This fellow bought an AK-47 Because he thought they would be banned

[Cynic]

Here's what he used it for:

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/0...r-over-grades/

Sounds like an abusive, misogynistic, violent, A*hole.
The gun was just a prop.

The problem here is child abuse (threatening the child) and spousal abuse (throwing mother to floor), the weapon is the least of the issues.
This is not the first or last time he will behave so.

-Cynic

[SalisburySage]

I doubt it's legal to throw someone to the floor and threaten them if it is a semi-automatic weapon.

Typical liberal trying to twist what I said. The gun itself is legal i f its semi automatic.

[kudzu]

Threatening a defenseless daughter with an AK-47 is definitely a spineless cowardly act.

I think you missed the specific point mark and I were trying to make here.

Or perhaps you're avoiding it ?

[Calamari]

Threatening a defenseless daughter with an AK-47 is definitely a spineless cowardly act.

It certainly is. It's always good when someone is smart enough to stay on topic.

[Grindelwald]

I think you missed the specific point mark and I were trying to make here.

Or perhaps you're avoiding it ?

I just thought you and mark needed a little redirecting on what the spineless and cowardly act really was.

[kudzu]

I just thought you and mark needed a little redirecting on what the spineless and cowardly act really was.

They are both spineless cowardly acts.

How 'bout that ?

[Woodbuchr]

I doubt it's legal to throw someone to the floor and threaten them if it is a semi-automatic weapon.

I doubt it's legal to throw someone on the floor and threaten them with ANY weapon. It's just that this particular case fits your agenda. Would you have posted it if he had threatened them with any other weapon. I am sure there are plenty of cases of domestic disputes like this where firearms were not used.

[kudzu]

I doubt it's legal to throw someone on the floor and threaten them with ANY weapon. It's just that this particular case fits your agenda. Would you have posted it if he had threatened them with any other weapon. I am sure there are plenty of cases of domestic disputes like this where firearms were not used.

Ban baseball bats ! And kitchen utensils !

[Calamari]

I doubt it's legal to throw someone on the floor and threaten them with ANY weapon. It's just that this particular case fits your agenda. Would you have posted it if he had threatened them with any other weapon. I am sure there are plenty of cases of domestic disputes like this where firearms were not used.

Are you complaining because I noticed this news item, and it doesn't fit your agenda?

When people were stocking up on guns because they thought Obama was going to "grab" them all, these folks were idolized. How dare I notice that not all of them have the best of intentions.

[Mom49of4]

Ban baseball bats ! And kitchen utensils !

Axes as well. Went to Lowe's yesterday to buy one and I asked where they were sold - a customer chuckled and said - I don't want to read about you in the papers.

[The Eternal White Belt]

Good thing it didn't have a bayonette, or he may have accidentally stabbed her.

[kudzu]

Axes as well. Went to Lowe's yesterday to buy one and I asked where they were sold - a customer chuckled and said - I don't want to read about you in the papers.

Don't forget chainsaws.

[Mom49of4]

Don't forget chainsaws.

That was out of my price range.

[kudzu]

That was out of my price range.

You can get a cordless electric one for under $100.

Which would be the obvious choice for domestic disputes. Corded electrics require finding a damn outlet and the gas ones never start on the first pull.

[Woodbuchr]

Are you complaining because I noticed this news item, and it doesn't fit your agenda?

When people were stocking up on guns because they thought Obama was going to "grab" them all, these folks were idolized. How dare I notice that not all of them have the best of intentions.

My agenda would be the same as several other posters I have seen comment on this incident. Lock the guy up! He was wrong and not one of us has said what he did was okay. You want to demonize, by extension, every other gun owner because of this POS's actions.

I never "idolized" the people who were trying to purchase a legal firearm before a ban on that weapon took place. I understand it but don't idolize it. I agree that not all have the best intentions, just like not everyone who buys prescription drugs or alcohol have the best intentions. Penalize the criminal not everyone else who maes legal purchases and uses the product responsibly.

And for some reason I doubt you just "noticed" this article. Did you just "notice" it at the top of an anti-gun webpage or did you "notice" it after a search?

[demopublican]

Here's what he used it for:

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/0...r-over-grades/

So what law are you advocating for that would have prevented this type of crime?

