Posted by laughinghysterically at 8:6 PM on Oct 01, 2009 | Report this comment

As a law enforcement officer I can only laugh that you compare instructional training at a range by qualified persons to that of a cop operating a bar out of the trunk. How grossly inept and uneducated can you be to make such an analogy? To educate you only slightly, perhaps you should look into programs that used to be funded by the US Government such as the Department of Civilian Marksmanship as well as the Civilian Marksmanship Program. These were PRECISELY the kind of programs which you seem to be so repulsed by. The US government sponsored people in range qualifications and pretty much trained the civilian populace to be a part of the militia. The Department of Civilian Marksmanship is mostly privately run under the Civilian Marksmanship Program. It proves to be an excellent source of what are now surplus firearms as well as ammunition. I cannot wait to see how offended you are at the notion that people are obtaining the US Government machines of war in a manner that was originally created by the US Government for the purpose of training US Citizens. The 2nd Amendment states that THE PEOPLE are the militia and that the rights of THE PEOPLE shall not be infringed. It is every bit what the Founding Fathers intended for people to be armed. You sir, are a moron. Perhaps you should read the Federalist Papers. Perhaps read the various 2nd Amendment-like state amendments(which are worded as strong or even more strongly) which were drafted around the time this country was founded. There is no doubt as to what was intended.

Posted by doug johnson at 3:15 PM on Oct 01, 2009 | Report this comment

you sir are mind numbingly not clever. the ak in question is semi automatic. the winner was subject to a background check. Reading some of your other articles and the biased opinions in them, I see that you aspire to work at CNN someday. being not smart hurts. You sir, have been hit hard with a not smart stick.

Posted by AntiNeoFascist at 3:13 PM on Oct 01, 2009 | Report this comment

It seems you are assuming that by having, what are likely already gun owners and shooters, to this social to shoot responsibly at targets at a range is somehow "encouraging" the shooting of people. In addition, you seem to believe that awarding an AK-47 to one of the attendees means that it's "on the streets", thus it will be used to "murder more!" You're making that same logical leaps that are made by people who are not familiar with guns and just think "guns=scary/bad/dangerous".

Posted by doug johnson at 2:40 PM on Oct 01, 2009 | Report this comment

you sir are mind numbingly not clever. the ak in question is semi automatic. the winner was subject to a background check. Reading some of your other articles and the biased opinions in them, I see that you aspire to work at CNN someday. Stupid hurts. You sir, have been hit hard with a stupid stick.

Posted by J5 at 1:49 PM on Oct 01, 2009 | Report this comment

This is a typical style over substance article. They are raffling off a single AK-47 (semi-automatic mind you, not automatic) subject to a background check before taking possession and somehow this is news? Thousands of these are sold legally every single day to law abiding owners. Never mind the fact that the round that the AK-47 shoots is considerably LESS powerful than most most hunting rounds. One of the most dangerous guns out there? Forgive me but for being blunt but you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. The only reason you are getting excited about this is because this rifle has been dramatized in movies and has a military designation. Would a Remington R700 hunting rifle be more dangerous if we called it by its US Mil designation which is the M-24? You'd probably poop a brick if they raffled off an "M-24 Sniper Rifle" wouldn't you? Like I said, this is style over substance. The AK-47 is no more or less lethal than any other intermediate caliber rifle. Militarys of the world used it because it was reliable and cheap to make not because it had some kind of super killing power above and beyond any other rifle. Why do people get all giddy when they hear "AK"?

Posted by J5 at 1:44 PM on Oct 01, 2009 | Report this comment

"Say what you will, but having hopeful government officials and former army veterans showing people how to shoot and giving them bullets isn’t what the founding fathers thought of when they came up with the Second Amendment." Um, that's actually EXACTLY what they had in mind when they came up with the Second Amendment. And I quote... "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights)" "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8) "The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789]) Need I go on? I know this is a student publication so I shouldn't have such high standards but is it that unreasonable of me to expect that you should actually understand the historical context of a constitutional amendment before trying to apply it?

Posted by John at 1:34 PM on Oct 01, 2009 | Report this comment

Yes, let's talk about the abuse of an amendment... the first amendment. The author of this article knows next to nothing about guns and has done little, if any, research on them. He uses only information which might help prove his point. As an American citizen he has the right to speak, even if it is to spread misinformation and propaganda. As an American citizen, I have the right to own firearms. Consider, though, that no gun of mine has the power to incite large numbers of people to restrict the rights of others. Which is more dangerous?

