If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WTOP)   So just what the heck is an "assault weapon," anyway? A clip? A magazine? Here's your handy-dandy gun glossary so you can sound infromed for the next flamewar   (wtop.com) divider line 694
    More: Interesting, assault weapons, flame wars, semiautomatic firearms, design change, private ownership, target shooting, Uzi  
•       •       •

10275 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jan 2013 at 9:53 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



694 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-25 12:33:52 PM  

CPennypacker: pedrop357: FlashHarry: pedrop357: They never happen until they do.

the thing is, mass shooting actually DO happen. they're not some rightwing fantasy.

Hurricanes, looting, illegal grow ops on private land, etc. are fantasies?

No, but the "I'm gonna use my gun to be a hero in these situations" certainly are fantasies


Strawman on the field, 5 yard penalty.

Who talked about being a hero?
 
2013-01-25 12:34:02 PM  

Thunderpipes: I cannot find a matching numbers WW II Garand, which is my goal (to collect all the major WW II rifles from various nations, matching numbers). I keep hoping one will turn up at a backwoods store or gunshow, now that is looking like it will never happen. I recently found a matching numbers early war K98 which is beautiful, but that is bolt action and below the radar, for now. I don't doubt that will change with time.


Matching numbers on any Garand is going to be a tough one. Most didn't even match from the factory - the whole reason for matching numbers was due to the parts needing to be fitted to each other (headspace being an obvious reason). By the time we got to the Garand, manufacturing and design made this sort of fiddly extra work unnecessary. Maybe a better goal would be to have one that has all the correct era parts? Original barrel, correct inspection stamps and stock, trigger internals, etc?

One of my recent Garand purchases was a WWII Springfield. Nearly everything was right, but it had the wrong stock (serif on the P was, or wasn't there, I forget which), and the trigger internals were from a Korea-era H&R. Which is funny, because my Korea-era H&R (that I got from the DCM years ago) had WWII Springfield trigger internals, and I had another random, later Garand, with the right stock for the WWII Springfield. So, wozzled all the parts around to make the WWII one as right as I could, and as far as I can tell, it's as-issued except for the bayonet and scabbard. The bore is dark and the chamber is pitted, so it's not a good shooter, but it's the most correct Garand I'll probably ever have.
 
2013-01-25 12:34:17 PM  

pedrop357: ph0rk: I don't think doing nothing would go over too well. What solution to "the problem" would you suggest that might actually get passed?

Start with the premise that we should be looking at how more freedom can help solve this.

Start with allowing teachers and staff who have concealed weapon permits the ability to carry firearms in school like they already do everywhere else.
End the drug war and celebrate the thousands of lives and billions of dollars saved
Take the money and return it to the people via tax cuts and let each state decide how they're going to deal with issues like urban decay, mental health, etc.


I don't want to carry a gun. In your solution, I would need to.
 
2013-01-25 12:34:51 PM  

CPennypacker: Meh I'm lukewarm on the whole assault weapon thing. I was referring to sensible regulations like magazine size limits, which are always met with the "It only happened a few times so we shouldn't do it" style arguments you saw me dealing with above.


Your "sensible" restrictions should probably be effective enough that a 10 year old can't figure out to evade them in under a minute.
 
2013-01-25 12:34:59 PM  

pedrop357: CPennypacker: pedrop357: FlashHarry: pedrop357: They never happen until they do.

the thing is, mass shooting actually DO happen. they're not some rightwing fantasy.

Hurricanes, looting, illegal grow ops on private land, etc. are fantasies?

No, but the "I'm gonna use my gun to be a hero in these situations" certainly are fantasies

Strawman on the field, 5 yard penalty.

Who talked about being a hero?


You did, you didn't mention it specifically, but that's the fantasy, and we can see right through it.
 
2013-01-25 12:35:28 PM  

ph0rk: pedrop357: ph0rk: I don't think doing nothing would go over too well. What solution to "the problem" would you suggest that might actually get passed?

Start with the premise that we should be looking at how more freedom can help solve this.

Start with allowing teachers and staff who have concealed weapon permits the ability to carry firearms in school like they already do everywhere else.
End the drug war and celebrate the thousands of lives and billions of dollars saved
Take the money and return it to the people via tax cuts and let each state decide how they're going to deal with issues like urban decay, mental health, etc.

I don't want to carry a gun. In your solution, I would need to.


And why is that?
 
2013-01-25 12:35:32 PM  

ph0rk: Mental health checks


For who?

If even one life saved is worth all the legislation maybe make it mandatory for everyone to undergo a mental health eval.....just think of all the children you would save from abuse.
 