[Abatis]

Wanna know how I can tell you didn't read the article?

No.

Don't bother because you would just continue to be wrong.

What part of the article confirms your invented premise that he bought the AK-47 "so he can threaten his wife and daughter with it"?

There is no such confirmation so the only explanation is that you are injecting your own prejudices, probably from the hatred you have for your own abusive father. (Hey this inventing alternate reality stuff is fun)

[cprenegade]

The guy should be locked up permanently. I have no problem with him being jailed in a maximum security prison for the rest of his life with no parole, as all gun offenders should be. But the real problem, again, is not the weapon, but the personality behind it. Start removing the personalities behind the guns, and the guns will suddenly go silent and not be a problem.

[cprenegade]

Sounds like an abusive, misogynistic, violent, A*hole.
The gun was just a prop.

The problem here is child abuse (threatening the child) and spousal abuse (throwing mother to floor), the weapon is the least of the issues.
This is not the first or last time he will behave so.

-Cynic

Agreed. And since we are now in a frenzy about putting down new laws pertaining to guns, the first thing we should do is make any crime involving a gun a federal felony punishable by long jail terms with no parole, regardless of age or circumstance. That will systematically begin removing those who abuse the right to own firearms from society. Let's see if our liberal friends who wish to get rid of guns feel the same way about getting rid of the people who choose to abuse them.

[Abatis]

Agreed. And since we are now in a frenzy about putting down new laws pertaining to guns, the first thing we should do is make any crime involving a gun a federal felony punishable by long jail terms with no parole, regardless of age or circumstance. That will systematically begin removing those who abuse the right to own firearms from society. Let's see if our liberal friends who wish to get rid of guns feel the same way about getting rid of the people who choose to abuse them.

QFT!

Liberal hug-a-thug policies in cities have allowed a violent, armed criminal underclass to operate and re-re-re-re-offend without any meaningful restriction:

60 percent of U.S. firearm homicides occur in the 62 cities of the country’s 50 largest metros. (pretty much all under the ill-governance of liberals / progressives / Democrats).

In many large metros / cities, between 70% and 91% of both murder victims and perpetrators have criminal histories.

The majority of those offenders are (supposed to be) prohibited from owning any gun . . .

Uh, well except that:

St. Louis Police Chief Dan Isom

"One thing we have to be aware of to give context to this whole problem is that we are looking at an urban problem. It’s much less a suburban or rural problem. It really affects young minorities— Hispanic and black males. I think that the suspects devalue life, the victims devalue life, and the system also devalues life. When you look at the shooting victims and suspects in these neighborhoods, you see 20 or 30 felony arrests, with eight convictions. Often the convictions don’t result in any jail time at all; they’re getting probation on top of probation. . . . and it has made it very difficult for us to establish a person as a convicted felon. . . . in St. Louis, a weapons violation can turn out to be no offense at all.

An individual will get arrested for a weapons charge, which is a felony, and often they plead to that case and get an SIS—a suspended imposition of sentence. It means that if you serve out your probation, which everybody does, that conviction is erased. So if you’re arrested again with another weapon, you don’t have a conviction on your record, so you’re not a felon in possession of a weapon. If you continue to get multiple SISs, you never become a convicted felon.

These offenders will often show up for other crimes, and if they never have a conviction, then you’re never able to put stiffer charges on them."

I support catch and release for fish, not violent armed criminals.

Note also that these repeat violent gun offenders NEVER get on the "prohibited person" list so they can go into a gun store and pick out a gun and pass the background check!

So, just to clear dockets and keep prosecutor's "conviction" rates high, they let these guys out and expunge their records again and again and again . . .

Howsabout liberals, especially those who are running these urban criminal hellholes, TRY to control that small segment of society who have proven that they only use guns to harm and kill, before you advocate controlling law-abiding citizens?

Really, it makes you wonder; why does the left allow all these violent armed criminals who are prohibited from owning a gun to roam the streets and rob, maim and kill people?

Does that serve the agenda?

How else can all the current attention on the legal guns owned by non-criminals be explained except if the left considers the guns in the hands of non-criminal owners as more of a threat to their desired society than the armed criminals they allow to run amok?

The left, the only thing you can count on them to be is politically, morally and intellectually bankrupt . .