markers available. Only so many chemicals so inevitably they would have to use the same marker again. Then if a crime accrues that a marker is found, is it an older or newer batch.


0

I’m aware of that, but those markers identify the company, not the purchaser.


0

A marker isn’t practical when you consider the billions of rounds produced each year. The only way a marker has any practical use is if the round is not identifiable. However, since each company puts an identifying mark on the base of a round, it simply makes a chemical marker unnecessary. Even then, if all you have is the bullet and not the brass, as would be the case with a revolver used in a crime, knowing who made the bullet is irrelevant to the investigation. Even the caliber of the round is secondary information unless you have other factors that point to a suspect. The caliber of the round can be used as additional evidence if you have a primary suspect and a weapon that matches evidence gathered at a crime scene.


0

SoCalCop: So, your answer is that any sort of marker, identifier or other means of some sort of batch or manufacturer identification does absolutely nothing in helping professional, investigative officers any help in providing evidence of who committed a gun crime, at all? In your professional opinion, nothing can be done to the rounds to make them identifiable in any means? I just want to see you answer the question straight forward and I will drop my “suggestion”. I find it amusing that no one addressed my comment that there are many who feel that police officers are paid too much but also seemed concerned that ammunition could be too expensive for them to continue to practice handgun proficiency; why the seemingly opposite points of view without any comments? Will you please give me a straight-up answer about “marked” ammunition as an investigative tool? Is there any possibility that such a thing could possibly be of any help to law enforcement?


0

Actually my comment was pointed to Bobfromsanluis.


Bob to answer you question, No it doesn’t. Even with a chemical marker or serial number it doesn’t mean a thing. In order to match a casing to a crime you need the gun. Just because the ammo serial number is linked to me and I have the type of gun they are looking for registered to me, it isn’t enough for even a search warrant. There is no way of telling if the casings were shot at the time of the crime or days before. What if I go pick these casings up at a shooting range from someone else and then leave them behind at a crime scene to throw the police off? Bullets can be broken down and powder exchanged between casings. This would hide the chemical signature altogether. Serial numbers can easily be buffed off brass and the actual firing of the bullet would be more then enough heat to relieve the serial number stress marks. No way to pull them up later. Those are just a few of several things that can be easily used to make markers useless or even inadmissible in court.


So in a nut shell No, it isn’t a help at all to law enforcement.


0

Bobfromsanluis has it right. I remember many years ago when the rightwing NRA was opposing the regulation of ‘cop killer’ ammo. And they always oppose any regulation of machine guns and the like. I suppose they would like to see every joe with anti aircraft missiles. What a bunch of creeps.

Now, I see Bob is getting hammered for suggesting some very calm and wise limitations on our wild west mentality. What have you got to hide, folks? Want to be able to shoot anyone and not be known? Isn’t that the criminal mind at work?

Our modern, so called civilized society is falling apart when this sort of paranoia and virulence is so common.


0

No, unfortunately, he does not. The problem is, ther is NO SUCH THING as “cop killer bullets”. It is simply a fear-mongering “buzz-phrase” (similar to “assault weapon”) that anti-gun activists created to induce panic, and support for their cause, based purely on flat-out, INTENTIONAL, mis-information. Mostly, when people refer to “cop killer” bullets, they are referring to the Winchester Black TalonThe problem was, that the anti-gun lobbyists were touting that they were “coated in teflon, which allowed it to penetrate bullet proof police vests, OMG!!!!”, which is, in fact, false. In reality, they were simply coated in Lubalox, a waxy lubricant used to lubricate and protect the barrel from excess wear, because the jacketing of the Black Talon bullet (the metal covering around the lead in the bullet) was made of brass, which is harder than copper, and speeds up wear and tear of the bullet (in addition to the fact that it also had “sharp edges” when it expands, that supposedly “would put emergency room personel in danger, because they might cut themselves and catch a desease when taking it out”, even though there is NOT A SINGLE report of this EVER happening, and they use CLAMPS when pulling foreign objects out of a person anyways, not their fingers). The most ironic part of the whole thing was, the EXACT same ammo they were trying to using as an example to gain support, was the same EXACT ammunition most POLICE DEPARTMENTS were issuing for duty, or at least the same EXACT bullet that winchester was loading in to their “law enforcement only” ammunition. In reality, they were no different, in basic design and function, than any other ammunition designed to be used by law enforcement or for self defense in those days. For the record, the Black Talon was never actually outlawed in the end, Winchester simply stopped producing it to avoid backlash from the political climate of the day.