2013-01-25 12:35:38 PM  

Thunderpipes:
No, and anyone shooting competitions is using very high grade rounds, which will not have any issues being available. You are shooting competition with military surplus? ...


Yes, surplus. Commercial ammunition will damage both Garands and M1A's (M14's). The last time I ordered from the CMP I got 10,000 rounds of Lake City. Diane Feinstein has nightmares about guys like me.
 
2013-01-25 12:35:41 PM  

Giltric: CPennypacker: Meh I'm lukewarm on the whole assault weapon thing. I was referring to sensible regulations like magazine size limits, which are always met with the "It only happened a few times so we shouldn't do it" style arguments you saw me dealing with above.

Longer prison terms for criminals might do more to prevent gun violence than anything esle seeing as how a majority of people committing gun violence have prior convictions.


Sounds good to me if we're talking about violent criminals
 
2013-01-25 12:37:09 PM  

CPennypacker: pedrop357: CPennypacker: pedrop357: FlashHarry: pedrop357: They never happen until they do.

the thing is, mass shooting actually DO happen. they're not some rightwing fantasy.

Hurricanes, looting, illegal grow ops on private land, etc. are fantasies?

No, but the "I'm gonna use my gun to be a hero in these situations" certainly are fantasies

Strawman on the field, 5 yard penalty.

Who talked about being a hero?

You did, you didn't mention it specifically, but that's the fantasy, and we can see right through it.


Ahh. So you're telepathic or incapable of understanding that all self defense doesn't fall into the actively seeking trouble category.
 
2013-01-25 12:37:35 PM  

pedrop357: FlashHarry: toys have been taken off the market because one or two toddlers choked on them. those are rare events.

i'm sorry, but if the only justification for high-capacity magazines is that they're more convenient, then that's not justification enough.

We don't have to justify it, the other side does, and the best they can come up with is that might stop a fraction of a tiny fraction of incidents. They have to justify why this is worth depriving people of the ability to defend themselves against multiple attackers or in more desperate circumstances like natural disasters or riots. They also have to justify why the police should be able to have them when facing the same threats that we face first.


This is where the argument fails miserably.

As was stated in Heller, the 2nd ammendment is not absolute, subject to restriction, and bans on certain 'dangerous' weapons.

It is you that has to justify why you should be allowed to have a nuke, not the other way around.
 
2013-01-25 12:38:07 PM  

ph0rk: StoPPeRmobile: At the drop of a hat they will scream to alter The Constitution.

Maybe we should bring back slavery.

Funny, it seemed ok when the GOP wanted an amendment to ban gay marriage.


To whom did it seem, "ok?"
 
2013-01-25 12:38:47 PM  

Saiga410: You call that an assault weapon? Now this is a scary assault weapon.


That is fricken awesome
 
2013-01-25 12:39:10 PM  

pedrop357: CPennypacker: pedrop357: CPennypacker: pedrop357: FlashHarry: pedrop357: They never happen until they do.

the thing is, mass shooting actually DO happen. they're not some rightwing fantasy.

Hurricanes, looting, illegal grow ops on private land, etc. are fantasies?

No, but the "I'm gonna use my gun to be a hero in these situations" certainly are fantasies

Strawman on the field, 5 yard penalty.

Who talked about being a hero?

You did, you didn't mention it specifically, but that's the fantasy, and we can see right through it.

Ahh. So you're telepathic or incapable of understanding that all self defense doesn't fall into the actively seeking trouble category.


Who's said anything about seeking trouble? Its a hero fantasy.
 
2013-01-25 12:39:29 PM  

pedrop357: CPennypacker: pedrop357: FlashHarry: pedrop357: They never happen until they do.

the thing is, mass shooting actually DO happen. they're not some rightwing fantasy.

Hurricanes, looting, illegal grow ops on private land, etc. are fantasies?

No, but the "I'm gonna use my gun to be a hero in these situations" certainly are fantasies

Strawman on the field, 5 yard penalty.

Who talked about being a hero?


Its not really a strawman since youve implied it in multiple ways in the last 50 posts including, but not limited to, "allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons in schools," and paraphrasing, "the end of times never happen until they do."
 
2013-01-25 12:39:37 PM  

Giltric: Because People in power are Stupid: You would be a fool if you chose that assembly over the Browning when taking on an army of Moose.

But I can swap out the upper chambered in .50 Beowulf for any number of chamberings at half the cost of buying a new rifle. Where as you have to buy an entire collection of firearms.


I have a swiss army knife with a bottle opener on it. Using the bottle opener doesn't make it any less of a swiss army knife.
 
2013-01-25 12:39:52 PM  

Giltric: ph0rk: Mental health checks

For who?

