The first of 31 prizes scheduled to be raffled by New Hampshire police chiefs in May has a retail value of $1,995. It also has folding iron sights, a collapsible stock, and weighs 7.4 pounds, according to the manufacturer’s website.
The winner, chosen from 1,000 entrants in the sold-out contest, will walk away with a military-style assault rifle that closely resembles the weapon used to massacre 20 first-graders and six adults in Newtown, Conn.
Comments
The tragedy, the real tragedy, is we are now focussed on guns; and the true facts are that guns are not the real issue here; the real issue is mental-illness; and o one wants to talk about that. The guns used where legally obtained, not law could have or would have prevented what happened. Now we are in the gun battle again... Nut bags that wont to due mass killings will find away, gun or no guns... All they have to do is watch TV, they’ll get taught over the airwaves... In the mean time we do little or nothing with research into mental-health care and prevention..
oh! How shocking! The tragey is that 20 children died because an assault weapon was fired in a school.
And if it wasn't an assault rifle it would have been a pistol. It's the act, not the tool.
One is tempted to respond to the quoted legislator, but am reminded of the Aristotelian and Thomistic cautions about attempting to dialogue with the Invincibly Ignorant.
Would you quote these cautions so that we all may be enlightened?
It is not mental health programs or sensible gun legislation. It is both. The fact that the Newtown guns were legally obtained shows that we need better control of these weapons, and also why they are so easy to get. And I was just wondering how these live free or die, no taxers would vote to actually fund these mental health programs they are so in favor of now.
This comment has been removed.
ReadSpeaK - I am tempted to respond to you.....but am reminded of Ben Franklin's comments: "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither. People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." We have the second amendment in place to ensure the people could resist the government in the face of tyranny. Its why Hitler and Stalin took the peoples guns away. Since you refer to Aristotle....I'm sure you are smart enough to connect the dots here... ==================== Something else I am fascinated about... mental health records are privileged. If a patient gets admitted to a pysch ward in a hospital...the hospital is forbidden to tell anyone - including that patients Primary Care Physician about the admission. Obama just mandated that the hospitals take this privileged information and share it with local law enforcement. (you know, the burnouts from high school who ended up on the local police force..) Where is the ACLU? Where are the privacy advocates screaming about this violation?
Sure -- quote Ben Franklin to try and support your point of view. The fact is that the founding fathers were focusing on life of the day. They had no view of high powered assault weapons. They wrote over 200 years ago, a time that has allowed too many interpretations.
Ben Franklin was a leader in both civics and in education. He appears to have been driven to build better lives for those in his community. I can only imagine how he might react to seeing a single gun kill 20 first-graders in seconds, or how he might react to seeing organizations defend the rights of the imbalanced to own them with impunity, or how he might see law enforcement officers pushing them without a thought as to how deeply deeply insulting they are to the families of the killed children.
These police should be ashamed.
Yes, you can "only imagine". But his quote is not an "imagining".
Yes, "how he might react". We do know how he reacted, to support the addition of the 2A.
It is interesting how you attempt to equate Police Chiefs with the drug gangs by your use of the word "pushing". You obviously gave some thought as to how insulting that would be.
The tired old argument about how the founding fathers had no view todays weaponry is just that, tired. You will note that they did not place any restrictions on what weapons a person could own, but they were well aware of canons. They were more concerned with the concept that the people of this country be armed well enough to fend off any tyranny by the government. Since the government is armed well beyond what any citizen can lawfully own today, it is only through sheer force of numbers that any parity may exist, if it does.
I understand that we live in a "touchy feely, politically correct" world, but decisions as to whether someone can do a lawful act are not made based on whether they are "deeply insulting" to any group. If we did, I could end this gun control argument by stating "All gun owners are deeply offended by the insults, name calling and attempt to circumvent our 2A rights through emotional outbursts, please stop, you are hurting our feelings." You of course, in accordance with your premise, would cease immediately and go about your business.
The Chiefs describe this assault weapon as Sporting Firearm. And what is that sport? Cop-Killing? Kid-Killing? Mom-Killing? These guys are politically, socially, individually delusional. We have a special election coming up in Massachusetts. Will these mouth-frothers assert their armed right to protect themselves from Democrats and Liberals. Will they resist with force the attempt of rational citizens to protect themselves from gun-nuts? But I guess if they cannot learn a lesson from the death of their colleague, Chief Maloney, and the deaths of 20 kindergartners, what hope to we have of changing their minds? None. But that should not stop us from protecting ourselves from them by electing people who support gun control (without putting loopholes in the law) and punishing those who are now or who in the past have made their careers by failing to protect kids from the frothers.
And there we have it! PUNISH!
WOW. Are the Chiefs the "frothers"? Or are "gun nuts" the frothers? Here is a sentence I have a problem understanding:
"Will they resist with force the attempt of rational citizens to protect themselves from gun-nuts?"
