Who says you don't nned an assault rifle?

[Leo99]

Agreed. I'm thinking that if I'm in the jury box at his trial and this "dropping the ammo in the swamp" evidence is presented, does that make him more guilty or more innocent.

[astroglide]

if you agree what do you mean by your second sentence?

[Leo99]

I don't understand why he dumped his ammo. Maybe he was acting like a drunk pouring his booze down the drain after he got drunk and killed someone drunk driving?

[astroglide]

oh okay, i thought you meant that it didn't seem incriminating

[whiskeytown]

Ray, I love you, but you're talking out of your ass.

There is nothing I've read in local coverage about anyone firing a shot in the dirt at him - In fact, I was wondering how the hell he killed 6 people....he's Rambo - but the fact is, all those folks only had one gun on them.

If racial slurs were used, I am unaware of it, but I do know it's not justifible homicide in MN or WI, despite our liberal tendancies.

And he chased and shot some of those people....no - that was cold blodded stalking.

didn't realize the SKS could hold 20 rounds - thought those fed from the top with those 8 clip feeders.

RB

[Ray Zee]

i didnt justify the shooting did i. i stated a fact i believe is right. the one about not messing with someone you dont know with a gun. the other stuff i said was in the papers. true or not i dont know. but it came from my lips.

[The Gift Of Gab]

vincent gallo wrote and directed brown bunny.

[Robk]

what ray said has been reported all over the place. your "local coverage" must suck.

article

Chai Soua Vang, 36, was surrounded by angry hunters who found him trespassing on their land on Sunday and at least one called him a "gook, chink, [censored] Asian," according to a document filed by investigators in Sawyer County Circuit Court

One hunter then aimed a gun at him, he ducked and a bullet hit the ground 9 to 12 metres behind him, Vang told police after his arrest.

[paland]

Why does a person need an assult weapon? I don't see any use for them in an urban area except for killing people. And they are not a true hunting rifle. The founding fathers had muskets and didn't have huge metro areas so the law was written for that time frame. And in some areas, you can own an assult rifle within the law but go to jail if you smoke a joint. It doesn't make sense. It's time that the law concerning this is looked at.
Oh, and I do own a pistol, so I'm not anti-gun.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does a person need an assult weapon? I don't see any use for them in an urban area except for killing people. And they are not a true hunting rifle. The founding fathers had muskets and didn't have huge metro areas so the law was written for that time frame. And in some areas, you can own an assult rifle within the law but go to jail if you smoke a joint. It doesn't make sense. It's time that the law concerning this is looked at.
Oh, and I do own a pistol, so I'm not anti-gun.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nobody "needs" an assault weapon. It's not a matter of need. In reality there is no such thing as an assault rifle. When Congress began to initiate the first "assault weapon" legislation (1994, I believe) they could not even define what an "assault weapon" was. So they pieced together all of these little things that seemed to make a rifle look more menacing than a standard rifle. This is how we got the assault weapon laws we have today.

My point is that laws involving "assault weapons" have very little to do with the functionality of a rifle. So I guess this tells us that if someone owns a weapon that appears to be more intimidating, they are more likely to commit a crime (or at least as far as Congress is concerned). Personally I am more concerned with who is in possession of the firearm than what the firearm looks like.