If even one life saved is worth all the legislation maybe make it mandatory for everyone to undergo a mental health eval.....just think of all the children you would save from abuse.


Yep, as many as 170 or so children in the 4-7 age range are killed EVERY YEAR due to child abuse. About 1200 every year under the age of 11.

Seems like we should require regular mental health screening of parents as well as their children. It's win-win-win.

We ferret out the parents abusing their kids, the ones turning them into killers, and we snag some of the future killers.
 
2013-01-25 12:40:15 PM  
Technology-based laws seem to have limited use and encourage those subject to said laws to innovate their way around the laws.

The whole "assault weapon" vs. functionally identical non-assult weapon argument is more akin to pornography vs. artistic nude arguments

Assault weapons play to the customer's inner Rambo and glorify violence. Their traditional hunting equivalents (nice wood stocks, ergonomics designed around patiently waiting for the best shot) speaks to a customer's nostalgia, heritage, etc....generally more positive things .

I don't think that the pornography vs. art argument is much easier, but it seems to be a more appropriate arena than trying to define an assault weapon based on a technical specification. (i.e. the whole 'I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it' thing)
 
2013-01-25 12:40:36 PM  

ph0rk: pedrop357: ph0rk: I don't think doing nothing would go over too well. What solution to "the problem" would you suggest that might actually get passed?

Start with the premise that we should be looking at how more freedom can help solve this.

Start with allowing teachers and staff who have concealed weapon permits the ability to carry firearms in school like they already do everywhere else.
End the drug war and celebrate the thousands of lives and billions of dollars saved
Take the money and return it to the people via tax cuts and let each state decide how they're going to deal with issues like urban decay, mental health, etc.

I don't want to carry a gun. In your solution, I would need to.


Why? Its hardly a society more well armed than todays and I certainly feel no need Rolodex be armed personally. This is one of the least snooty periods in American history and the numbers are still falling.
 
2013-01-25 12:42:16 PM  

CPennypacker: pedrop357: CPennypacker: pedrop357: CPennypacker: pedrop357: FlashHarry: pedrop357: They never happen until they do.

the thing is, mass shooting actually DO happen. they're not some rightwing fantasy.

Hurricanes, looting, illegal grow ops on private land, etc. are fantasies?

No, but the "I'm gonna use my gun to be a hero in these situations" certainly are fantasies

Strawman on the field, 5 yard penalty.

Who talked about being a hero?

You did, you didn't mention it specifically, but that's the fantasy, and we can see right through it.

Ahh. So you're telepathic or incapable of understanding that all self defense doesn't fall into the actively seeking trouble category.

Who's said anything about seeking trouble? Its a hero fantasy.


which implies that these people WANT to use their gun and stop the bad guy.

Some just don't want to be killed because a group of men decided that they were worthy of being raped and murdered. Some aren't thrilled with the idea that they might be killed after stumbling upon people collecting their harvest at the edge of the property.
Others just don't want to beaten, killed, or simply have everything of value stolen by looters.

Does your 'hero' claim apply to the police who also possess 'large' magazines and 'assault weapons'?
 
2013-01-25 12:43:23 PM  

ph0rk: dittybopper: Democratic Party was doing real well in 1993. They controlled both houses of Congress with healthy majorities, and the presidency. Then they got their asses handed to them because of the Brady Bill and the original Assault Weapons Ban

Perhaps. I don't think they'll be singing the same tune this time - Gay rights and immigration will be much larger planks in the platform, and people get a lot more worked up about those issues, or have lately. I expect these bills to go nowhere fast and the issue to more or less die within six months. What they are doing now is probably just posturing, but that's the game.


They are putting an awful lot of effort into it. More than I would expect if it were just a sop to the very liberal wing.
 
2013-01-25 12:44:42 PM  

Holocaust Agnostic: ph0rk: pedrop357: ph0rk: I don't think doing nothing would go over too well. What solution to "the problem" would you suggest that might actually get passed?

Start with the premise that we should be looking at how more freedom can help solve this.

Start with allowing teachers and staff who have concealed weapon permits the ability to carry firearms in school like they already do everywhere else.
End the drug war and celebrate the thousands of lives and billions of dollars saved
Take the money and return it to the people via tax cuts and let each state decide how they're going to deal with issues like urban decay, mental health, etc.

I don't want to carry a gun. In your solution, I would need to.

Why? Its hardly a society more well armed than todays and I certainly feel no need Rolodex be armed personally. This is one of the least snooty periods in American history and the numbers are still falling.


Least shooty*

/The times actually are very snooty.
 