Posted by Dominic Calabrese at 1:28 PM on Oct 01, 2009 | Report this comment

Wayne you are awsome!!!!

Posted by Kevin B. at 1:27 PM on Oct 01, 2009 | Report this comment

Mr. Hamer, I see you are afflicted with the same disease that most journalists have as of late; the inablility to actually do any research. There is nothing at all wrong with citizens, yes, I said citizens, excercising their Rights that are protected in the Bill of Rights. For instance, your writing a story that would be better served as lining for a bird cage. You excercised your rights that are protected and guaranteed. Why should others not excercise whatever right they want to? Did anyone at the social go on a killing spree? You stated, "~...army veterans showing people how to shoot and giving them bullets isn’t what the founding fathers thought of when they came up with the Second Amendment." Actually, Turkey shoots, and other forms of shooting classes and competitions are a rich tradition in our nation, going back to before the revolutionary war. So yes, that is one of the ideas that the founding fathers had when the created the 2nd Ammendment. You also stated this; "According to Associated Content, 2005 saw 16,692 people murdered in America. That’s not enough – murder more!" What a load of drivel. First, your numbers are incorrect, according to the FBI. Second, the fictitious number of yours does not account for justifiable homicides. Third, your number of murdered people doesn't differentiate between weapons. And finally, your assertion that just because someone has a firearm, that they are automatically going to murder someone. This is just pure garbage, and an assinine statement. It honestly makes me wonder what sort of education Indiana University is capable of providing. If you actually are planning on a career in journalism, perhaps you should be upset with your professors who failed to teach you how to acually research a story. You have almost no facts what-so-ever in your story, and your opinions are based on false assumptions, faulty figures, and foolish liberal ideology.

Posted by Dominic Calabrese at 1:26 PM on Oct 01, 2009 | Report this comment

This is great!!! I wish he was in CO. Nothing like a politician who actually promotes personal responsibility. Most of the Dems just want you to depend on them for everything.

Posted by nathan at 1:15 PM on Oct 01, 2009 | Report this comment

"Say what you will, but having hopeful government officials and former army veterans showing people how to shoot and giving them bullets isn’t what the founding fathers thought of when they came up with the Second Amendment." -- uh, not only is that "what they thought of", it is actually what they DID before, during, and after fighting the revolutionary war; a war ignited by the british crown confiscating privately held arms. how is it possible someone should be older than about 8 and not know this?

Posted by Eric at 1:12 PM on Oct 01, 2009 | Report this comment

See, the problem is you'd rather blame guns for crime than people. Guns are scary. Criminals are "misguided", or "disadvantaged". You wouldn't want to feel like some sort of elitist by criticizing a disadvantaged inner city youth, would you? Gary is the armpit of the midwest not because it has guns, but rather because it has complex social issues. No, just kidding. It's because of the guns.

Posted by John H. at 1:6 PM on Oct 01, 2009 | Report this comment

Translation: Waddell thinks guns are icky and dangerous. The only people Waddell knows with guns are thugs and criminals. Waddell learned about guns from watching action movies. Waddell: Do some research. Stop spewing this bigoted hate speech. More gun laws will not reduce criminals access to guns, and will just leave honest people defenseless.

Posted by DveM at 12:59 PM on Oct 01, 2009 | Report this comment

Wow that was a terrible and mis-informed article. You understand that law abiding people don't kill 16,000 people a year...it's the drug dealers, gangs, and criminals that do. Just because YOU are afraid of guns, doesn't mean you have the right to take away other people's ability to protect themselves. Everyone should learn to defend themselves from the scum of society, and the scum of society is growing in size every day. Why not learn to protect yourself with the best means possible?