The point I am making with all this is, these measures only seem to be “calm and wise” or “sensible” who is essentially ignorant and uneducated on firearms, and has no real understanding of them in any way, shape, or form, aside from the panic-enducing buzz-words, and fear mongering segments they see on the news, in newspapers, or by blatantly ignorant, and intentionally mis-leading public statements by anti-gun organizations. The truth is, there really is no such thing as “cop-killer” bullets, or “assault-weapons”. ANYTHING can be used to “assault” someone, look at the guy in NYC that assauleted people on the subway with a hammer; does that mean they are now “assault hammers”, and we should ban them, or at the very least, regulate the living daylights out of them? What about the elderly man in Santa Monica that INTENTIONALLY assaulted and KILLED MULTIPLE PEOPLE with his car? Does that mean it is now an “assault car”, and should be banned? In fact, ALL cars STATISTICALLY kill more people a year than firearms, so that means ALL cars, not just “assault cars” should be banned!!!! See, that is where the ignorance of your logic, and the logic of uninformed and mislead anti-gun proponents leads. You don’t want to regulate something based purely on asthetics and image, not on practicality. 99% of gun control is a placebo created to saciate a knee-jerk reaction from uninformed people. It LOOKS like it would do something, or APPEARS to fix a problem, but it is simply a sugar pill. All an “assault weapon” is really defined by is its ASTHETIC characteristics, not in any way its function, or capabilities. It LOOKS “evil”, so it has to be banned, under the guise that it is a “high powered, cop-killer” firearm. But in truth, most hunting rifles ammunition DWARF any banned “assault rifles” ammunition’s capabilities. In fact, most of the “high-powered assault rifles” I see on the news, are actually chambered to the 9mm cartridge that MOST OF THE POLICE SERVICE PISTOLS ISSUED TO OFFICERS IN MOST CALIFORNIA LAW ENFORCEMENT PRECINCTS are. So does that then mean that those same police service pistols are then high-powered firearms? If so, then how is it that the poice would be so “out gunned” if they have the EXACT SAME acces to firearms chambered to the same “high-powered” rounds and “high capacity” “clips” (which are actually correctly calle “magazines”) that you want banned to make it ‘fair” for them? They are even now being issued fully-automatic versions of those same exact “assault” rifles that were supposed to be BANNED in California. In that aspect, there CAN’T be any “out gunning”. The fact of the matter is, gun control doesn’t work. It has been proven over, and OVER, time and time again, statistically and practically. In fact, EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE has been proven. Otherwise, we WOULD support it. The reson for this is that CRIMINALS DON’T FOLLOW THE LAW; if they did, they wouldn’t be CRIMINALS. On top of that, there is no point in enacting a law IF YOU DON’T ENFORCE IT. If you REALLY want to make a difference and stop violence and crime, then PUNISH them when they COMMIT crimes, instead of feeling SORRY for them and letting them go, because they are “just a victim of their circumstances”. That is a load of HORSE MANURE. Everyone has the choice to be a productive member of society, or to be a burden. They CHOSE to commit a crime, just like they (and everyone else) have the ability to CHOSE not to. So why should I have to deal with the concequences of their decisions instead of them having to?

But, back to the original comments made; the fact of the matter is, the suggested implimentations are flat out impractical, and impossible, it CANNOT be reasonably done. There is no technology available that would make it practically capable to mark the bullets, put a different tracing marker in EVERY batch of amm (do you realize HOW many batches of ammo these companies make on a daily basis?), nor the infrastructure capable of handling it. Even if the CREATED the infrastructure, the resulting hike in taxes to simply FUND it would be more tha even YOU would’nt want to fund it (and ALL of us would be paying for it through new taxes, eventually we ALWAYS do, don’t kid yourself). On top of that, THEY DON’T WORK. Funny enough, they have alread TRIED variations of a few of these in California, and guess what? NOT A SINGLE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY IN THE STATE SUPPORTED THEM. You know why? BECAUSE THEY DON’T WORK AND WOULDN’T MAKE A DIFFERENCE ANYWAYS. In the end, all they do is make MORE TROUBLE for law enforcement agencies/officers, and the law abiding public like (hopefully) you, and (definitely) myself. Seriously, all it takes is a little bit of honest education, and experience, and you would be able to see it. In fact, gun control is SO inaffective, that even most ANTI-GUN organizations/pople are starting to abandon it. They even admit it isn’t a viable nor effective solution, so they are even trying to find an alternative; and only a few backwards states (such as CA, HI, NY, & MA) refuse to let go of it. (And they say us “gun-nuts” can’t let go of the past and get with the times). Bet’cha didn’t know any of that, did ya?