2013-01-25 12:46:47 PM  

dittybopper: ph0rk: dittybopper: Democratic Party was doing real well in 1993. They controlled both houses of Congress with healthy majorities, and the presidency. Then they got their asses handed to them because of the Brady Bill and the original Assault Weapons Ban

Perhaps. I don't think they'll be singing the same tune this time - Gay rights and immigration will be much larger planks in the platform, and people get a lot more worked up about those issues, or have lately. I expect these bills to go nowhere fast and the issue to more or less die within six months. What they are doing now is probably just posturing, but that's the game.

They are putting an awful lot of effort into it. More than I would expect if it were just a sop to the very liberal wing.


This.

It's not just an appeal to their base. So far, the old guard in that party appears to be willing to put it all the line just to climb onto that aging hobby horse one more time.
 
2013-01-25 12:47:15 PM  

pedrop357: CPennypacker: pedrop357: CPennypacker: pedrop357: CPennypacker: pedrop357: FlashHarry: pedrop357: They never happen until they do.

the thing is, mass shooting actually DO happen. they're not some rightwing fantasy.

Hurricanes, looting, illegal grow ops on private land, etc. are fantasies?

No, but the "I'm gonna use my gun to be a hero in these situations" certainly are fantasies

Strawman on the field, 5 yard penalty.

Who talked about being a hero?

You did, you didn't mention it specifically, but that's the fantasy, and we can see right through it.

Ahh. So you're telepathic or incapable of understanding that all self defense doesn't fall into the actively seeking trouble category.

Who's said anything about seeking trouble? Its a hero fantasy.

which implies that these people WANT to use their gun and stop the bad guy.

Some just don't want to be killed because a group of men decided that they were worthy of being raped and murdered. Some aren't thrilled with the idea that they might be killed after stumbling upon people collecting their harvest at the edge of the property.
Others just don't want to beaten, killed, or simply have everything of value stolen by looters.

Does your 'hero' claim apply to the police who also possess 'large' magazines and 'assault weapons'?


Protip: if you find yourself constantly in these situations, maybe you need to move.
 
2013-01-25 12:47:52 PM  

CPennypacker: Meh I'm lukewarm on the whole assault weapon thing. I was referring to sensible regulations like magazine size limits, which are always met with the "It only happened a few times so we shouldn't do it" style arguments you saw me dealing with above.


Magazine limits are a problem too. Say you limit them to 10 rounds. Then another bunch of shootings happen where a person loaded up on multiple 10 rounders instead of just a handful of 20 or 30 rounders. Then what? Pass a law like New York just did limiting them to 7 rounds?

The whole magazine limitation is silly anyway: It's based upon game laws which are designed to preserve game. I find the idea that we should extend the same protections to criminals and tyrants that we extend to deer and other game ludicrous.
 
2013-01-25 12:49:40 PM  

pedrop357: Giltric: ph0rk: Mental health checks

For who?

If even one life saved is worth all the legislation maybe make it mandatory for everyone to undergo a mental health eval.....just think of all the children you would save from abuse.

Yep, as many as 170 or so children in the 4-7 age range are killed EVERY YEAR due to child abuse. About 1200 every year under the age of 11.

Seems like we should require regular mental health screening of parents as well as their children. It's win-win-win.

We ferret out the parents abusing their kids, the ones turning them into killers, and we snag some of the future killers.


I call for sensable, sane, and reasonable control on parents. Maybe screening will help, as you suggested but I don't think that is enough.

1) Licensing. Renewed every 5 years.
2) Centralized, federal government controlled listing and communication of the licensed parents.
3) Periodic, random inspection at the home, work, and school.
4) Annual mental screenings.
5) Testing and qualification.
6) Increased penalties for committing crimes involving children.
7) Vigorous background investigation.
9) Ban abortion.
8) Funding for this program.

If you do not support these points in their entirety, you might as well be killing babies.
 
2013-01-25 12:49:51 PM  

CPennypacker: pedrop357: CPennypacker: pedrop357: CPennypacker: pedrop357: CPennypacker: pedrop357: FlashHarry: pedrop357: They never happen until they do.

the thing is, mass shooting actually DO happen. they're not some rightwing fantasy.

Hurricanes, looting, illegal grow ops on private land, etc. are fantasies?

No, but the "I'm gonna use my gun to be a hero in these situations" certainly are fantasies

Strawman on the field, 5 yard penalty.

Who talked about being a hero?

You did, you didn't mention it specifically, but that's the fantasy, and we can see right through it.

Ahh. So you're telepathic or incapable of understanding that all self defense doesn't fall into the actively seeking trouble category.

