It's not that any one of those components particularly bothers me. It's all of them put together that's scary. It would bother me if my neighbors had drugs. Wouldn't necessarily bother me if they had an AK. A neighbor with drugs, likely drug money, and loaded guns = time to move to the east side.
The extreme left professors are winning, they are teaching that guns are bad. I'll go along with "machineguns need to be controlled", but this assault weapon crap will just bleed over onto everything else.
Thats the thing, yes the kid was in the wrong for having drugs and guns. But the Author was fine with him having drugs, but not the guns.
Plus machine guns are already hightly regulated. The average person can't afford one ($3500 on up before the $200 tax stamp).
Automatic weapons are either registered(Tax Stamp) or are illegal and have been since the 1930's. Bazookas and explosive weapons are illegal. What we need is ENFORCEMENT of the existing laws, NOT more new laws.
This is just another misinformed, young kid that has just retelling what he has seen and heard from the media. No he does not care about pot because its "ok". Maybe its a "disease", "it doesnt hurt anybody" and its just "raging against society man", its socialibly acceptible and all that "liberal excuse crap". Do you think this kid knows the difference between a machine gun and semi-auto rifle, get real. If he was as educated in arms as much as Im sure he is educated in drugs, this article would most likely have been different sounding. There is also no responsibility given to the other students who have bought pot off this guy and contributed to that guy being there. If he was just the guy selling pot down the hall period, that would be ok. Instead he had a gun like most drug dealers, now he's SUPER BAD and will kill somebody with bullets and not his pot. If I collected water bongs in this kid's dorm that would be ok, but if I collected guns in the dorm, I must be a nut and want to do "evil things".
As a whole the public has this weak grasp of what is wrong with the world, they can only think and say what the mass media feeds them. There is no more real reporters in world like Walter Conkrite who reported the facts "that's the way it is". Just editorialists that TELL you what YOU should think, do, and what is right. Not letting you think for your selves.
To this kid I say,"Instead of gun restrictions within the city, maybe we should have higher restrictions on ANY drugs in the city limits. Does that sound good you kid. When I find you and any of your friends in the city with so much as a joint you go up the river for 10 years. That just what we need moron, more F'n laws on things because that makes things MUCH BETTER."Enforce current laws like Windwalker said. There's my media editorial. Bite me you brainless mainstreamer liberal kid.
I wouldn't worry about pot or weapons being in somebody place, so long as they own the guns legally. I've gotten into arguments with my professors over the sale and possessions of rifles, handguns, and other firearms. Guns are not the problem, certain people owning them are.
I explained to the dolt the difference between full-auto and semi-auto rifles, with examples; what an "assault weapon" is; how the term "assault rifle" has pejorated and been demonized by the antigunners; and suggested that before he writes on firearms-related topic again, he spend some time on the range shooting first and learn what he's talking about.
I also suggested he keep his definiton of moral behavior out of my house, and pointed out there aren't any dangerous weapons, there are only dangerous people.
Doubt if it will do any good. Until they've been smacked in the face a few times by the Clue x 4 of life, most college students (and especially those in Liberal Arts) are as convinced of their own righteousness and infallibility as any jihadist. But he was reasonably well-spoken, so perhaps emailing the little snot will do him some good.
Don't know about you guys but the AK47 as stated in this article probably wasn't an automatic. They have it wrong that since the ban expired, no license is required for rifles. That couldn't be farther from the truth. In Illinois, you still have to have a FOID card to purchase a rifle. You still have to fill out paperwork and go through the back ground check. The main difference between handguns and rifles, in Illinois anyhow, is the waiting period, which is only 24 hours for rifles and 3 days for handguns, both of which I have no problem with.
I plan on emailing the editor and politely expressing the points they've gotten wrong and that they should write a correction to state the truth. I ask most of you to also, politely express the wrongs in this article. This is how "WE" as gun owners get the truth out. If we don't take "SMALL" steps like this, we don't have a chance. We have to stick together.
I can't claim I did it right, or that it was entirely accurate (after all, I isn't exactly a college gradiate), but I did send an email to both the editor and Mike Westervelt, expressing my concern/s and asked they correct their information. I don't know if it will do any good or not.
I thought it funny, he accepts or wouldn't "fret" over "POT" which is an illegal drug. My email is very similar to the ones you all have stated you sent. Keep sending them, if you haven't asking for this misconception and misinformation to be corrected. We have to do this every time someone find or sees this crap. If we don't stand up for our rights, they will take them away!
G-Meister
__________________ "My next door neighbors two dogs have created more shovel ready jobs then Obama has." - Gary Johnson
Last edited by GlockMeister; 01-28-2008 at 04:43 PM.
Having argued with liberals before, and having lived as one for most of my life (something I'm still trying to make up for) I can tell you that getting this guy to print a retraction or at least release the correct information will be difficult. He might be unswayable, but at least we're not sitting on our butts doing nothing but b!tching and moaning.
Being in college, I know a lot of people who oppose his views, but there are some, like him, that think their professors are nothing short of god, and take what they say and run with it.
I am wondering why he is surprised. The cops raided an apartment, and found several thousand dollars in cash, drugs, and a loaded weapon...at no point in this story does it indicate that the people guilty are any bit interested in following the law. The interesting part though, the only part of the equation that was legal was the gun.
I plan on emailing the editor and politely expressing the points they've gotten wrong and that they should write a correction to state the truth. I ask most of you to also, politely express the wrongs in this article.
Email this person here editor@purdueexponent.org
and explain (politely) what is wrong with the article and ask that they please correct it.
G-Meister
Glockmeister, I did exactly that. I also noted that I was the Editor of my Merchant Marine academy's paper for a year and a half; I thought this might help my credibility with Ye Editor.
I also took the liberty of paraphrasing nighthawk80's observation that Westervelt was okay with drugs being around his building, but had a problem with there being a firearm in it. Thanks for the observation, nighthawk80!
Here is what I sent to The Exponent:
To The Editor:
Mr. Westervelt has every right to be uneasy about the drug dealer in a nearby apartment having an AK-47 ("Assault rifle discovery raises questions for Purdue students, city," 1/24/08). However, as Editor of The Exponent,you have the obligation to check the facts before you run something. To wit:
"Because the federal assault weapons ban expired in 2004, if you can pass a background check, you can legally own such automatic guns." (Emphasis mine.)
In all probability, that "AK-47" that sophomore drug dealer owns is NOT, repeat NOT, a fully automatic weapon. Private citizens in the United States have not been able to walk into a gun shop and simply purchase fully automatic weapons off the rack since 1934. A private citizen may own a fully automatic weapon legally today - if he is willing to go through the licensing process to obtain a Federal Firearms License; if he can afford to pay the upwards of $3,000 most Class III automatic weapons cost these days; if he is willing to pay $200 for a tax stamp for the weapon; and if he is prepared to put up with the BATFE having the right to knock on his door at any time and ask him to produce the weapon for their inspection.
However, I may have gotten ahead of myself here. We need to define terms, so we are all on the same page.
A fully automatic weapon is a weapon that will fire as long as the trigger is held down and ammunition remains in the magazine or the ammunition belt. Examples of full-auto weapons include the Thompson submachine gun; the M-2 Browning .50 caliber machine gun; the Schmeisser machine pistol; the Browning Automatic Rifle; the M16A1; and yes, the military version of the AK-47.
A semi-automatic weapon, however, is another story entirely. Semi-autos will fire one round per pull of the trigger. If you hold the trigger down after that round fires, while you are performing an isometric exercise with your trigger finger nothing else will happen. Examples of semi-automatic rifles include the M-1 Garand; the Soviet SKS; the .22 caliber Remington Nylon 66; the AR-15 (the semi-auto civilian version of the M-16); and the civilian version of the AK-47.
The term "assault rifle" has a specific definition to students of the military art. It means a short weapon firing carbine-type rounds that is small, lightweight and capable of fully automatic fire. However, the term has pejorated to mean "any military-style rifle," thanks to concerted efforts on the part of those who want to deprive you of a Constitutionally guaranteed right. Even today, the anti-gun groups cannot agree on what defines an "assault weapon." They'd rather ban all privately owned firearms, despite our absolute, individual right under the Constitution to own and use them.
Mr. Westervelt need to understand something. There are no dangerous weapons. There are only dangerous people. My definition of 'dangerous people' includes those who are too hasty and/or too lazy to bother checking the facts and getting things right before they publish.
Would you like to know what truly frightens me about his op-ed piece? The fact that he is living next door to a known drug dealer and has no problem with that, nor yet with his classmates and neighbors keeping and using illegal drugs in their homes; but that he is terrified of someone who dares to keep a firearm in their home. He is perfectly okay with illegal acts taking place under his nose, but not with somebody exercising a legal right in his vicinity.
Heres a thought, If the author, Mike Westervelt, doesn't fret over his neighbor having "POT", then I'm sure he also doesn't have a problem with those "neat vending machines" and probably wouldn't mind having a few in his neighborhood. LMAO
G-Meister
__________________ "My next door neighbors two dogs have created more shovel ready jobs then Obama has." - Gary Johnson