Seriously, just take the time to actually educate yourself on firearms, their regulation, and its actual effectiveness (and I’m not talking about through the same old tired and blatantly fictitious anti-gun sources, look up REAL statistics, and REAL facts and info), and you will see it for yourself too. Contrary to popular belief, we gun rights advocates are not mindless and bloodthirsty beasts looking for any excuse to murder anyone we run acrossed, we want to eliminate wanton and unecissary violence as well; and honestly, we would get behind anything that would work. That is why we don’t CARE about background checks. But the fact of the matter is, we don’t agree with “your” way of doing it, and have a different opionion on how it would work properly. And in all reality, “your” way isn’t working, so why not take a look at “our” way, and give it a serious thought/chance. I mean, if a police officer needs to carry a gun around to protect themselves, why shouldn’t we need the same; because as the saying goes, “when seconds count, the police are minutes away”.


0

tl;dr


0

Let me clue you in on something Hotdog, “cop killer ammo” is a phrase, coined by antigun extremists, to invoke a knee jerk reaction by those ignorant of firearms and not motivated enough to learn. Several standard hunting rounds will penetrate a normal ballistic vest. The only bills the NRA opposed were bills that attempted to further infringe on a persons right to arms.


One other thing. It’s not illegal in most of the United States for private citizens to own machine guns. The National Firearms Act of 1934 was enacted so that the federal government could tax possession of machine guns, and any other weapon they deemed necessary to add to the list, nothing more.


0

coined by antigun extremists If I recall correctly it was coined by law enforcement when they learned their expensive kevlar jackets would no longer keep them out of heaven.


0

Actually, the term “assault weapon” first appeared in the the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) (or Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act) which was a subtitle of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The author and sponsors of the bill were the first to use that term. Prior to that, the only reference to a rifle, with assault in it, was the assault rifle that is fully automatic. In fact the assault rifle that was assigned to me was the M-16 with an M-203 attached underneath the barrel. Now that’s an assault rifle.


Assault weapon is a misnomer used to frighten people. It’s no more a military weapon than is my AR-7, which is modeled after the Air Force survival rifle.


0

I don’t get this system regarding hiding ‘low comment rating’ posts. He didn’t say anything vulgar or libelous. Obviously people are reading bob’s post so it seems like it should be left up. This system says if you’re not popular then you’re not welcome,,don’t be different, don’t think for yourself. Really weird. I haven’t seen this on other sites.


0

Actially, it is rather common. Even MSN.com does the same thing in its discussoin sections.


0

Guess I’m out of the loop, it seems silly to me but no big deal.


0

Hey bobfromsanluis:


That would all be great if it really worked. But, here’s a news flash for you, it doesn’t do a thing about crime. The only people, laws like effect, are those that are not inclined to commit crimes.


One other thing to note bob, statistically, law abiding citizens have a better track record of not shooting innocents than my chosen profession. Most gun owners spend more time practicing with their firearms than those in my profession. So rest assured bob, you have less of a chance of being shot by a fellow citizen, than you do from your local police department. I just thought you would want to know that.


0

Thanks for the info SoCalCop. The FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Deseption) spread by the anti-gun crowd is nuts. They don’t seem to bother themselves with peer-reviewed studies. Actual scientific studies have shown a direct correlation between increased private firearm ownership and reduced crime rates. It would seem that to be anti-gun directly correlates to pro-crime. Not to mention, the right to keep & bear arms is an individual fundamental civil right. Those that actively seek to separate me from my civil rights are bigots. Nothing more, nothing less.


0

BobfromSanLuis:

Can we have the HuffPo, SEIU, DNC, and other leftist organizations put “markers” in their words, too, so that when liberals repeat their drivle we’ll know from whence it came? I’d be for the Tea Party doing the same, since that marker would just say “US Consitution”, whereas those from HuffPo, SEIU, AFL-CIO, DNC would be stamped “Mein Kampf”, “Karl Marx” or “Che Guivera”.


If it’s good for the 2nd Amendment, it must be food for the 1st Amendment, too, right?


0

Carmichael “Patriot”: I do find it interesting when someone from the right goes off on how they only follow the Constitution and anyone who does not agree with them is some sort of “commie-leftist-pinko-socialist-marxist-fascist-America hater”. Sheesh. Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say anything about calling OUR president a “muslim” or “nazi” or whatever tripe the Tea Party is currently spewing? I do realize that before the Emancipation Proclamation that blacks were considered “3/5” of a human being, so I’m pretty sure that might one of your basis for Tea Party rhetoric. Seriously, I have never taken the time to read “Mein Kampf”, the writings of Karl Marx or Che Cuivera, so I really don’t know how valid your assertion is; do you care to provide evidence of such influences, or is this something you don’t need no stinking “evidence”, you can just “believe” that it is true? What little I know of the writings of Karl Marx is when he defined what capitalism could eventually do (which I agree with) but his remedies I DO NOT agree with. And please please please point out to me or anyone else where the Second Amendment states anything, anything at all about ammunition; just for giggles, here is the Second Amendment, in full: (As passed by Congress) “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (As ratified by the States) “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Notice the very slight difference in the punctuation and capitalization between the two, very subtle, but distinct, and nowhere is the word “ammunition” mentioned. I suppose you could try to argue that in order to “bear arms” you have to have ammunition, but doesn’t that mean that you are “interpreting” and not being a “strict constitutionalist” ? Well?


0

No one is more anti gun then Ronald Reagan’s guy( Brady) who was shot at the same time but was denied by God a dramatic recovery; there is a bill named for him ever hear of it?


0

Zaphod, you mean the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act? The one that didn’t do a thing to stop some of the worst shootings in US history, Columbin ring a bell? The one that was left to die and not be extended in 2008? The one that most experts say was the driving force behind the Democrats losing control of the house and Senate in 1994? Is that the one you are referring to?


0

And Ronald Reagan and Don Mulford, both republicans, are responsible for the Mulford Act, that ushered in laws like 12031 PC that makes it unlawful for a person to carry a loaded firearm in a public place in California. But just because they erred by enacting a law that effectively has restricted a law abiding citizens right for 44 years, doesn’t make it right.


What happened to Jim Brady was a heinous crime, and committed by a criminal. Punishing the law abiding by restricting their rights does nothing but rob those, who are not inclined to commit crimes, of their ability to defend themselves against a violent criminal.


0

It seems like Mr. Freberg is now a main contributor to this cyber newspaper. He sort of takes away some of CCP’s credibility. He’s an extreme right wing man with extreme but very simple minded views that really add nothing but the same old tea bag rhetoric. CCN is starting to look like Fox News. I had hope that this news source would be more balanced…guess not. I’m disappointed. There are so many interesting stories with value. If CCN is going to be an extreme right wing sounding board at least they could find someone that’s a bit,,,um,,,don’t want to be mean so I’ll just to say bit more enlightened or well versed. I’m starting to understand that Mr. Freberg is a friend to the publishers but this article is so silly and just old school nonsense that I couldn’t even finish it. If he wants a gun then fine let him have his gun, we certainly don’t need his advise on gun ownership.


Okay,,I’m ready for my 30 thumbs down.


0

CCN should print stories only of interest to YOU?


0

I’m with you, Typoqueen. Back to Freberg’s last, semi-serious attempt here is someone worth reading:


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/opinion/25krugman.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


As 9/11 begat GOP wars of choice, the GOP induced fiscal meltdown now begets union busting. CCP and SLO city council can’t see past this latest stalking horse, either.


0

OT OT! Off topic but much more interesting (IMO). Danika you go ahead and get into that old story about old news about us commie liberals taking your gun rights away. But one thing that makes this story (the one that slomike linked) on topic is that this is a good example of giving states too many rights which is one of Frebergs points. It only takes one whacko Governor to hurt a lot of people.


Mike, I really like Paul Krugman and what a great piece, so much more than this very ‘current’ don’t take my gun’ stuff. That is a really good article, thanks for the link and I’m so glad that I read it. I now have more of an understanding from one of the countries top economist why the Wi. 14 are AWOL, they are truly serving the people and are fighting to keep the wealthy from taking over this country (more than they already have). The following just blows my mind, (CCP from the article) why oh why can’t they see what’s going on:


“What’s happening in Wisconsin is, instead, a power grab — an attempt to exploit the fiscal crisis to destroy the last major counterweight to the political power of corporations and the wealthy. And the power grab goes beyond union-busting. The bill in question is 144 pages long, and there are some extraordinary things hidden deep inside.