Who's said anything about seeking trouble? Its a hero fantasy.

which implies that these people WANT to use their gun and stop the bad guy.

Some just don't want to be killed because a group of men decided that they were worthy of being raped and murdered. Some aren't thrilled with the idea that they might be killed after stumbling upon people collecting their harvest at the edge of the property.
Others just don't want to beaten, killed, or simply have everything of value stolen by looters.

Does your 'hero' claim apply to the police who also possess 'large' magazines and 'assault weapons'?

Protip: if you find yourself constantly in these situations, maybe you need to move.


Goal post move, 15 yard penalty.

Why does it have to be constant?

Does that apply to the police? Should they quit their job if they feel the need to carry 15 round magazines and AR type rifles in their trunks?
 
2013-01-25 12:50:00 PM  

dittybopper: CPennypacker: Meh I'm lukewarm on the whole assault weapon thing. I was referring to sensible regulations like magazine size limits, which are always met with the "It only happened a few times so we shouldn't do it" style arguments you saw me dealing with above.

Magazine limits are a problem too. Say you limit them to 10 rounds. Then another bunch of shootings happen where a person loaded up on multiple 10 rounders instead of just a handful of 20 or 30 rounders. Then what? Pass a law like New York just did limiting them to 7 rounds?

The whole magazine limitation is silly anyway: It's based upon game laws which are designed to preserve game. I find the idea that we should extend the same protections to criminals and tyrants that we extend to deer and other game ludicrous.


The whole point is that is creates a momentary lapse in the gunfire which gives people a chance to react, not that he can carry a smaller total of bullets
 
2013-01-25 12:51:40 PM  

dittybopper: CPennypacker: Meh I'm lukewarm on the whole assault weapon thing. I was referring to sensible regulations like magazine size limits, which are always met with the "It only happened a few times so we shouldn't do it" style arguments you saw me dealing with above.

Magazine limits are a problem too. Say you limit them to 10 rounds. Then another bunch of shootings happen where a person loaded up on multiple 10 rounders instead of just a handful of 20 or 30 rounders. Then what? Pass a law like New York just did limiting them to 7 rounds?

The whole magazine limitation is silly anyway: It's based upon game laws which are designed to preserve game. I find the idea that we should extend the same protections to criminals and tyrants that we extend to deer and other game ludicrous.


This.

We've tried arbitrary limits down to 10 without effecting any change in crime.

MD is 20
NJ is 15
CA,MA,NY (pre-2013), federal 94-04, various cities is 10
NY is now 7

What makes NY's new arbitrary number better than MD's?
 
2013-01-25 12:52:13 PM  

pedrop357: CPennypacker: pedrop357: CPennypacker: pedrop357: CPennypacker: pedrop357: CPennypacker: pedrop357: FlashHarry: pedrop357: They never happen until they do.

the thing is, mass shooting actually DO happen. they're not some rightwing fantasy.

Hurricanes, looting, illegal grow ops on private land, etc. are fantasies?

No, but the "I'm gonna use my gun to be a hero in these situations" certainly are fantasies

Strawman on the field, 5 yard penalty.

Who talked about being a hero?

You did, you didn't mention it specifically, but that's the fantasy, and we can see right through it.

Ahh. So you're telepathic or incapable of understanding that all self defense doesn't fall into the actively seeking trouble category.

Who's said anything about seeking trouble? Its a hero fantasy.

which implies that these people WANT to use their gun and stop the bad guy.

Some just don't want to be killed because a group of men decided that they were worthy of being raped and murdered. Some aren't thrilled with the idea that they might be killed after stumbling upon people collecting their harvest at the edge of the property.
Others just don't want to beaten, killed, or simply have everything of value stolen by looters.

Does your 'hero' claim apply to the police who also possess 'large' magazines and 'assault weapons'?

Protip: if you find yourself constantly in these situations, maybe you need to move.

Goal post move, 15 yard penalty.

Why does it have to be constant?

Does that apply to the police? Should they quit their job if they feel the need to carry 15 round magazines and AR type rifles in their trunks?


Do you really think you're funny with these fallacy jabs?

You do realize you look very stupid nitpicking logical fallacies out of sarcastic quips, right?
 
2013-01-25 12:52:57 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: pedrop357: Giltric: ph0rk: Mental health checks

For who?

If even one life saved is worth all the legislation maybe make it mandatory for everyone to undergo a mental health eval.....just think of all the children you would save from abuse.

Yep, as many as 170 or so children in the 4-7 age range are killed EVERY YEAR due to child abuse. About 1200 every year under the age of 11.

Seems like we should require regular mental health screening of parents as well as their children. It's win-win-win.