Ok, I got that you equate yourself with rational citizens, and I got the part about gun-nuts. Is the "they" Police Chiefs? If so, are you suggesting the PC's would use force against your right to vote?
But maybe your question is really this "Will Police Chiefs support 2A advocates should they resist any infringement with armed force?"
Nahant, may I offer you a napkin to wipe the spittle off your chin? Kinda lost it there, donchya think?
History is Just That raises a right-on-target point: just who is the "frother" and the "frothee"?
"probably"?? Awesome. If only there some way, some type of method, or process we could come up with, for finding out if the winner of the gun were indeed a law-abiding citizen, and not a convicted felon (in another state), mentally ill, on a terrorist watch list...if only....but, since none of that is possible I guess we'll just have to admit we're powerless, throw up our hands and just give the gun to whoever shows up to claim it. Thanks for probably caring though.
You need to read more carefully, they will be running the normal checks on the person, which will reveal if he is a "felon". Terrorist watch list? Hopefully that is NOT a criterion, EVER. Otherwise, the government could just put everyone on a "Terrorist Watch List" and goodbye 2A. We like due process in the is country, remember? Not "government lists", Nazi Germany used "lists".
This comment has been removed.
The caption for this story is misleading: This is not an automatic assault weapon but rather a semiautomatic weapon that looks like a military weapon. For an excellent op ed by William Bratton, former Boston and NYC police commissioner, on gun violence:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323968304578246721614388346.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0
You're right. This is no more a military weapon than a GMC Hummer is a military grade transport. Function does not follow form. I would feel just as threatened if an old Winchester 73 was pointed at me as this weapon. Don't ban things based on cosmetics.
the NH 'stand your ground' law permits use of force if someone 'feels threatened' by another ? What a ridiculous concept, and what tragedies it can lead to. I would hope that there are some objective criteria that would determine whether someone's 'feeling' is warranted.
You may have a misunderstanding of the law. "Feels threatened" means that a person feels they are in imminent danger of great bodily harm or of losing their life, in which case, they are permitted to "stand their ground" and defend themselves. They would have to meet legal tests in a court of law should they defend themselves in such a manner. It is not just merely saying "He threatened me, therefore I shot him".
Therefore, it is not a ridiculous concept. What is ridiculous is the concept of telling a person they must retreat in the face of violent attack and be able to prove that they retreated first, in a court of law, thereby placing the burden of proof on them.
There are already several hundred million firearms circulating in this country. How will stricter regulation of gun sales alter that fact?
What an outright lie: "Across the country, police officers have been a strong voice for stricter gun control, which is gaining momentum in Washington and many state capitols."
Maybe that's true among urban police departments, but police are often members of gun rights groups and are often the most outspoken for legal gun ownership amongst responsible gun owners. One of the nation's foremost gun experts and advocates of personal gun ownership is Massad Ayoob. He is a present or former New Hampshire police officer once with the Nashua and Grantham police departments if I am not mistaken.
People are welcome to their opinions about guns, but stop making stuff up and writing lies.
Yup, they sure have gained momentum alright. Likes bills being introduced in three states to pass laws allowing the Law Enforcement officers of those states to arrest anyone who attempts to infringe on the 2A rights of their citizens, including Federal agents. Or like the County Sheriff in the Northwest who has published a letter stating his deputies will NOT enforce any laws passed that infringe on the 2A.
Now there is sweeping momentum alright.
Power to the people--is being increasingly reserved for a precious few who reserve that right for themselves, but take it away from us.
Absolutely disgusting!
yes, you are. why do you want to strip from ALL people the ability and choice to protect and defend themSELVES?
Not everyone lives inside route 128 where a tap of 911 brings assistance from city, state, college and sometimes federal law enforcement. There are parts of New England where help can be very far away. If someone knows a rural farmer or care taker on a rural property has money a car or other valuables then that farmer or care taker has a right to defend him or HER self.
A seven bullet magazine may not be enough. Nor, as some self-amused people claim is a musket.
According to State Rep. Baldasaro, “Some law-abiding citizen is probably going to win that gun.” Both Nancy and Adam Lanza were law-abiding citizens. Neither had criminal records. In New Hampshire, State Reps. are not known for their insight or wisdom. You get what you pay for and we pay our State Reps. $200 a year.
Indeed, you get what you pay for. At $200/year, the job is not a full time job. No legislator is easily bought by an "interest" group merely to keep his/her job. It is much easier to "buy" a politician who wants to keep their job.
Ya, our legislators are so much better.
Point 1. I read this in the Globe today. Massachusetts has the strictist gun control laws in the country and has the least amount of gun violence. Point 2. I wonder how much money in campaign contributions was given to the state rep. by ALEC, a non profit that takes donations from the gun manufacturers and their lobbyists to "educate" lawmakers on the benefits of gun ownership. Its disgusting that gun manufacturers and pro gun people are getting tax right offs for lobbying state reps.