For example, the bill includes language that would allow officials appointed by the governor to make sweeping cuts in health coverage for low-income families without having to go through the normal legislative process.


And then there’s this: “Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any state-owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b).”


Unnn- fr!&&*n believable!


0

TQ, my kind of gal.


0

I think it’s funny how most people claim to be “liberal” do so because they hate “wealthy” conservatives screwing up the “state” (and, vicariously through that, the country), when in fact, most of the people screwing up THIS state are WEALTHY “liberals”. Oh the irony…


0

Yeah yeah we hate the country bla bla bla…..I don’t hate anyone (well there are two or three that maybe I hate just a little) and I say tax those wealthy libs, I don’t care what party they are tax those that are getting wealthy of the backs of the middle class. Same old song and dance, don’t you guys ever have an original thought.


0

Typoqueen says: ” I had hope that this news source would be more balanced…guess not. I’m disappointed.”


What? Right because the opinion peice before this one is from a right winger? Lois Capps?

http://calcoastnews.com/2011/02/the-complexities-of-the-budget/


Four opinion peices ago Blackburn gave repubican Rob Bryn a Noogie.

http://calcoastnews.com/2011/02/no-comment-or-just-lie/


Or were you looking only for people you agree with?


Your well written Opinion peice can be sent to tips@calcoastnes.com or whereever.


0

I don’t only read articles from people that I agree with. As a matter of fact I watch, read and listen to a lot of right wing opinions. I even watch Faux news.


What disappoints me is that you don’t see the difference between ‘Senator’ Lois Capps, a current legislator giving up dates on ‘current’ events and some guy that plays no roll in whats going on today and it appears only discusses old school typical right wing politics. Is there something I don’t know about this guy, is he someone that I should know? To me he seems to be some local yo yo and you are comparing him to a senator…okay, each to his own I guess. If this article had been written by Able Maldonado then it would be balanced and even though I don’t like Able, it might be interesting,,,, but who the heck is this Freberg guy,,was he a cow town council member,,mayor of Shandon, planning commissioner??? I can tell you that he certainly wasn’t a senator or representative, that is quite evident in his writings. Rob Bryn (is that the proper spelling,,,looks wrong to me) is current as well, he is in the news and controversial. It would make more sense to have write an article or opinion piece.


0

Ok, so what, pray-tel, makes YOUR opinion any less “extreme” or “simple minded”, or any MORE “enlightened”? You wouldn’t even give his opinion or article enough consideration to FINISH it. How is that in any way “enlightened” or “open minded”. I always understood that being “enligtened” meant that you were informed and educated on ALL sides of a subject, ESPECIALLY before you made any decisions on them. Please, do us all a favor and actually EDUCATE yourelves on firearms, and their culture, before you make ignorant comments about the people that have, and choose to try to share their experience and knowledge with others. This man could have LOST HIS LIFE, and you berate him for having the capability and COURAGE to try and protect himself? How very “enligtened” and “progressive” of you…


0

You people believe anything you’re told. IF Freberg almost lost his life then I have empathy for him, but I don’t know that to be true. This guys fits a personality type that makes me want to take what he says with a grain of salt.


How do you know that I don’t know about firearms? I don’t want to read his article because he is close minded and usually spouts off the same right wing rhetoric. I can take a paragraph or two but life’s to short to waist nonsense that goes on and on. If I’ve read one of his articles then I’ve read them all, I’m sorry but they bore me.


0

From your posts, you don’t fit the profile of a person that owns firearms of any significance. That’s not to say that you don’t have a rusty old shotgun or 30-06 hunting rifle sitting in your closet gathering dust, but it does mean that I have serious doubts that you do any shooting of any kind. I’m relatively sure that you don’t go to places where real gunowners congregate. But that’s just my impression.