We ferret out the parents abusing their kids, the ones turning them into killers, and we snag some of the future killers.

I call for sensable, sane, and reasonable control on parents. Maybe screening will help, as you suggested but I don't think that is enough.

1) Licensing. Renewed every 5 years.
2) Centralized, federal government controlled listing and communication of the licensed parents.
3) Periodic, random inspection at the home, work, and school.
4) Annual mental screenings.
5) Testing and qualification.
6) Increased penalties for committing crimes involving children.
7) Vigorous background investigation.
9) Ban abortion.
8) Funding for this program.

If you do not support these points in their entirety, you might as well be killing babies.


Do you still suggest some type of 'registration' to vote, or have you herped a derp on that one?
 
2013-01-25 12:53:31 PM  

CPennypacker: The whole point is that is creates a momentary lapse in the gunfire which gives people a chance to react, not that he can carry a smaller total of bullets


Which has rarely been the case. Shooters in the last 10 or so years just bring more magazines and reload when they want.

lower capacity has the ugly side effect of forcing a person to reload more often while under attack from multiple people, or facing multiple trespassers, looters, etc.
 
2013-01-25 12:54:39 PM  

CPennypacker: Do you really think you're funny with these fallacy jabs?

You do realize you look very stupid nitpicking logical fallacies out of sarcastic quips, right?


Not as stupid as you do constantly moving the goal around.
 
2013-01-25 12:58:43 PM  

Oblio13: Thunderpipes:
No, and anyone shooting competitions is using very high grade rounds, which will not have any issues being available. You are shooting competition with military surplus? ...

Yes, surplus. Commercial ammunition will damage both Garands and M1A's (M14's). The last time I ordered from the CMP I got 10,000 rounds of Lake City. Diane Feinstein has nightmares about guys like me.


Anything but a very tight match-tuned non-JCG-match-kosher M1 won't group all that much better with fine handloads or FGMM than with Greek HXP surplus. At that point, you hafta bite the bullet and go to the M1A (or an AR if you're a sissy)
 
2013-01-25 12:59:26 PM  

pedrop357: dittybopper: ph0rk: dittybopper: Democratic Party was doing real well in 1993. They controlled both houses of Congress with healthy majorities, and the presidency. Then they got their asses handed to them because of the Brady Bill and the original Assault Weapons Ban

Perhaps. I don't think they'll be singing the same tune this time - Gay rights and immigration will be much larger planks in the platform, and people get a lot more worked up about those issues, or have lately. I expect these bills to go nowhere fast and the issue to more or less die within six months. What they are doing now is probably just posturing, but that's the game.

They are putting an awful lot of effort into it. More than I would expect if it were just a sop to the very liberal wing.

This.

It's not just an appeal to their base. So far, the old guard in that party appears to be willing to put it all the line just to climb onto that aging hobby horse one more time.


Things *ARE* different this time, though: AR-15's are pretty much ubiquitous now unlike in 1994, and gun ownership isn't necessarily frowned upon in the popular entertainment media. Most handguns are semi-autos, and the majority of semi-auto handguns have a capacity of at least 10 rounds.

Plus, we have something we didn't have in 1994: The Heller and McDonald decisions. They don't preclude regulation, of course, but we didn't have a Supreme Court decision back in 1994 that said outright bans on common guns are unconstitutional, and we now have *TWO*.

Still, I'd much rather not have to fight it in court and possibly lose, though fighting it in court and winning would settle the matter once and for all.
 
2013-01-25 01:00:22 PM  

pedrop357: CPennypacker: The whole point is that is creates a momentary lapse in the gunfire which gives people a chance to react, not that he can carry a smaller total of bullets

Which has rarely been the case. Shooters in the last 10 or so years just bring more magazines and reload when they want.

lower capacity has the ugly side effect of forcing a person to reload more often while under attack from multiple people, or facing multiple trespassers, looters, etc.


I gave you two examples where it happened in addition to the one you have and I looked for all of 5 seconds

pedrop357: CPennypacker: Do you really think you're funny with these fallacy jabs?

You do realize you look very stupid nitpicking logical fallacies out of sarcastic quips, right?

Not as stupid as you do constantly moving the goal around.


I better be careful not to make any more logically fallacious jokes or my face will really be red.
 
2013-01-25 01:00:54 PM  

syrynxx: forbidden


Not true. I asked them pointedly if resale was illegal or against the agreement. Answer was no, but the intent is not to be making profits off of them.

It is absolute done, and I think it's wrong, but I wouldn't sell mine unless I was too old to use them. Or if I sold them for my cost to help support a new youth marksman or something.
 