Posted by Wayne at 12:54 PM on Oct 01, 2009 | Report this comment

Am an LEO - email me for my name. Law abiding citizens with guns are NOT the ones to fear. A government that goes out of it's way to ban or so severely restrict the use of weapons that it makes gun ownership useless is the one to fear. If you are UNfortunate enough to have survived a home invasion where the burglar was killed, you will regret it the rest of your life; hounded by the press, courts, and lawyers for killing poor misguided 'Johnny' - who had a gun. Later targeted by his gang buddies. In Chicago, gang members carry guns with impunity. Police set up checkpoints to corner 'bangers' with guns and get the weapons off the street, the ACLU stepped in to stop it. Do gang bangers with guns have special rights? Easiest targets are the law abiding citizens, so the banners go after them and proclaim they made the 'streets safer'. Why aren't you complaining about THIS? Mr. Hammer, we don't have a public voice like you do. We do it one letter at a time on the chance our politician will perhaps have an admin assistant read our letters and tell him the general direction of ALL the letters. Your use of this medium to foster panic and discontent is dastardly. You alarm people who don't know any better. We do! As far as 'giving people bullets and showing them how to shoot', the government has the Civilian Marksmanship Program, and has for many years. It allocates surplus rifles and ammunition to civilians who regularly participate in the gov't sponsored marksmanship program. We keep sending our kids overseas to fight other countries battles, I want them to know what they are doing with a weapon! Ak-47 is an ' Army-killing machine'? Nope! The 'Army killer' is artillery and aerial bombardment. Killed far more people than any rifle. Please take time to research your facts before complaining about a 'machinegun social. It was NOT a machine gun. Please read up on the subject. Better yet, go take a shooting course. Thanks!

Posted by JEFF SELL at 12:38 PM on Oct 01, 2009 | Report this comment

Ted Kennedys car has killed more people than my ak-47 so can we ban cars? and i guess we need to ban spoons and forks because they made rosie odonnel fat.

Posted by Jim B at 12:30 PM on Oct 01, 2009 | Report this comment

You don't seriously believe what you wrote, do you Waddell? If Mr. Allen and the folks who attended his BBQ, were responsible adults and didn't shoot, rob or murder anyone - would you still deprive them of guns? If you want to imagine a society where guns are outlawed, look to England. In the ten years or so that law-abiding subjects of the crown lost their right to defend themselves with arms, gun related crimes sky-rocketed in London by 30%. Criminals will be ever more bold when they know citizens cannot defend themselves. Not knowing if a home is protected by firearms is a huge deterrent to crime. Imagine the fronts doors which will be kicked in during the middle of the night by armed burglars if they know you cannot defend yourself. Imagine how fewer the casualties at Virginia Tech or Columbine High School, if an armed college student or teacher could have returned fire, so that the assailant could not be allowed to freely roam and kill. Depriving responsible individuals of the right to protect themselves and the enjoyment of firearm sports, does nothing to stem the conduct of the irresponsible. Our forefathers knew this. Every generation of Americans except the current one, knew this as well.

Posted by Matt J at 12:23 PM on Oct 01, 2009 | Report this comment

The problem you have, Waddell, is a logical disconnect: You fail to differentiate between law abiding citizens who have no desire to harm others, and criminals who don't give a damn about others. Gun control laws only disarm one of those two types of people. Which ones, do you think? As long as the second type exist, law abiding citizens should have equal or better means with which to defend themselves.

Posted by Riiiight at 12:16 PM on Oct 01, 2009 | Report this comment

"but having hopeful government officials and former army veterans showing people how to shoot and giving them bullets isn’t what the founding fathers thought of when they came up with the Second Amendment." Only the founding fathers were the ones going from town to town pleading for people to stand up, take their hunting rifles, and fight the British just years before. They were probably giving away guns, bullets, and powder to anyone that would join the fight. You don't even know what you're saying when you open your mouth or type your thoughts. One could argue against every point in your article as not well thought out or sensationalist, but that's the one I wanted to point out.

Posted by Patrick at 9:46 AM on Oct 01, 2009 | Report this comment

Actually that is exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment. If you are an adult male between 18 and 45 you are a member of the unorganized militia you became such when you registered for the draft. Having the militia well armed and trained (the definition of "well regulated" at the time) is the stated goal of the Second Amendment. Of those 16K killed in 2005 only the smallest fraction were killed by semi-automatic copies of the AK47. At the same time a firearm was used 80K to 2.5 million times (depending on the study) to prevent a crime, most of the time without even having to fire a shot. Please, tone down the hysterics. It's hard to have a reasonable discussion of the issue otherwise.

Posted by Whatever at 8:14 AM on Oct 01, 2009 | Report this comment

Why punish law abiding citizens with gun control? Guess what? Only people who obey laws will be affected by gun control... Your ignorance is appalling.

Posted by Really? at 6:15 AM on Oct 01, 2009 | Report this comment

You realize that an AK-47 or an SKS which fires the same bullet can be had, here in Bloomington, for a couple of hundred dollars... just down 3rd street. The AK-47 in the story is also a semi-automatic. Means its not fully automatic and definately not a machine gun. Yes, they've got a deadly reputation, but only because they're widely used by "bad guys". Do a bit more research and a little less moaning when you write a rant like this. His social is just an outing of people who enjoy the sport of shooting. Its not a call to arms for facist radicals.