It is debatable whether MA has the "strictest" gun control laws, there are many variations, but they are overall, quite strict. I won't quibble the point. However, it does not have the least amount of gun violence per capita, you do need to look at some stats on that. But the rate is fairly low, of course MA does not have a really huge metropolitan area, like a Chicago Metro, LA Basin, etc. An example is that Chicagoland has over 11 million people, almost twice the population of the entire state of MA.
As for the "right offs"? There are many anti gun business owners that contribute to non profit anti gun groups that also lobby and contribute to campaign funds. It is the way our system works. If I had MY way, there would be NONE of this, only individuals could contribute to a maximum amount of about $10 (side benefit, we would not have to listen to their yapping for an entire year).
Washington DC has themost strict handgun law in the country, also one of the highest shooting rates, go figure
This comment has been removed.
Wasn't the owner of the gun @ Sandy Hook, a law-abiding citizen?
The owner was, she was murdered by her own son. What none of us know, since the CT State Police have not released any information, is how he got access to those weapons. There are various possibilities, she allowed him full access, he got access to her gun safe without her knowledge, etc.
But, if you are trying to make the point that a law abiding citizen used a gun to perform those murders, and therefore, no law abiding should be allowed to own a gun, it is similar to saying that since vehicles/hammers/knives/axes have been used to commit murder, no one should be allowed to own those items. The argument about "the only purpose of a gun is to kill human beings" is not factual since they are also used for other purposes. In addition a gun is often used for self defense against things like hammers/knives/fists/etc. The argument concerning the number of deaths resulting is rather shallow, everyone considers their own life precious, even one murder is too many if it is your own and is also abhorrent if it is someone else's life.
This comment has been removed.
The argument that the Nazis disarmed their citizens prior to the beginning of armed hostilities in continental Europe (i.e. the invasion of Poland - Axis annexation in Asia and Africa began years earlier) is really common in gun rights circles. In fact I've seen it pop up here recently. I would take the position that gun laws in pre-1940 Germany are a bit more complicated. Here are a couple good refs for getting a sense about gun laws in Nazi Germany - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany) and a working paper from the University of Chicago Law School (http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/67-harcourt.pdf). The most relevant part of the paper begins at the bottom of page 21. My take is this - the most restrictive gun regulations in Germany were put in place in 1919 as World War I ended. A complete ban on firearms was passed in 1919 by the German legislature (Reichstag). These were partially repealed in two waves - once in 1928, when firearms possession was reinstated and a permitting process was instituted for all guns, and once in 1938. The 1938 legislation is the one that shows up in gun rights arguments most often. This is the piece of law that banned firearms possession by individuals of Jewish descent. The law also, however, increased the number of individuals who were exempt from the permitting process begun in 1928. The point is this - yes, the 1938 legislation did indeed take away firearms rights from a persecuted group. However, the law also represented a general liberalization of gun laws in Germany (if you look past the anti-Semetic part of the law). The author of the afore mentioned article takes the position that Nazi Germany actually had the most liberal gun laws of the inter-war period. This part of the story is usually left out of pro gun rights rhetoric, which tacitly implies that had gun rights for Jews remained, they could have somehow staved off the Nazi genocide project (I find this exceptionally difficult to believe, but we'll never know for sure). The political reality today in the US is exceptionally different than in 1938 Germany. The use of the comparison by some to highlight the importance of gun rights is really a false equivalency in that regard. Further, it is generally ahistorical. Regardless of your views on gun rights, getting the "facts" (to take a positivist position for a moment) right is important.
Sorry about the long paragraph - sometimes carriage returns seem to work in comments, and other times they don't! I know how much of a pain it is to read without the carriage returns. I put them in, but they disappeared this time when I posted. C'est la vie.
MTN, excellent comment! It is why I rarely use the "Nazi Germany..blah,blah,blah" argument in a discussion. If I do, I state that they took advantage of existing laws, blah, blah, blah.
Facts are very important in these discussions, they are sorely missing, that is for sure.
I too question whether the Jewish people would have sucessfully fought back against the Nazis. Even today, they are divided as to whether fighting back or a policy of not resisting is best. Jewish people have a word or phrase for not resisting which I cannot recall, but I seem to remember that it was much more popular then, than now.
About the paragraphs, weird, mine does it on certains forums too, but not here, thankfully! But with comments like yours, who cares, they have meat.
This comment has been removed.
This article makes me ashamed of being a resident of New Hampshire. I cannot believe that law enforcement officials would sanction the more widespread use of firearms that should not be in use by civilians. The lack of licensing in this state is appalling. The family of the retiring police chief in Greenland who was killed this yearby someone who should not have had firearms of any kind would rather he be alive today. This is not charitable fund raising. This is stupidity on the part of those who should know better.
There is something seriously wrong with these people. I just wish we could patrol our borders in Massachusetts better so we were not so effected by their gun policies and vigilante mentality. Raffling off that type of weapon as a fundraiser for police officers? No wonder so many of the guns used in crimes in this state come from New Hampshire. The lack of common sense is disturbing.