2013-01-25 01:06:37 PM  
Semantics. Call it "regulated weapon", call it "taint salad", it doesn't matter.

Now, how are you going to define "too crazy to be around guns"?
 
2013-01-25 01:09:15 PM  

Trapper439:

Fark your hobby.


Riiiight. 'Cause clearly my legal, responsible ownership of guns indicates direct causality to every tragedy.

Once again, way to pinpoint the problem.
 
2013-01-25 01:12:11 PM  

justtray: StoPPeRmobile: pedrop357: Giltric: ph0rk: Mental health checks

For who?

If even one life saved is worth all the legislation maybe make it mandatory for everyone to undergo a mental health eval.....just think of all the children you would save from abuse.

Yep, as many as 170 or so children in the 4-7 age range are killed EVERY YEAR due to child abuse. About 1200 every year under the age of 11.

Seems like we should require regular mental health screening of parents as well as their children. It's win-win-win.

We ferret out the parents abusing their kids, the ones turning them into killers, and we snag some of the future killers.

I call for sensable, sane, and reasonable control on parents. Maybe screening will help, as you suggested but I don't think that is enough.

1) Licensing. Renewed every 5 years.
2) Centralized, federal government controlled listing and communication of the licensed parents.
3) Periodic, random inspection at the home, work, and school.
4) Annual mental screenings.
5) Testing and qualification.
6) Increased penalties for committing crimes involving children.
7) Vigorous background investigation.
9) Ban abortion.
8) Funding for this program.

If you do not support these points in their entirety, you might as well be killing babies.

Do you still suggest some type of 'registration' to vote, or have you herped a derp on that one?


Every right should have safe, sane, and reasonable restrictions, for the protection of society.

Are you antisocial?
 
2013-01-25 01:12:29 PM  

ph0rk: Mikey1969: No, what I meant was what is it about Alton Brown, I hear this relatively frequently and haven't been able to figure it out. All of the reality show "chefs", I get that, but I was just curious why people don't like Brown, that's all. Wasn't calling you a weenie for not liking him or anything like that.

Probably because of all the reality chefs, he is the one about which friends and acquaintances have said "you must watch his show, you will like it, it is awesome"

And I watched it and didn't like it, so now I have an opinion about him, in particular one that is negative after others built up my expectations.

I also don't like Elvis or the Beatles, so there you go.


Fair enough... There are other shows that are better(America's Test Kitchen is awesome), but I can definitely take him over the rest of them, although I wouldn't call him "reality", there's no real behind the scenes in real life element.

I like the Beatles, not really all that excited by Elvis, so I see that as well.
 
2013-01-25 01:13:10 PM  

ph0rk: Thunderpipes: If the Dems any party gain complete control, I guarantee you even Farkers will be sad.

I don't think many folks would like an unopposed party in power.


I respectfully disagree. Remember, you have supposed main stream media journalists calling for the "annihilation" of the GOP party.

If Dems got complete control, almost all guns would be banned. Then the 4th amendment would go, maybe via executive action, because the ATF needs to go into your house to check, without a warrant. I can only imagine where it would lead from there. Slippery slope leads to all kinds of crazy. Remember, these are the same people who flew in to a rage because under Bush, people checking out bomb making books were going to be flagged. Now they want every legal gun owner to be booked and fingerprinted, mugshots taken, guns made illegal, taken away, and they cheer when Feinstein puts this forward. The hypocrisy is just amazing.

Does any liberal Farker here not want complete Democrat control so they can get their free stuff? I doubt it. They just don't understand that there is a limited amount of money they can take from working folks.

At least Obama just lost the NLRB case, his appointments were unconstitutional. This from a guy who is supposed to be an expert on the Constitution.... hmm.... But, given enough time, Dems could control the courts too, so the Constitution could be rewritten as they see fit. So dumbass college kids and unemployed people would have all the power. What do you think they will want? More taxes to the working, more free stuff for them, less rights for individuals.
 
2013-01-25 01:13:28 PM  

Saiga410: Mikey1969: Saiga410: You call that an assault weapon? Now this is a scary assault weapon.

I like that a lot. The pistols are a bit much, but that might be fun to shoot, and when compared to my .45 small frame pistol, I bet there would be almost no recoil.

Yep it is fun but under my reading of the Feinstein bill it would be considered an assault weapon. Rotating cylinder shotgun.


How much is that going for(Pre-Panic prices, of course)?
 
2013-01-25 01:14:18 PM  

CPennypacker: dittybopper: CPennypacker: Meh I'm lukewarm on the whole assault weapon thing. I was referring to sensible regulations like magazine size limits, which are always met with the "It only happened a few times so we shouldn't do it" style arguments you saw me dealing with above.

Magazine limits are a problem too. Say you limit them to 10 rounds. Then another bunch of shootings happen where a person loaded up on multiple 10 rounders instead of just a handful of 20 or 30 rounders. Then what? Pass a law like New York just did limiting them to 7 rounds?

The whole magazine limitation is silly anyway: It's based upon game laws which are designed to preserve game. I find the idea that we should extend the same protections to criminals and tyrants that we extend to deer and other game ludicrous.

The whole point is that is creates a momentary lapse in the gunfire which gives people a chance to react, not that he can carry a smaller total of bullets


The problem with this theory is that such shooters will engineer the circumstances to minimize the danger to themselves.

The Cumbria shootings are a perfect example of that. The main weapon the shooter used was a double barrel shotgun. They only hold 2 rounds. His strategy was to shoot and move on before any resistance.

Then we have the Beltway Sniper shootings: They used an AR-15, but they only fired one or two shots at most then moved on. Magazine restrictions wouldn't have helped.

Similarly, there is the Charles Whitman shootings: He mostly used a bolt action hunting rifle.

The type of people who do this sort of thing don't just "snap". They plan for weeks, months, and in some cases even years. They will engineer the circumstances so that any magazine limitation you might come up with won't affect them.

Then too, we're pretty close to just being able to print magazines anyway, so any restrictions might just be academic.
 
2013-01-25 01:14:44 PM  

lordjupiter: Semantics. Call it "regulated weapon", call it "taint salad", it doesn't matter.

Now, how are you going to define "too crazy to be around guns"?


"Posting on Fark" plus one other feature.
 
2013-01-25 01:16:20 PM  

CPennypacker: I better be careful not to make any more logically fallacious jokes or my face will really be red.


Ahh, the old "I was just kidding" technique. Try to play it straight in a straight discussion.


I gave you two examples where it happened in addition to the one you have and I looked for all of 5 seconds

I did say last 10 years in my last post.

Two of your examples were from 93 and 98. Apparently mass shooters have learned from that and in the last 10-12 years, all seem to just carry as many magazines as they want, reload as they please, and kill until they run out of ammo or finally encounter resistance 10-30 minutes into their rampage. Magazine capacity means even less now than it did before in the area of reducing carnage in a mass shooting.
 
2013-01-25 01:19:09 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Every right should have safe, sane, and reasonable restrictions, for the protection of society.

Are you antisocial?


Agreed. The 2nd amendment and general right to bear arms doesn't protect:
-a person brandishing, pointing, or shooting firearm at another person except in cases of self defense
-firing a gun in the air,
-discharging a gun in congested areas except for self defense, firing at an indoor range, etc.

There are your safe, sane, and reasonable restrictions, for the protection of society.
 
2013-01-25 01:21:57 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: lordjupiter: Semantics. Call it "regulated weapon", call it "taint salad", it doesn't matter.

Now, how are you going to define "too crazy to be around guns"?

"Posting on Fark" plus one other feature.


Done.
 
2013-01-25 01:22:25 PM  

dittybopper: Things *ARE* different this time, though: AR-15's are pretty much ubiquitous now unlike in 1994, and gun ownership isn't necessarily frowned upon in the popular entertainment media. Most handguns are semi-autos, and the majority of semi-auto handguns have a capacity of at least 10 rounds.

Plus, we have something we didn't have in 1994: The Heller and McDonald decisions. They don't preclude regulation, of course, but we didn't have a Supreme Court decision back in 1994 that said outright bans on common guns are unconstitutional, and we now have *TWO*.

Still, I'd much rather not have to fight it in court and possibly lose, though fighting it in court and winning would settle the matter once and for all.


Internet access also means reaching a much wider audience and pointing them to the facts. it also allows for fantastic grass roots organizing as we saw on the 18th.

Unless the court goes crazy, the semi-auto ban should fail any strict scrutiny tests and any kind of common use or unusual weapons standards. It would be nice to see safe congressmen/women and a lame duck president tank the party AND open the door to those state bans they love so much being tossed out.
 
2013-01-25 01:25:48 PM  

Mikey1969: Saiga410: Mikey1969: Saiga410: You call that an assault weapon? Now this is a scary assault weapon.

I like that a lot. The pistols are a bit much, but that might be fun to shoot, and when compared to my .45 small frame pistol, I bet there would be almost no recoil.

Yep it is fun but under my reading of the Feinstein bill it would be considered an assault weapon. Rotating cylinder shotgun.

How much is that going for(Pre-Panic prices, of course)?


Just checked and Gander Mountain has it at ~$530.
 
Displayed 50 of 694 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report