_2.gif "Time.com 50 Best Websites 2008")
Mike Freeman of CBS Sports has a column today that, while withholding judgment about whether Marvin Harrison was involved in the shooting outside his North Philadelphia bar last week, questions why Harrison owned the Belgian gun that is at the center of the investigation.
Freeman gives some details about the gun, a Fabrique Nationale 5.7 firearm, noting that it has been advertised for its ability to pierce 48 layers of Kevlar at 50 meters.
Writes Freeman: “Does it bother anyone that an NFL player allegedly owns a gun in which its main attraction to potential buyers is the fact that its ammunition can penetrate body armor? Body armor most times worn by police?”
It’s probably safe to say that it bothers the NFL. The league’s official policy on guns for all employees, including players, states, “In some circumstances, such as for sport or protection, you may legally possess a firearm or other weapon. However, we strongly recommend that you not do so.”
May 5th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
A .22 cal bullet can kill as good as a .50 cal bullet. If you want to argue that, I’ll take the .22 cal you take the .50 cal, and I get to shoot first.
I don’t think I’ll ever understand why people are so facinated with pistols. The Right to bear arms was created at a time when we had no military power. ZERO! Not until post WWII (1940’s for you non history readers)did America have a consistant military power during times of peace. I really wish guide lines where more defined at that time. I am not for abolishing fire arms but, Pistols and assult rifles that can be converted/consealed to cause wide spred damage in public places (Such as high schools, college campases, workplace ect) Are becoming so common place that we are becoming ammune to hearing about them. It’s most likely too late to do anything about it know. They seem to be everywhere. But with these SERIOUS PROBLEMS I am amazed at the passion pro gun people refuse to negotiate a flawed aspect to the constitusion. There has to be a happy MEDIUM that would be accepted by both Pro guns and innocent gun fearing Americans.” Can’t we all just get along?”
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
May 5th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
yeah, cause ONLY police officers have bulletproof vests. What about high-tech criminals with helmets and body armor? You can’t protect your car wash with a 9mm!
What people should be worried about is athletes keeping guns in buckets at car washes. The rest (an American with a gun) at least makes perfect sense.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
May 5th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
I love how the media portrays the FN 5.7 as a “custom made belgian handgun”. Fact is anyone can go buy one at any FN dealer, the same as any other handgun can be purchased. The fact that Harrison is a high profile athlete has 0 bearing on owning this pistol. The other interesting fact is that while there is a “armor piercing” round for the 5.7mm it is not imported to the US. The ATF ruled years ago that any cartridge chambered in a pistol cannot defeat body armor or it becomes illegal. Look at what happened to steel core 7.62×39, zips right through kevlar. OK as a rifle round, once chambered in a pistol it became illegal. I don’t really care about Harrison one way or another. It gets really irritating to watch the misinformation that is thrown about concerning firearms.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
May 5th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Gee, no wonder why Marvin is so protective on information about himself. Eagle’s beat writer Ashley Fox in Sunday’s Phila Inquirer (www.philly.com/philly/sports/eagles/20080504_Ashley_Fox___Harrison_remains_an_enigma.html) wrote a piece on “Silent Marv” and his loner ways on and off the field. The column ends with this quote from Silent Marv: “Everyone has their opinions already,” Harrison said in 2006. “There’s nothing I would volunteer about me. People who really know me know who I am. If they don’t know me, they just assume whatever they want.” And people sure are now.
It’s alarming to find out someone, either an NFL player or ordinary Joe, needs to have this type of firearm in his possession. Especially after the weekend murder of another Phila Police Officer by way of an assault rifle.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
May 5th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Wow, there is so much disinformation here it’s like watching CNN. Like many have pointed out, it’s 5.7 mm, not .50 cal, the ammo available domestically is ballistic tip and not armor piercing, and the 2nd amendment isn’t for hunting or protection from rattlesnakes. That being said, he misused it and should be punished. AGAIN, HE misused it and deserves to be punished. Don’t blame the implement, blame the wielder.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 3 rating(s)
May 5th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
The whole point of weapons ownership is to be able to revolt against the government.
In order to do that, we NEED to actually have effective firepower.
This is why ANY restriction on private ownership of weapons is patently absurd and illegitimate.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
May 5th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
To all who made the comment that “the 2nd amendment was written at a time when all they had were muskets” -
I say to you: The 1st amendment was written at a time when all they had were printing presses.
Using that logic, should we also ban tv news, blogs and the internet?
—————–
To all who made the comment that “people who own guns are compensating for something” -
I say to you: Yes, I own guns because I AM compensating for something - I am compensating for the fact that my d!ck doesn’t shoot bullets.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3.65 / 5 with 3 rating(s)
May 6th, 2008 at 12:32 am
To all of you who are saying that Marvin (or whoever the shooter was) must be a terrible shot - ever consider that the shooter didn’t want to kill the victim, but just scare him or “send a message”? He ended up nipping a hand - which may be the actual reason why he (or she) is a terrible shot (the shooter failed by hitting, not missing).