0

Well your impression is wrong. Although I don’t shoot or own guns anymore, I have nothing against controlled gun ownership and smart gun laws and for last time I do believe that most on the left agree with that. The problem is that you people don’t understand the meaning of compromise and are guided by fear. As stated before and as some that post and/read this know, I used to shoot for for sport (nothing living) several times a week throughout my childhood. My father built and ran several gun ranges. I taught gun safety to kids at those ranges. As an adult I used to have 3 pistols, a 12 gauge and a 22. rifle but I got rid of them when I realized that all those years as kid shooting skeet without ear protection damaged my hearing (as soon as my dad left the range I would take off my ear protection). I grew up in a home where there were guns under my bed and in every corner of the home. My father collected new and antique guns, he probably had well over a 100 guns/rifles. My family has a strong military and law enforcement background. I wouldn’t lie, I have family members and friends that read this and know who I am, Kevin Rice knows who I am and reads this. It would be stupid to lie about things this.


0

Okay, so I’ll take your word for it. So what’s your point then, beyond bashing the right ? Do you think that your average fellow citizen isn’t as well trained as you are ? Do you think that the average citizen has more of a propensity for violence than you do ? Why do you think an AR-15, that fires a 5.56 mm round has less use than a Ruger mini 14 Ranch Rifle that also uses a 5.56 mm round ? Why do you think a rifle, that looks like an AK-47, has less use than a hunting rifle that uses a similar round ? From what I gather from you, it’s all about looks and less about performance. In my opinion, those rifles are great hunting rifles because they are versatile and designed to withstand the rigors of the outdoor environment.


You suggest that there should be more laws that keep guns away from criminals and the insane. So far there are 20,000 + laws in the United States that are supposed to prevent the wrong people from getting guns. Interestingly enough, they only keep guns out of the hands of the law abiding. So what’s your remedy to putting more restrictions on the wrong people and less restrictions on the right people ? When you can answer that question, I will be ready to listen to you.


0

I know that you will say that I’m arrogant but yes I do feel that most people aren’t as well trained with firearms. I’m sure that goes for you, I’m sure that most people aren’t as well trained as you as well. I’m not saying that I know more than everyone and it’s been a long time since I’ve been around guns to any extent. I’ve probably forgot some things and somethings have probably changed from the days that I was active with this sport. Most people don’t take gun safety classes or shoot very much if at all.


I don’t feel that most people are violent but it only takes a few. It only takes one angry wife, one nut job student, one postal worker to do a lot of damage etc.. I don’t want that mad postal worker to be able to run to the nearest Walmart when he gets mad and shoot the place up. Perhaps if he had time to cool his jets he might have a change of heart.


You’re wrong about gun laws keeping guns out of the law abiding guys hands. In this country any law abiding person can legally purchase firearms.


The fact is that countries that have strict gun laws have a fewer percentage of gun deaths. Why is it wrong to have a cooling off period? Why is wrong to have background checks? Don’t give me this nonsense regarding your rights, tell me in practical terms why those are problems for you? How those laws have kept you from getting any gun that you want. I don’t want to keep going over some of this stuff, it just goes on and on. I’ve had this argument so many times and it’s always the same. I just don’t get in practical terms why you people don’t care if crazy people are carrying guns or why you can’t wait 30-60 days to get your gun. When you guys don’t have an answer then you just resort to ‘our constitutional rights’.


If you’re worried about all the different laws then perhaps we should just have fed laws and not state laws :),,I know how you guys love those fed laws.


0

More people, especially women are buying guns and getting the proper training, voluntarily. Contrary to what you think, the law abiding citizens that have chosen to have a firearm, understand the responsibility that goes with it. Even now, a person can’t buy a handgun without a handgun safety card. Do gun accidents happen, yes they do. But with programs that teach firearm safety, taught by NRA shooting instructors, those accidents are well below 1%.


It’s true that some people have slipped through the cracks and should have never been allowed to own a gun. However, gun stores aren’t to blame and background checks only work if individuals are exposed to the proper authorities. Unfortunately, criminals will get guns, and don’t care how many laws exist that prohibit them from having a gun. This in and of itself justifies possession by the law abiding. Waiting periods do not deter people like the Virginia Tech shooter, but they have prevented people who need them for self defense from having them at the moment of attack. One such woman was murdered while she went through the waiting period for her handgun.


California is an example of guns being kept out of the hands of the law abiding. California has a safe handgun roster that only allows certain handguns into the state. Because companies are refusing to submit to the criteria necessary to get their guns on this roster, law abiding citizens have less of a choice when choosing a firearm. On the east coast, the law abiding citizen has to get a permission slip from the state government in order to own a handgun. So while handguns, rifles and shotguns are available, ownership is highly restricted and a person has to jump through a lot of hoops. It’s unreasonable and infringes on a persons right to keep and bear arms.


Why must a person who already owns firearms, go through another waiting period ? There’s nothing wrong with doing a background check, a NICS check can be done in 10 minutes, there’s no need for a 10 day waiting period to determine a persons eligibility. In shall issue states, if a person has a concealed carry permit, law abiding citizens don’t require a waiting period. The NICS check is done and they are on their way with their purchase.


You mention that other countries have fewer gun deaths, but Garry Mauser, a professor at Simon Fraser University in Canada did a study of all of what he refers to as countries in the British Empire, which includes the United States. He discovered through the use of police statistics in every country studied, that the United States was less violent than England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Australia, New Zeland, and Canada. And what’s even more interesting is, in spite of the fact that England took all of the handguns from citizens, the criminals were still getting them. Those violent criminals that didn’t use handguns resorted to knives or whatever they could get to bludgeon their victims.


So, the bottom line is this, none of the 20,000 laws that exist have deterred criminals from having guns. When you compare all of the states and their gun laws, California has the most, but states like Illinois, New York, New Jersey and Washington D.C. have the most restrictive. For the sake of argument, even if those states violent crime rates are equal with a state that has loosened its grip on a person right to keep and carry arms, it doesn’t prove that more gun laws equal less crime.


0

I’ll cop this from Mike, he posted this:


Gun Deaths – International Comparisons


Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident)


USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36

Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07

Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10

Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04

Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10

Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10

France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49

England/Wales (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03

Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02

Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0


How about complaining the stats to countries that do have little to no gun control as you want it. Do I want to live in the Middle East or No. Africa, they can wave AKs, shoot their wives for adultery, thier children for shaming them, they can shoot their guns off at parties, no gun control

just as you would like. Although the above stats do demonstrate my point I feel that unfortunately we should be compared to other countries that allow grandma to pack without background checks. If you can’t wait for the cooling off period then you’ve got issues. You must be paranoid and I feel sorry for you if you are so afraid that someone might break into your home within 30 days so you must have that gun now, it’s just crazy paranoia. Trust me, most people go their entire life without being confronted by armed home invaders, I’m sure that having to wait 30 days isn’t going to be an issue in the real world. You might find some NRA lit. that says that this happens frequently but this is typical of how the right controls it’s followers with blind fear.


Why is it that only the right is allowed to have rights? Why can’t we have the right to feel safe so we don’t feel that we’re living in a 3rd world country? Why can’t you people ever meet us half way?


You don’t have to answer those questions, I know that this is getting a bit winded. But I do want you to understand that I appreciate your non combative argument without ad hom attacks. I will tell you that I’ve been to a few Tea Bag rallies and had discourse with them. I don’t want to generalize or stereo type, I’m just going by what I found, it was the women that got defensive and mad and some even yelled at me even though I was just simply stating my side of some of the issues. Unlike many of the women the men were always very polite and although some of them were a bit over the top in thier ideology they were able to discuss things like this without yelling at me.


0

SoCalCop: There is a pro-gun forum open to LEOs that you might enjoy. It is located on CalGuns.net : http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=167


With over 70,000 members, CalGuns is the go to source for all things firearms related. Those interested in obtaining a Concealed Carry permit can find excellent resources on CalGuns.net. The associated foundation has multiple pro-gun attoryneys and work very closely with Alan Gura, the lawyer who successfully argued both Heller & McDonald before the supreme court. Initiatives are under way to bring CA to the ‘Shall Issue’ column for permits.


0

Thanks, I’ll keep that in mind. But I’m more into educating the masses than preaching to the choir.


0

Point taken.


I would still recommend it based upon the mass of knowledge to be gained. The legal analysis and discussion is amazing. You will find experts willing to help in all subject matter areas.


0

Oh this is rich!


0

I don’t care about the thumbs down thing,,from this crowd I’ll just take it as a compliment. I’m not a member of any fan club. On most, not all issues I’m libral minded. The key is being open to new ideas and that’s something that doesn’t come easy to the right. People like me are able to make up our minds based on what we feel is righ by weighing all aspects of an issue, I am not like the extreme right AKA Tea Baggers that are told what to believe by either their Bible or the Palins and Becks of the world


0

Well said, Mr. Freberg!


0
1 2 3