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
May 6th, 2008 at 2:22 am
The whole point of weapons ownership is to be able to revolt against the government.
I agree with this somewhere in my brain, but the logical conclusion is private citizens owning nuclear weapons or aircraft carriers. Any type of handgun/rifle is ultimately useless against the force that all but the most rinky-dink of swat teams can bring to bear, not to mention the actual military that will be brought to quash any rebellion. Once you agree that nuclear arms aren’t protected by the second amendment, we’re down to talking about the degree of restriction.
Anyone who wants to comment on firearms should really shoot a few rounds before shooting off his mouth. It’s unbelievable the number of people who have no concept of what “automatic” and “semi-automatic” mean and couldn’t differentiate something the media calls an “assault” rifle from a shotgun. I’ve tried soy milk and tofu, the least you can do is empty a clip or two at a shooting range.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
May 6th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
This is really flat-out ignorant reporting on the part of this site and the sportswriters. In the first place, Fabrique Nationale (FN) is a Belgium-owned US company - the 5.7 firearm is manufactured in the US. (Columbia, S.C.) Secondly, the weapon can chamber a number of variants - one a military variant for penetration of body-amour. Its most unlikely anyone in this mess had possession of anything that sophisticated.
Now I’m the last one to defend street animals, which I have a special dislike for - having seen my city degenerated to lawlessness. (I’m a Philadelphian who grew up during WWII around 3rd & Spruce Streets, I left in 1955 - ASAF and SAC) But fair is fair. There is absolutely nothing sinister about this gun. Its a small caliber self defense weapon - period.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
May 6th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
I would like to contribute some clarification, and broaden the discussion.
First, as with any weapon, how powerful the weapon is matters less than whether the strike connects. That requires training, which requires cultural infrastructure, discipline, mental capacity, etc. Emptying your clip while running down the street with a handgun doesn’t indicate that.
Second, the Constitution hasn’t governed these united States since the US went into bankruptcy (research when). Since then, the US has been in recievorship (research under whom) under maritime law. Unless you are very well versed and have obtained and maintained your status, you are not a citizen (or person) with rights, you are a subject/slave with privileges. Those privileges, including weapon ownership, can be revoked at will. Sorry - this history and status was set long ago.
Finally, anyone who lives near criminal (relative) sub-culture (not race) neighborhoods are reminded what kind of weapons their neighbors own every holiday or other special occassion. It is foolish to abstract militant danger to Afghanistan. Members of more law abiding sub-cultures with the means and common sense should do what is necessary to protect the lives and property they are privileged to possess from criminal individuals. You could also argue that they have a duty, or at minimum a benefit, to also defend other neighbors of similar sub-cultures as their own. Either way, this is one of the simmering and active militant aspects of cultural war. Not liking and/or ignoring these dynamics doesn’t make them go away.
As the US dollar loses value, without corresponding increases in handouts to dysfunctional government dependendent communities, the militant conflict between dependent communities and working communities will increase as dependent communities attempt to acquire by force.
I regret the grim history, grim current status, and grim future. Hopefully the Elite will change their minds, and have the ability to change course. Unfortunately, projecting the historical pattern would seem to indicate otherwise.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
May 6th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
You’re assuming rights are a consequence of citizenship.
They’re not.
They’re an inherent part of being a human being; therefore, the status of the local government is irrelevant to the matter.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
May 6th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
You are thinking as a decent human being!
I wish that Americans were defined as having common human rights and being protected by natural law. Fortunately, many of those privileges are currently granted. Unfortunately, those privileges can be revoked at will. I wish you well if you were to assert those rights against the State, the Crown, etc. In other words, the corporations that own you.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
May 6th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
“Bradybunch, a Passionate Fan, says:
May 5th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
A .22 cal bullet can kill as good as a .50 cal bullet. If you want to argue that, I’ll take the .22 cal you take the .50 cal, and I get to shoot first.”
No, it can’t kill as well as a .50 cal - bmg or otherwise. A .22 can kill, yes, no question, if you hit them in the right spot, which requires a greater deal of accuracy. The .50 cal pistol ammo will put a pretty good sized hole in you wherever it hits you, and significantly increase the chances of death. The .50 bmg round will literally remove limbs with a single shot.
Further, we had enough of a military to defeat the reigning world superpower in the Revolution, and again in the war of 1812.
Schools are “gun free” zones - yet why would somebody who is planning on murdering as many people as he can worry about disobeying a firearms law? You cannot solve the problem of people breaking the law by enacting more laws, because they will simply continue to ignore them. It is foolish to think that you can protect honest citizens by removing their ability to protect themselves.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
May 6th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
The practical ability to exercise a right is not a necessary precondition for the possession of that right.
It is the mere fact that we possess those rights regardless of our practical ability to exercise them that justifies us to revolt if the government attempts to deny us the practical ability to exercise them.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated