Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(The Hill)   Obama uses his executive power to take your guns. No, not really. Yet   ( thehill.com) divider line
    More: Scary, President Obama, Sandy Hook Elementary School, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, law enforcement officials, scientific methods, semiautomatic firearms, Richard Feldman, NRA  
•       •       •

3837 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Mar 2013 at 11:06 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



500 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-03-29 10:17:18 AM  
Yeah, God forbid we have actual background checks to enforce the laws we already have about people trying to buy guns who are actual felons and actual psychos.

These gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they just admitted that they like to play with their toys and would drop the pretense that the second amendment is still about keeping the government from getting out of control with the threat of armed insurrection.
 
2013-03-29 10:20:30 AM  
For fark's sake, not this shiat again. Expand background checks = they be coming fer mys guns! Increase funding for research on gun violence = Obama's taking my guns! The sun is out today = the guberment wants to disarm me so they can enslave me!
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-29 10:30:36 AM  
i wonder what exactly is going on in someone's head to make them so obsessed with a weapons (or sporting goods if you listen to some gun nuts).

I remember when three wheel ATVs were banned.  there were people who were upset, but no one was threatening to start killing people.
 
2013-03-29 10:33:50 AM  
It's scary that they get so afraid.
 
2013-03-29 10:33:51 AM  
Good luck with all of that.
Take the 30+ round magazines, full auto weapons, and the really scary "military" style weapons.
Then enforce the laws on the books.

And finally leave my shiat alone.
 
2013-03-29 10:51:12 AM  
What is it with gunnuts and their need to have 10, 20, 30 guns? I'm a hardcore computer gamer- I have one PC. My wife collects sewing machines. She has about 20 of them, but all but one are antiques.  I can understand having a collection of antique firearms, but many of these nuts have collections of modern guns. Why do gun freaks need to have 20 different guns, most of which do the exact same thing? If they really examined the impetus behind their hobby, they might find they have a problem.
 
2013-03-29 11:02:25 AM  

Dinki: What is it with gunnuts and their need to have 10, 20, 30 guns?


Because they all have wet dreams about facing an oppressive government if they someday have to, which would have happened already if they actually had the balls. They would be beaten down like the red headed step child of a rented mule but at least they would have put their money where their mouth is.
 
2013-03-29 11:04:10 AM  

Mugato: Dinki: What is it with gunnuts and their need to have 10, 20, 30 guns?

Because they all have wet dreams about facing an oppressive government if they someday have to, which would have happened already if they actually had the balls. They would be beaten down like the red headed step child of a rented mule but at least they would have put their money where their mouth is.


To wit

mediamatters.orgView Full Size



Give us a farking break.
 
2013-03-29 11:08:55 AM  
Every time I hear someone say "executive power," I imagine Obama dressed as Dracula from Castlevania SOTN unleashing the two fireballs that you couldn't extinguish with your whip.
 
2013-03-29 11:09:46 AM  

Mugato: Dinki: What is it with gunnuts and their need to have 10, 20, 30 guns?

Because they all have wet dreams about facing an oppressive government if they someday have to, which would have happened already if they actually had the balls. They would be beaten down like the red headed step child of a rented mule but at least they would have put their money where their mouth is.


Do these fark tards realize that the CIA, not the military mind you, has in its possession a weapon which can find you through walls at distances up to 5 miles and then kill you with a missile at that range?
 
2013-03-29 11:09:49 AM  

Dinki: What is it with gunnuts and their need to have 10, 20, 30 guns? I'm a hardcore computer gamer- I have one PC. My wife collects sewing machines. She has about 20 of them, but all but one are antiques. I can understand having a collection of antique firearms, but many of these nuts have collections of modern guns. Why do gun freaks need to have 20 different guns, most of which do the exact same thing? If they really examined the impetus behind their hobby, they might find they have a problem.


Alamo fetish.
 
2013-03-29 11:09:54 AM  

NightOwl2255: For fark's sake, not this shiat again.


From now until 2014.  If it gets the GOP seats, it's going to get even worse.
 
2013-03-29 11:12:11 AM  

Mugato: Yeah, God forbid we have actual background checks to enforce the laws we already have about people trying to buy guns who are actual felons and actual psychos.


...which the NRA wing of the Republican party is trying to remove from the books.  Colorado Republicans don't think that a law-abiding domestic abuser should be stripped of his 2nd amendment God-given right to own a gun, nor do Louisiana justices think that a law-abiding convicted felon be unduly burdened with the confiscation of their firearms (though, to be fair, that would mean that you can get your guns taken away for pot possession, but still...)
 
2013-03-29 11:13:23 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Do these fark tards realize that the CIA, not the military mind you, has in its possession a weapon which can find you through walls at distances up to 5 miles and then kill you with a missile at that range?


No, they just watch Red Dawn in a continual loop. And it's kick ass.
 
2013-03-29 11:15:09 AM  

Mugato: Yeah, God forbid we have actual background checks to enforce the laws we already have about people trying to buy guns who are actual felons and actual psychos.

These gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they just admitted that they like to play with their toys and would drop the pretense that the second amendment is still about keeping the government from getting out of control with the threat of armed insurrection.


Which, as far as I can tell, is all an executive order really does: recommend where we need to be using our resources, and what numbers the president wants to see changed. Get your tin foil hats off, you psychotic lunatics, it's going to be okay.
 
2013-03-29 11:15:35 AM  

Dinki: What is it with gunnuts and their need to have 10, 20, 30 guns? I'm a hardcore computer gamer- I have one PC. My wife collects sewing machines. She has about 20 of them, but all but one are antiques.  I can understand having a collection of antique firearms, but many of these nuts have collections of modern guns. Why do gun freaks need to have 20 different guns, most of which do the exact same thing? If they really examined the impetus behind their hobby, they might find they have a problem.


Handgun for CCW, Shotgun for duck and geese, 45-70 lever action for nosy bears while huniting moose and elk with my .308. .22 for targets and gophers and rabbits, .223 for coyotes and prarie dogs....

A .22 won't work against a moose, and a 45-70 won't leave much of a rabbit left to cook for dinner.

A more important question is why can't they standardize screw heads? Why do I need a standard, a philips, a torx, an allen head etc....just to work on my truck?
 
2013-03-29 11:16:18 AM  
"No Donnie, these men are cowards." -Walter Sobchak, Did Not Watch His Buddies Die Face Down in the Muck to Live in an America Replete With An Inordinate Amount of Pussies Whose Dicks Have Been Purchased at Wal-mart in the Sporting Goods Section.
 
2013-03-29 11:17:07 AM  
I dunno.  Stories like these always make me smile.

Granted, it's not the stories that are the actual source of joy.  It's the fact that some deluded gun nut will read it and off himself and his innocent family rather than live under what he has been told to believe is Obama's oppressive iron boot that brings the biggest smile to my face.
 
2013-03-29 11:17:31 AM  
 
2013-03-29 11:17:44 AM  

NightOwl2255: For fark's sake, not this shiat again. Expand background checks = they be coming fer mys guns! Increase funding for research on gun violence = Obama's taking my guns! The sun is out today = the guberment wants to disarm me so they can enslave me!


Here's what I don't get. Wouldn't law-abiding, responsible gun owners WANT better regulations on who can own guns? Aren't these wackos giving them a bad name? It's like when I'm at a party, and someone's being a dick, I want that dude to get kicked out ASAP so the rest of us can enjoy ourselves instead of being lumped together and having the whole thing shut down. If you truly are a responsible, safe, law-abiding gun owner, you should welcome this. Why are you so worried about YOUR guns being taken away? Are you worried that it might be discovered you're not so responsible after all?
 
2013-03-29 11:17:48 AM  

Mugato: No, they just watch Red Dawn in a continual loop. And it's kick ass.


This comment is extra funny for me today since I just watched the remake last night.

I tell you what, Thor better be glad that movie was delayed. That movie was so shiatty it could have easily stalled his career.
 
2013-03-29 11:18:00 AM  

Giltric: Dinki: What is it with gunnuts and their need to have 10, 20, 30 guns? I'm a hardcore computer gamer- I have one PC. My wife collects sewing machines. She has about 20 of them, but all but one are antiques.  I can understand having a collection of antique firearms, but many of these nuts have collections of modern guns. Why do gun freaks need to have 20 different guns, most of which do the exact same thing? If they really examined the impetus behind their hobby, they might find they have a problem.

Handgun for CCW, Shotgun for duck and geese, 45-70 lever action for nosy bears while huniting moose and elk with my .308. .22 for targets and gophers and rabbits, .223 for coyotes and prarie dogs....

A .22 won't work against a moose, and a 45-70 won't leave much of a rabbit left to cook for dinner.

A more important question is why can't they standardize screw heads? Why do I need a standard, a philips, a torx, an allen head etc....just to work on my truck?


No idea why we still have standard (to open paint cans I guess) but I think we have the torx type ones as they are used by machines putting stuff together.  Probably the screws hold on better.
 
2013-03-29 11:18:24 AM  
You want to pass background checks for law abiding Americans?  Pass an executive order that recognizes a Muslim-American's right to bear arms.  Yes, I know they already can, but much like Republicans pointless laws, it would scare the shiat out of the right bad enough that they'd be willing to submit to background checks solely based upon forcing Muslims to be subject to further scrutiny.
 
2013-03-29 11:18:34 AM  
Comments thread on TFA are eye-popping, considering how milquetoast the article was.  And I thought that the Fark gun threads drew a surprising number of freaks.
 
2013-03-29 11:18:56 AM  
Where did the money for this come from?

I thought we were under strict across the board sequestor.
 
2013-03-29 11:19:33 AM  
So, let me get this straight:  On March 29, 2013 this author finally picked up on what those 23 Executive Directives, Memorandum, and Policy Statements (NOT TO BE CONFUSED with an Exec. Order, which has the force of law) issued by Obama back on January 16, 2013 actually meant?

No NEW Exec. Orders have been issued in the interim and nothing in the announced policy of the administration has changed.

Other than to continue to rouse the rabble, I really don't get the point of this article.
 
2013-03-29 11:19:53 AM  

Vodka Zombie: I dunno.  Stories like these always make me smile.

Granted, it's not the stories that are the actual source of joy.  It's the fact that some deluded gun nut will read it and off himself and his innocent family rather than live under what he has been told to believe is Obama's oppressive iron boot that brings the biggest smile to my face.


That's farked up, dude.
 
2013-03-29 11:22:04 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Mugato: Dinki: What is it with gunnuts and their need to have 10, 20, 30 guns?

Because they all have wet dreams about facing an oppressive government if they someday have to, which would have happened already if they actually had the balls. They would be beaten down like the red headed step child of a rented mule but at least they would have put their money where their mouth is.

Do these fark tards realize that the CIA, not the military mind you, has in its possession a weapon which can find you through walls at distances up to 5 miles and then kill you with a missile at that range?



Maybe people should move in next door to you and use your proximity to them as a human shield ....actually I don't think the government would care if you die when they target some guy who is on their list.

They don't seem to care about collateral damage in Afghanistan or Iraq......why start now when it comes to America?

Were you in favor of or opposed to collateral damage when Bush/Obama was targetting terrorists?
 
2013-03-29 11:22:13 AM  

Dinki: What is it with gunnuts and their need to have 10, 20, 30 guns? I'm a hardcore computer gamer- I have one PC. My wife collects sewing machines. She has about 20 of them, but all but one are antiques.  I can understand having a collection of antique firearms, but many of these nuts have collections of modern guns. Why do gun freaks need to have 20 different guns, most of which do the exact same thing? If they really examined the impetus behind their hobby, they might find they have a problem.


I know right. It's like people who have different sized wrenches. Whats up with that? Can't get the job done with a 3/8th? You shouldn't be putting stuff together.
 
2013-03-29 11:22:23 AM  

Car_Ramrod: Vodka Zombie: I dunno.  Stories like these always make me smile.

Granted, it's not the stories that are the actual source of joy.  It's the fact that some deluded gun nut will read it and off himself and his innocent family rather than live under what he has been told to believe is Obama's oppressive iron boot that brings the biggest smile to my face.

That's farked up, dude.


I know.

Not much I can do about it, sadly.
 
2013-03-29 11:23:40 AM  

Car_Ramrod: NightOwl2255: For fark's sake, not this shiat again. Expand background checks = they be coming fer mys guns! Increase funding for research on gun violence = Obama's taking my guns! The sun is out today = the guberment wants to disarm me so they can enslave me!

Here's what I don't get. Wouldn't law-abiding, responsible gun owners WANT better regulations on who can own guns? Aren't these wackos giving them a bad name? It's like when I'm at a party, and someone's being a dick, I want that dude to get kicked out ASAP so the rest of us can enjoy ourselves instead of being lumped together and having the whole thing shut down. If you truly are a responsible, safe, law-abiding gun owner, you should welcome this. Why are you so worried about YOUR guns being taken away? Are you worried that it might be discovered you're not so responsible after all?


Get rid of the part in proposed legislation where the AG sets the fee for the proposed UBCs.

Make them free to anyone who wants to use an FFL to transfer a firearm to someone else.
 
2013-03-29 11:23:56 AM  

Giltric: Maybe people should move in next door to you and use your proximity to them as a human shield ....actually I don't think the government would care if you die when they target some guy who is on their list.

They don't seem to care about collateral damage in Afghanistan or Iraq......why start now when it comes to America?

Were you in favor of or opposed to collateral damage when Bush/Obama was targetting terrorists?


image.guardian.co.ukView Full Size
 
2013-03-29 11:24:10 AM  

Vodka Zombie: Car_Ramrod: Vodka Zombie: I dunno.  Stories like these always make me smile.

Granted, it's not the stories that are the actual source of joy.  It's the fact that some deluded gun nut will read it and off himself and his innocent family rather than live under what he has been told to believe is Obama's oppressive iron boot that brings the biggest smile to my face.

That's farked up, dude.

I know.

Not much I can do about it, sadly.


Um, off hand? Stop taking joy in people dying. Especially innocent people. That'd be a start.
 
2013-03-29 11:25:23 AM  

Dinki: What is it with gunnuts and their need to have 10, 20, 30 guns? I'm a hardcore computer gamer- I have one PC. My wife collects sewing machines. She has about 20 of them, but all but one are antiques.  I can understand having a collection of antique firearms, but many of these nuts have collections of modern guns. Why do gun freaks need to have 20 different guns, most of which do the exact same thing? If they really examined the impetus behind their hobby, they might find they have a problem.


Because it's in and amendment the Constitution, and they love the Constitution. Well, not the amendment about income taxes, or in some cases some of the other ones about who can vote and all that. But you JUST TRY TO QUARTER TROOPS IN THEIR HOMES and you'll see what all those guns are for.
 
2013-03-29 11:26:33 AM  
I'm still waiting for Ted Nugent to go to prison.
 
2013-03-29 11:26:45 AM  

Mugato: Yeah, God forbid we have actual background checks to enforce the laws we already have about people trying to buy guns who are actual felons and actual psychos.

These gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they just admitted that they like to play with their toys and would drop the pretense that the second amendment is still about keeping the government from getting out of control with the threat of armed insurrection.


Nobody is prosecuting background check failures now.

Its a 'paper prosecution' which they don't care about.

Dinki: What is it with gunnuts and their need to have 10, 20, 30 guns? I'm a hardcore computer gamer- I have one PC.


Your PC is a highly general and adaptable machine. It can run spreadsheets, do video editing, all in the same box. I can't hunt rabbits and deer with the same gun.

Why do gun freaks need to have 20 different guns, most of which do the exact same thing?

Most of them don't do the 'same thing'. Even in the same caliber - I have two .22 caliber pistols. One is revolver, my grandad's, and it takes some different .22 cartridges. My semiautomatic .22 pistol only takes .22lr. Then again, I don't like to do anything but target shoot with my grandad's revolver, because its got a nice inlay and is much nicer than my newer hunting pistol.

If they really examined the impetus behind their hobby, they might find they have a problem.

Wildlife conservation and sportsmanship?
 
2013-03-29 11:27:02 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Giltric: Maybe people should move in next door to you and use your proximity to them as a human shield ....actually I don't think the government would care if you die when they target some guy who is on their list.

They don't seem to care about collateral damage in Afghanistan or Iraq......why start now when it comes to America?

Were you in favor of or opposed to collateral damage when Bush/Obama was targetting terrorists?

[image.guardian.co.uk image 460x276]


So you're not going to go on record with an answer to the question regarding collateral damage?

Farkied you as a weasel.

/just sayin
 
2013-03-29 11:29:16 AM  

Giltric: Car_Ramrod: NightOwl2255: For fark's sake, not this shiat again. Expand background checks = they be coming fer mys guns! Increase funding for research on gun violence = Obama's taking my guns! The sun is out today = the guberment wants to disarm me so they can enslave me!

Here's what I don't get. Wouldn't law-abiding, responsible gun owners WANT better regulations on who can own guns? Aren't these wackos giving them a bad name? It's like when I'm at a party, and someone's being a dick, I want that dude to get kicked out ASAP so the rest of us can enjoy ourselves instead of being lumped together and having the whole thing shut down. If you truly are a responsible, safe, law-abiding gun owner, you should welcome this. Why are you so worried about YOUR guns being taken away? Are you worried that it might be discovered you're not so responsible after all?

Get rid of the part in proposed legislation where the AG sets the fee for the proposed UBCs.

Make them free to anyone who wants to use an FFL to transfer a firearm to someone else.


Why?
 
2013-03-29 11:29:29 AM  
As a gun owner and strong opponent of bans...I'm OKAY with background checks and processes that vet people who buy guns.

I don't care if i have to go through some checks and training in exchange for the right to carry a weapon in public, and while many of my brethren believe that I'm a 2ASINO because I believe that with the right to go armed and own weaponry comes the responsibility to use it responsibly.

I don't give keys to drunk guys, and I support barkeepers requiring people who order stiff drinks taking keys from people.

I don't let kids play around on heavy equipment like tractors and trucks and other such things where they might do something stupid.

I don't let kids play with knives, and supervise kids with sharp objects or guns.

It's just farking responsibility.

Were that the media were half as responsible about what they posted and the aftereffects of same. Were that people were responsible enough to realize that every action has a cause.

Anyway, that's not germane. What is germane is that maybe we can get to a point where gun owners and gun grabbers can agree on ways that enforce the responsibility of firearms and their proper use without equally forcing their view of what is and isn't appropriate on us.
 
2013-03-29 11:29:36 AM  
Car_Ramrod: Here's what I don't get. Wouldn't law-abiding, responsible gun owners WANT better regulations on who can own guns? Aren't these wackos giving them a bad name? It's like when I'm at a party, and someone's being a dick, I want that dude to get kicked out ASAP so the rest of us can enjoy ourselves instead of being lumped together and having the whole thing shut down. If you truly are a responsible, safe, law-abiding gun owner, you should welcome this. Why are you so worried about YOUR guns being taken away? Are you worried that it might be discovered you're not so responsible after all?

I have quite a collection, and I think guns should be treated exactly like automobiles.  Users licensed, guns registered, and insured against accidental harm or theft.

That would not violate the Second Amendment in any way.
 
2013-03-29 11:29:51 AM  
inspirably.comView Full Size
 
2013-03-29 11:31:58 AM  
Car_Ramrod:
Here's what I don't get. Wouldn't law-abiding, responsible gun owners WANT better regulations on who can own guns?

The background check system of prohibited persons that we have right now is pretty good, and part of the issue is that almost anything further proposed is so far over-reaching that it simply cannot be accepted. Schumer's 'Universal background check' bill includes language that'd make me and my hunting buddy a felon if he brought my deer rifle from the truck to the cabin, for example.

Aren't these wackos giving them a bad name? It's like when I'm at a party, and someone's being a dick, I want that dude to get kicked out ASAP so the rest of us can enjoy ourselves instead of being lumped together and having the whole thing shut down.

They do. Its kind of like the KKK giving white guys a bad name, but its their Constitutional right to say stupid shiat. Cost of a free society and all that.

If you truly are a responsible, safe, law-abiding gun owner, you should welcome this. Why are you so worried about YOUR guns being taken away? Are you worried that it might be discovered you're not so responsible after all?

No, its because the stated intent to eventually remove all guns - as 'gun control' advocates have openly stated. Similarly to the anti-abortion movement, they hope to slowly push out all gun ownership by making it so expensive, so inconvenient, and so dangerously litigious with confusing overboard regulation that people just stop.
 
2013-03-29 11:32:47 AM  

ilambiquated: [inspirably.com image 380x333]


oh look, it's you again.  Here to spout meaningless platitudes instead of engaging in meaningful conversation? I noticed you didn't bother to show up to the last thread where we had an actual reasonable conversation on the topic.
 
2013-03-29 11:33:30 AM  

BayouOtter: Car_Ramrod:
Here's what I don't get. Wouldn't law-abiding, responsible gun owners WANT better regulations on who can own guns?

The background check system of prohibited persons that we have right now is pretty good, and part of the issue is that almost anything further proposed is so far over-reaching that it simply cannot be accepted. Schumer's 'Universal background check' bill includes language that'd make me and my hunting buddy a felon if he brought my deer rifle from the truck to the cabin, for example.

Aren't these wackos giving them a bad name? It's like when I'm at a party, and someone's being a dick, I want that dude to get kicked out ASAP so the rest of us can enjoy ourselves instead of being lumped together and having the whole thing shut down.

They do. Its kind of like the KKK giving white guys a bad name, but its their Constitutional right to say stupid shiat. Cost of a free society and all that.

If you truly are a responsible, safe, law-abiding gun owner, you should welcome this. Why are you so worried about YOUR guns being taken away? Are you worried that it might be discovered you're not so responsible after all?

No, its because the stated intent to eventually remove all guns - as 'gun control' advocates have openly stated. Similarly to the anti-abortion movement, they hope to slowly push out all gun ownership by making it so expensive, so inconvenient, and so dangerously litigious with confusing overboard regulation that people just stop.


This.
 
2013-03-29 11:34:07 AM  

Giltric: So you're not going to go on record with an answer to the question regarding collateral damage?


You'll have to accept my apology, I keep forgetting that I switched usernames since coming back here.

Yes I think the collateral damage is bad, I also don't approve of the double tap tactic which often kills first responders and people coming to assist. I also think the delivery package creates horrific wounds and is a terrible way to die. But that wasn't my point in bringing that up, hence the eye stare because you missed it.

And for the record, I resent the name weasel. I think I'm more like a door mouse.
 
2013-03-29 11:34:18 AM  
Car_Ramrod:

Make them free to anyone who wants to use an FFL to transfer a firearm to someone else.

Why?


Forcing all kinds of additional hardships onto people in exercise of a Constitutional right discriminates against the poor, for example. If the only FFL that will do transfers lives 100 miles away and charges $200 for the background check, its pretty tough for non-wealthy people to do transfers, you know?
 
2013-03-29 11:35:10 AM  

BayouOtter: No, its because the stated intent to eventually remove all guns - as 'gun control' advocates have openly stated. Similarly to the anti-abortion movement, they hope to slowly push out all gun ownership by making it so expensive, so inconvenient, and so dangerously litigious with confusing overboard regulation that people just stop.


I see someone didn't get the memo that the Dems marginalized our moonbats years ago.
 
2013-03-29 11:35:22 AM  

ilambiquated: [inspirably.com image 380x333]


>quoting anonymous
>>>/b/
 
2013-03-29 11:36:26 AM  

Car_Ramrod: Giltric: Car_Ramrod: NightOwl2255: For fark's sake, not this shiat again. Expand background checks = they be coming fer mys guns! Increase funding for research on gun violence = Obama's taking my guns! The sun is out today = the guberment wants to disarm me so they can enslave me!

Here's what I don't get. Wouldn't law-abiding, responsible gun owners WANT better regulations on who can own guns? Aren't these wackos giving them a bad name? It's like when I'm at a party, and someone's being a dick, I want that dude to get kicked out ASAP so the rest of us can enjoy ourselves instead of being lumped together and having the whole thing shut down. If you truly are a responsible, safe, law-abiding gun owner, you should welcome this. Why are you so worried about YOUR guns being taken away? Are you worried that it might be discovered you're not so responsible after all?

Get rid of the part in proposed legislation where the AG sets the fee for the proposed UBCs.

Make them free to anyone who wants to use an FFL to transfer a firearm to someone else.

Why?


Why not is a better question. When it comes to safety issues since everyone is being kept safe than the costs should be subsidized and paid for through everyones taxes and not levied upon the person seeking the transfer.
 
2013-03-29 11:37:18 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: BayouOtter: No, its because the stated intent to eventually remove all guns - as 'gun control' advocates have openly stated. Similarly to the anti-abortion movement, they hope to slowly push out all gun ownership by making it so expensive, so inconvenient, and so dangerously litigious with confusing overboard regulation that people just stop.

I see someone didn't get the memo that the Dems marginalized our moonbats years ago.


Sadly, one of them is still introducing bills banning various firearms whenever she can. You missed one.
 
2013-03-29 11:39:14 AM  

Giltric: Why not is a better question. When it comes to safety issues since everyone is being kept safe than the costs should be subsidized and paid for through everyones taxes and not levied upon the person seeking the transfer.


Look another person in favor of socialized medicine.
 
2013-03-29 11:39:27 AM  

Bravo Two: MyKingdomForYourHorse: BayouOtter: No, its because the stated intent to eventually remove all guns - as 'gun control' advocates have openly stated. Similarly to the anti-abortion movement, they hope to slowly push out all gun ownership by making it so expensive, so inconvenient, and so dangerously litigious with confusing overboard regulation that people just stop.

I see someone didn't get the memo that the Dems marginalized our moonbats years ago.

Sadly, one of them is still introducing bills banning various firearms whenever she can. You missed one.


Those bills then garner how much support? None? I'd say that's the definition of "marginalized".
 
2013-03-29 11:39:37 AM  

Bravo Two: BayouOtter: Car_Ramrod:
Here's what I don't get. Wouldn't law-abiding, responsible gun owners WANT better regulations on who can own guns?

The background check system of prohibited persons that we have right now is pretty good, and part of the issue is that almost anything further proposed is so far over-reaching that it simply cannot be accepted. Schumer's 'Universal background check' bill includes language that'd make me and my hunting buddy a felon if he brought my deer rifle from the truck to the cabin, for example.

Aren't these wackos giving them a bad name? It's like when I'm at a party, and someone's being a dick, I want that dude to get kicked out ASAP so the rest of us can enjoy ourselves instead of being lumped together and having the whole thing shut down.

They do. Its kind of like the KKK giving white guys a bad name, but its their Constitutional right to say stupid shiat. Cost of a free society and all that.

If you truly are a responsible, safe, law-abiding gun owner, you should welcome this. Why are you so worried about YOUR guns being taken away? Are you worried that it might be discovered you're not so responsible after all?

No, its because the stated intent to eventually remove all guns - as 'gun control' advocates have openly stated. Similarly to the anti-abortion movement, they hope to slowly push out all gun ownership by making it so expensive, so inconvenient, and so dangerously litigious with confusing overboard regulation that people just stop.

This.


I was at a gun show last fall, and if I had a spare $2500 on me, could have walked out with a fully automatic, belt fed 7.62x39 machine gun, complete with bipod and ammo cans.  There were wall to wall AR-15s of any caliber you like, and sniper rifles up to 50 caliber.

The gun control lobby doesn't stand a chance against a multi-billion dollar industry.  And they never will.
 
2013-03-29 11:40:38 AM  

Bravo Two: Sadly, one of them is still introducing bills banning various firearms whenever she can. You missed one.


No no, we take care of that. We pat them on the head nicely in committee, tell them to take their juice and cookie to the table in the corner so the adults can talk.

God bless em, they like to think they are making an effort.
 
2013-03-29 11:40:46 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Giltric: Why not is a better question. When it comes to safety issues since everyone is being kept safe than the costs should be subsidized and paid for through everyones taxes and not levied upon the person seeking the transfer.

Look another person in favor of socialized medicine.


When it is done the right way, yes.

Problem?
 
2013-03-29 11:41:25 AM  

BayouOtter: I can't hunt rabbits and deer with the same gun.


So you need a high caliber rifle for big game, a small caliber for small game, a shotgun for birding. and one pistol for self defense. Maybe another for plinking/target shooting. That makes 5. Still doesn't explain those people that have 2 or 3 versions of ar-15s, 6-7-8 different semi-auto pistols, and assorted other guns. It's beyond need, beyond simple hobby, and into obsession.
 
2013-03-29 11:42:43 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: I was at a gun show last fall, and if I had a spare $2500 on me, could have walked out with a fully automatic, belt fed 7.62x39 machine gun, complete with bipod and ammo cans.


That is a ridiculously low price for an item with a finite and dwindling supply.

Are you sure it was an NFA item and not just a belt fed semi auto?
 
2013-03-29 11:43:06 AM  

Dinki: BayouOtter: I can't hunt rabbits and deer with the same gun.

So you need a high caliber rifle for big game, a small caliber for small game, a shotgun for birding. and one pistol for self defense. Maybe another for plinking/target shooting. That makes 5. Still doesn't explain those people that have 2 or 3 versions of ar-15s, 6-7-8 different semi-auto pistols, and assorted other guns. It's beyond need, beyond simple hobby, and into obsession.


Who are you to decide how many weapons an individual needs?
 
2013-03-29 11:43:13 AM  

Dinki: BayouOtter: I can't hunt rabbits and deer with the same gun.

So you need a high caliber rifle for big game, a small caliber for small game, a shotgun for birding. and one pistol for self defense. Maybe another for plinking/target shooting. That makes 5. Still doesn't explain those people that have 2 or 3 versions of ar-15s, 6-7-8 different semi-auto pistols, and assorted other guns. It's beyond need, beyond simple hobby, and into obsession.


Saying, "You don't need all that stuff, it's weird!" is not a basis for good legislation. Logic like that is what got DOMA passed.
 
2013-03-29 11:43:15 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Bravo Two: Sadly, one of them is still introducing bills banning various firearms whenever she can. You missed one.

No no, we take care of that. We pat them on the head nicely in committee, tell them to take their juice and cookie to the table in the corner so the adults can talk.

God bless em, they like to think they are making an effort.


^ This.
 
2013-03-29 11:45:01 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: MyKingdomForYourHorse: Bravo Two: Sadly, one of them is still introducing bills banning various firearms whenever she can. You missed one.

No no, we take care of that. We pat them on the head nicely in committee, tell them to take their juice and cookie to the table in the corner so the adults can talk.

God bless em, they like to think they are making an effort.

^ This.


QFT
 
2013-03-29 11:45:23 AM  

Dinki: BayouOtter: I can't hunt rabbits and deer with the same gun.

So you need a high caliber rifle for big game, a small caliber for small game, a shotgun for birding. and one pistol for self defense. Maybe another for plinking/target shooting. That makes 5. Still doesn't explain those people that have 2 or 3 versions of ar-15s, 6-7-8 different semi-auto pistols, and assorted other guns. It's beyond need, beyond simple hobby, and into obsession.


Look kid, feral pigs come in a variety of sizes and lethality.
 
2013-03-29 11:46:00 AM  

Giltric: Marcus Aurelius: I was at a gun show last fall, and if I had a spare $2500 on me, could have walked out with a fully automatic, belt fed 7.62x39 machine gun, complete with bipod and ammo cans.

That is a ridiculously low price for an item with a finite and dwindling supply.

Are you sure it was an NFA item and not just a belt fed semi auto?


It was vintage 1972 and not in great shape.  It would have needed a new barrel after who knows how many more rounds.  And you have to add on the $200 device permit and sales tax plus ammo, and you're over three grand.
 
2013-03-29 11:46:48 AM  

Car_Ramrod: Vodka Zombie: Car_Ramrod: Vodka Zombie: I dunno.  Stories like these always make me smile.

Granted, it's not the stories that are the actual source of joy.  It's the fact that some deluded gun nut will read it and off himself and his innocent family rather than live under what he has been told to believe is Obama's oppressive iron boot that brings the biggest smile to my face.

That's farked up, dude.

I know.

Not much I can do about it, sadly.

Um, off hand? Stop taking joy in people dying. Especially innocent people. That'd be a start.


Does that include the brown ones?

A biased right-wing media outlet wants people to believe this lie, and since no amount of reality can penetrate the delusion, I find that encouraging it to its inevitable end is the best way of dealing with it. You have to stop and wonder sometimes about just why it is that republicans so readily want to believe things about Obama that no one in their right mind and living in reality would ever believe. And then it should disturb you that they do.

No. I don't honestly delight in the deaths of anyone --be it over a lie or not. It's the death of honesty and honest debate that pisses me off the most.
 
2013-03-29 11:47:05 AM  

BayouOtter: Car_Ramrod:
Here's what I don't get. Wouldn't law-abiding, responsible gun owners WANT better regulations on who can own guns?

The background check system of prohibited persons that we have right now is pretty good, and part of the issue is that almost anything further proposed is so far over-reaching that it simply cannot be accepted. Schumer's 'Universal background check' bill includes language that'd make me and my hunting buddy a felon if he brought my deer rifle from the truck to the cabin, for example.


I guess my point is, are there no ways to improve the background check system? Is it perfect as is? Are there no loopholes? Whenever improvements are brought up, the response is almost invariably a flat "no", saying it's infringing on their rights too much, but there's no counteroffer. There's no discussion. There's no, "Well, I think that's a bit much, but this this and this would make more sense. How about we work on that?"

Aren't these wackos giving them a bad name? It's like when I'm at a party, and someone's being a dick, I want that dude to get kicked out ASAP so the rest of us can enjoy ourselves instead of being lumped together and having the whole thing shut down.

They do. Its kind of like the KKK giving white guys a bad name, but its their Constitutional right to say stupid shiat. Cost of a free society and all that.


The KKK having parades in Skokie isn't going to get people killed. I'm talking about people with guns that aren't abiding by regulations, not responsible owners that LOOOOOOVE their guns.

If you truly are a responsible, safe, law-abiding gun owner, you should welcome this. Why are you so worried about YOUR guns being taken away? Are you worried that it might be discovered you're not so responsible after all?

No, its because the stated intent to eventually remove all guns - as 'gun control' advocates have openly stated. Similarly to the anti-abortion movement, they hope to slowly push out all gun ownership by making it so expensive, so inconvenient, and so dangerously litigious with confusing overboard regulation that people just stop.


That's never going to happen. Ever. We have more guns than people in this country. You think that's in danger of going away? I personally think our country would be much better overall with no guns, but I know that's realistically (and Constitutionally) not possible. There have been no actual attempts to make that happen. People can talk about it all the time, but where's the legislation? There are CONSTANT legislative attempts to ban abortion all over the country, at the state and federal level. It's not an apt comparison.
 
2013-03-29 11:47:11 AM  
God forbid the nation's chief executive actually, you know, ensures that laws are executed. That would be a crazy step outside of his authority.
 
2013-03-29 11:47:16 AM  

Propain_az: Who are you to decide how many weapons an individual needs?


I like to carry an M-60 for hunting rabbits because rabbits are farking scary ass predators.

cf067b.medialib.glogster.comView Full Size
 
2013-03-29 11:49:00 AM  

BayouOtter: Car_Ramrod:

Make them free to anyone who wants to use an FFL to transfer a firearm to someone else.

Why?

Forcing all kinds of additional hardships onto people in exercise of a Constitutional right discriminates against the poor, for example. If the only FFL that will do transfers lives 100 miles away and charges $200 for the background check, its pretty tough for non-wealthy people to do transfers, you know?


That is a fair point. I can concede to that.

Giltric: Why not is a better question. When it comes to safety issues since everyone is being kept safe than the costs should be subsidized and paid for through everyones taxes and not levied upon the person seeking the transfer.


But not this. You having a gun doesn't keep me safe in any way, shape, or form. I'll be damned if I'll pay for your hobby.
 
2013-03-29 11:49:13 AM  

Dinki: BayouOtter: I can't hunt rabbits and deer with the same gun.

So you need a high caliber rifle for big game, a small caliber for small game, a shotgun for birding. and one pistol for self defense. Maybe another for plinking/target shooting. That makes 5. Still doesn't explain those people that have 2 or 3 versions of ar-15s, 6-7-8 different semi-auto pistols, and assorted other guns. It's beyond need, beyond simple hobby, and into obsession.


You're posting way too much.  Your obsession with the first amendment has slipped into obsession.
 
2013-03-29 11:49:54 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: It was vintage 1972 and not in great shape.  It would have needed a new barrel after who knows how many more rounds.  And you have to add on the $200 device permit and sales tax plus ammo, and you're over three grand.


The hilarious thing is that the $200 NFA tax stamp has not changed since the act passed in 1934. That is equivalent to like $3500 in today's dollars.
 
2013-03-29 11:51:57 AM  

Dinki: BayouOtter: I can't hunt rabbits and deer with the same gun.

So you need a high caliber rifle for big game, a small caliber for small game, a shotgun for birding. and one pistol for self defense. Maybe another for plinking/target shooting. That makes 5. Still doesn't explain those people that have 2 or 3 versions of ar-15s, 6-7-8 different semi-auto pistols, and assorted other guns. It's beyond need, beyond simple hobby, and into obsession.


Smaller framed handguns for better concealment, larger frames for open carry, modified handguns for competition. Handguns in .22 for plinking, handgun in .454 or .500 as a sidearm while hunting in case of bears. AR platform in .300blk for home defense. AR platform in .223 for prarie dogs, AR platform in .308 for moose and elk.

Also not every firearm fits every person. So what might be good for me and is ergonomic and fits might not be good for somebody else. Women have smaller hands so a double stacked magazine might not be the best choice since the grip tends to be larger because of the magazine.

Having options and exercising them is not obsession. Why are you obsessed with forcing a one size fits all and you will like it policy on gun owners?
 
2013-03-29 11:53:30 AM  

Mugato: Propain_az: Who are you to decide how many weapons an individual needs?

I like to carry an M-60 for hunting rabbits because rabbits are farking scary ass predators.

[cf067b.medialib.glogster.com image 403x402]


I usually just hunt them with a pellet rifle.  But Hey, do what you got to do.
 
2013-03-29 11:54:14 AM  
This is not a repeat from every day starting in 2008.

Bravo Two: BayouOtter: Car_Ramrod:
Here's what I don't get. Wouldn't law-abiding, responsible gun owners WANT better regulations on who can own guns?

The background check system of prohibited persons that we have right now is pretty good, and part of the issue is that almost anything further proposed is so far over-reaching that it simply cannot be accepted. Schumer's 'Universal background check' bill includes language that'd make me and my hunting buddy a felon if he brought my deer rifle from the truck to the cabin, for example.

Aren't these wackos giving them a bad name? It's like when I'm at a party, and someone's being a dick, I want that dude to get kicked out ASAP so the rest of us can enjoy ourselves instead of being lumped together and having the whole thing shut down.

They do. Its kind of like the KKK giving white guys a bad name, but its their Constitutional right to say stupid shiat. Cost of a free society and all that.

If you truly are a responsible, safe, law-abiding gun owner, you should welcome this. Why are you so worried about YOUR guns being taken away? Are you worried that it might be discovered you're not so responsible after all?

No, its because the stated intent to eventually remove all guns - as 'gun control' advocates have openly stated. Similarly to the anti-abortion movement, they hope to slowly push out all gun ownership by making it so expensive, so inconvenient, and so dangerously litigious with confusing overboard regulation that people just stop.

This.


[citation needed]
 
2013-03-29 11:54:42 AM  

Car_Ramrod: BayouOtter: Car_Ramrod:

Make them free to anyone who wants to use an FFL to transfer a firearm to someone else.

Why?

Forcing all kinds of additional hardships onto people in exercise of a Constitutional right discriminates against the poor, for example. If the only FFL that will do transfers lives 100 miles away and charges $200 for the background check, its pretty tough for non-wealthy people to do transfers, you know?

That is a fair point. I can concede to that.

Giltric: Why not is a better question. When it comes to safety issues since everyone is being kept safe than the costs should be subsidized and paid for through everyones taxes and not levied upon the person seeking the transfer.

But not this. You having a gun doesn't keep me safe in any way, shape, or form. I'll be damned if I'll pay for your hobby.



The background check keeps you safer, thats why you should chip in and pay for it.
 
2013-03-29 11:58:51 AM  

Giltric: Car_Ramrod: BayouOtter: Car_Ramrod:

Make them free to anyone who wants to use an FFL to transfer a firearm to someone else.

Why?

Forcing all kinds of additional hardships onto people in exercise of a Constitutional right discriminates against the poor, for example. If the only FFL that will do transfers lives 100 miles away and charges $200 for the background check, its pretty tough for non-wealthy people to do transfers, you know?

That is a fair point. I can concede to that.

Giltric: Why not is a better question. When it comes to safety issues since everyone is being kept safe than the costs should be subsidized and paid for through everyones taxes and not levied upon the person seeking the transfer.

But not this. You having a gun doesn't keep me safe in any way, shape, or form. I'll be damned if I'll pay for your hobby.


The background check keeps you safer, thats why you should chip in and pay for it.


Automobile registration also keeps us safer, but it's up to the driver to pay for that.
 
2013-03-29 11:59:29 AM  
3/5ths of gun deaths are caused by suicide.  This will do what?  Nothing.

Had a friend that shot himself last spring.  He'd tried it once before with antifreeze, survived and then after getting help and going to Texas to his sister's house with intention of hanging himself, found his nephew's shotgun and did the trick.  They even found the rope that he had bought hanging from his sister's tree in the back yard.  He was damaged goods and didn't feel like he was worth anything.  Would I have left him alone around guns? Hell no but he was bound and determined to do this to himself, he just ended up using a gun as the vehicle.
 
2013-03-29 12:00:47 PM  

Mugato: Yeah, God forbid we have actual background checks to enforce the laws we already have about people trying to buy guns who are actual felons and actual psychos.


WHO YOU CALLIN' A PSYCHO?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4u5dttxQv8
 
2013-03-29 12:01:11 PM  

Giltric: Car_Ramrod: BayouOtter: Car_Ramrod:

Make them free to anyone who wants to use an FFL to transfer a firearm to someone else.

Why?

Forcing all kinds of additional hardships onto people in exercise of a Constitutional right discriminates against the poor, for example. If the only FFL that will do transfers lives 100 miles away and charges $200 for the background check, its pretty tough for non-wealthy people to do transfers, you know?

That is a fair point. I can concede to that.

Giltric: Why not is a better question. When it comes to safety issues since everyone is being kept safe than the costs should be subsidized and paid for through everyones taxes and not levied upon the person seeking the transfer.

But not this. You having a gun doesn't keep me safe in any way, shape, or form. I'll be damned if I'll pay for your hobby.


The background check keeps you safer, thats why you should chip in and pay for it.


Ah, still no. If you really want a gun, pay for the check yourself.
 
2013-03-29 12:03:19 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Giltric: Car_Ramrod: BayouOtter: Car_Ramrod:

Make them free to anyone who wants to use an FFL to transfer a firearm to someone else.

Why?

Forcing all kinds of additional hardships onto people in exercise of a Constitutional right discriminates against the poor, for example. If the only FFL that will do transfers lives 100 miles away and charges $200 for the background check, its pretty tough for non-wealthy people to do transfers, you know?

That is a fair point. I can concede to that.

Giltric: Why not is a better question. When it comes to safety issues since everyone is being kept safe than the costs should be subsidized and paid for through everyones taxes and not levied upon the person seeking the transfer.

But not this. You having a gun doesn't keep me safe in any way, shape, or form. I'll be damned if I'll pay for your hobby.


The background check keeps you safer, thats why you should chip in and pay for it.

Ah, still no. If you really want a gun, pay for the check yourself.


The background check typically costs less than a box of ammo.  I'm already spending a thousand dollars, I can cover the check.
 
2013-03-29 12:03:20 PM  

Dinki: BayouOtter: I can't hunt rabbits and deer with the same gun.

So you need a high caliber rifle for big game, a small caliber for small game, a shotgun for birding. and one pistol for self defense. Maybe another for plinking/target shooting. That makes 5. Still doesn't explain those people that have 2 or 3 versions of ar-15s, 6-7-8 different semi-auto pistols, and assorted other guns. It's beyond need, beyond simple hobby, and into obsession.


5 cars in a 2 person family is beyond need too.  I have a friend that has exactly that.  He just sold one pickup.   He earned the money and could afford it, so your argument can go toward a lot of things, but people will scream "apples and oranges".
 
2013-03-29 12:03:44 PM  

Dinki: BayouOtter: I can't hunt rabbits and deer with the same gun.

So you need a high caliber rifle for big game, a small caliber for small game, a shotgun for birding. and one pistol for self defense. Maybe another for plinking/target shooting. That makes 5. Still doesn't explain those people that have 2 or 3 versions of ar-15s, 6-7-8 different semi-auto pistols, and assorted other guns. It's beyond need, beyond simple hobby, and into obsession.


No it isn't. I mean, it can be, there are actual nuts out there armed to the teeth, but for the most part it is just a collection like the sewing machines. I never really understood the concern about how many guns I own as long as I am owning them and not turning them right out on the street as a straw buyer. It's not like I'm going to grow 20 more arms to bear arms with and become some death murder massacre machine, I can still only use one at a time.
 
2013-03-29 12:03:59 PM  
And to be fair, I think that if we are going to increase regulation, there should be more regulations on gun manufacturers rather than owners to ensure that their products are being responsibly sold and tracked.
 
2013-03-29 12:04:53 PM  
Marcus Aurelius:
I was at a gun show last fall, and if I had a spare $2500 on me, could have walked out with a fully automatic, belt fed 7.62x39 machine gun, complete with bipod and ammo cans.  There were wall to wall AR-15s of any caliber you like, and sniper rifles up to 50 caliber.


You can buy fully automatic weapons with cash and no questions asked! WOW!

Oh wait, you're lying.
 Q: What are the required transfer procedures for an individual who is not qualified as a manufacturer, importer, or dealer of NFA(Fully automatic, like an assault rifle) firearms?

ATF Form 4 (5320.4)  must be completed, in duplicate. The transferor first completes the face of the form. The transferee completes the transferee's certification on the reverse of the form and must have the "Law Enforcement Certification" completed by the chief law enforcement officer. The transferee is to place, on each copy of the form, a 2-inch by 2-inch photograph of the transferee taken within the past year (proofs, group photographs or photocopies are unacceptable). The transferee's address must be a street address, not a post office box. If there is no street address, specific directions to the residence must be included.

If State or local law requires a permit or license to purchase, possess, or receive NFA firearms, a copy of the transferee's permit or license must accompany the application. A check or money order for $200 ($5 for transfer of "any other weapon") shall be made payable to ATF by the transferor. All signatures on both copies must be in ink.
Fingerprints also must be submitted on FBI Form FD-258, in duplicate. Fingerprints must be taken by a person qualified to do so, and must be clear and classifiable. If wear or damage to the fingertips do not allow clear prints, and if the prints are taken by a law enforcement official, a statement on his or her official letterhead giving the reason why good prints are unobtainable should accompany the fingerprints.
Forward the completed application and appropriate tax payment to the Bureau of ATF, National Firearms Act Branch, P.O. Box 530298, Atlanta, GA 30353-0298.
Transfer of the NFA firearm may be made only upon approval of the ATF Form 4 by the NFA Branch. If the application is approved, the original of the form with the cancelled stamp affixed showing approval will be returned to the applicant. If the tax application is denied, the tax will be refunded.
Upon approval of the ATF Form 4, the transferor should transfer the firearm as soon as possible, since the firearm is now registered to the transferee.
[26 U.S.C. 5812, 27 CFR 479.84-86]


Car_Ramrod:

But not this. You having a gun kid doesn't keep me safe in any way, shape, or form. I'll be damned if I'll pay for your hobby child.

So you're against taxes for schools if your kid doesn't go there, or roads you don't drive on, etc?

And actually, my having a gun does keep you safe (in the home or CC), because the criminals do not know who is armed, and are less likely to engage in a violent confrontation. When Flordia passed their concealed carry laws, they becan to notice a trend - a spike in crime against tourists. The criminals shifted away from Florida residents, partly because they now had no way to know if they would meet the end of a gun.
 
2013-03-29 12:04:59 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Giltric: Car_Ramrod: BayouOtter: Car_Ramrod:

Make them free to anyone who wants to use an FFL to transfer a firearm to someone else.

Why?

Forcing all kinds of additional hardships onto people in exercise of a Constitutional right discriminates against the poor, for example. If the only FFL that will do transfers lives 100 miles away and charges $200 for the background check, its pretty tough for non-wealthy people to do transfers, you know?

That is a fair point. I can concede to that.

Giltric: Why not is a better question. When it comes to safety issues since everyone is being kept safe than the costs should be subsidized and paid for through everyones taxes and not levied upon the person seeking the transfer.

But not this. You having a gun doesn't keep me safe in any way, shape, or form. I'll be damned if I'll pay for your hobby.


The background check keeps you safer, thats why you should chip in and pay for it.

Automobile registration also keeps us safer, but it's up to the driver to pay for that.


My registration on a vehicle with almost no safety equipment or crumple zones is less than the vehicle with front and side airbags, abs, seat belts, crumple zones etc.... The vehicle is also grandfathered to 1950s smog standards of like 40000ppm of co2 where as my new car has to adhere to strict standards of like 90ppm co2.

Vehicle registration is just another revenue stream that's not called a tax. How does it keep us safer?
 
2013-03-29 12:06:49 PM  
Giltric:
Vehicle registration is just another revenue stream that's not called a tax. How does it keep us safer?

So you're against the idea of firearm registration. Excellent, thank you.
 
2013-03-29 12:07:13 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Giltric: Car_Ramrod: BayouOtter: Car_Ramrod:

Make them free to anyone who wants to use an FFL to transfer a firearm to someone else.

Why?

Forcing all kinds of additional hardships onto people in exercise of a Constitutional right discriminates against the poor, for example. If the only FFL that will do transfers lives 100 miles away and charges $200 for the background check, its pretty tough for non-wealthy people to do transfers, you know?

That is a fair point. I can concede to that.

Giltric: Why not is a better question. When it comes to safety issues since everyone is being kept safe than the costs should be subsidized and paid for through everyones taxes and not levied upon the person seeking the transfer.

But not this. You having a gun doesn't keep me safe in any way, shape, or form. I'll be damned if I'll pay for your hobby.


The background check keeps you safer, thats why you should chip in and pay for it.

Ah, still no. If you really want a gun, pay for the check yourself.


If you want to stay safe by making sure dangerous people do not get a hold of a firearm than chip in....just like the costs of police are cocialized, just like fire departments, just like social safety nets that keep the poors from robbing you.

/im rubber youre glue
//infinity +1
 
2013-03-29 12:07:39 PM  

Car_Ramrod: And to be fair, I think that if we are going to increase regulation, there should be more regulations on gun manufacturers rather than owners to ensure that their products are being responsibly sold and tracked.


The NRA would never stand for any regulation which would slow the flow of guns to criminals. That would negatively impact gun manufacturers profits. Maximizing demand and sales of guns is their primary goal. Whether the end use is legal or illegal is immaterial as long as that goal is met.
 
2013-03-29 12:08:19 PM  

Dinki: What is it with gunnuts and their need to have 10, 20, 30 guns? I'm a hardcore computer gamer- I have one PC. My wife collects sewing machines. She has about 20 of them, but all but one are antiques.  I can understand having a collection of antique firearms, but many of these nuts have collections of modern guns. Why do gun freaks need to have 20 different guns, most of which do the exact same thing? If they really examined the impetus behind their hobby, they might find they have a problem.


I have the following in my household.

12 gauge pump shotgun with multiple choke tubes and barrels: General hunting from small game to deer. It's a good all around firearm.
Model 336 lever action 30-30: Actually I have two. One is for my son. Both used for deer season.
.50 cal black powder muzzle loader: Deer season again but this time black powder.
Ruger 10-22: Small game ie rabbits and squirrels.
Glock 21: Home defense.
Ruger 22/45 handgun: General plinking and practice. It's cheaper to shoot than the glock is.Cheap entertainment.
Ruger Judge 45LC/.410:I inherited it from my now deceased father. It's still NIB. Never going to sell it.

Gee, I have eight firearms. Am I really a gun nut? Do these firearms really all do the same thing?
 
2013-03-29 12:08:42 PM  

BayouOtter: Marcus Aurelius:
I was at a gun show last fall, and if I had a spare $2500 on me, could have walked out with a fully automatic, belt fed 7.62x39 machine gun, complete with bipod and ammo cans.  There were wall to wall AR-15s of any caliber you like, and sniper rifles up to 50 caliber.


You can buy fully automatic weapons with cash and no questions asked! WOW!

Oh wait, you're lying.
 Q: What are the required transfer procedures for an individual who is not qualified as a manufacturer, importer, or dealer of NFA(Fully automatic, like an assault rifle) firearms?

ATF Form 4 (5320.4)  must be completed, in duplicate. The transferor first completes the face of the form. The transferee completes the transferee's certification on the reverse of the form and must have the "Law Enforcement Certification" completed by the chief law enforcement officer. The transferee is to place, on each copy of the form, a 2-inch by 2-inch photograph of the transferee taken within the past year (proofs, group photographs or photocopies are unacceptable). The transferee's address must be a street address, not a post office box. If there is no street address, specific directions to the residence must be included.

If State or local law requires a permit or license to purchase, possess, or receive NFA firearms, a copy of the transferee's permit or license must accompany the application. A check or money order for $200 ($5 for transfer of "any other weapon") shall be made payable to ATF by the transferor. All signatures on both copies must be in ink.
Fingerprints also must be submitted on FBI Form FD-258, in duplicate. Fingerprints must be taken by a person qualified to do so, and must be clear and classifiable. If wear or damage to the fingertips do not allow clear prints, and if the prints are taken by a law enforcement official, a statement on his or her official letterhead giving the reason why good prints are unobtainable should accompany the fingerprints.
Forward the completed applicatio ...


You need a dangerous device permit.  A $200 item.  My form and fingerprints are already on file with the ATF.
 
2013-03-29 12:10:18 PM  
WHEN ARE WE GONNA FROGMARCH THIS BASTARD OUT OF THE WHITEHOUSE AND INTO PMITA PRISON WHERE HE BELONGS

/bleh
 
2013-03-29 12:12:15 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: The background check typically costs less than a box of ammo. I'm already spending a thousand dollars, I can cover the check


The new legislation regarding proposed background checks places the determination of fees on the AG. Many proponents of gun control who hold elected office want this to be as sky high as possible in order to deter people from buying firearms. Do you think a pro gun control AG would set the fee at 40$ or 400$?

I think they should put an amendment on the bill that couples the fee for firearms with the fee for voter registration. If you are going to start charging people to exercise a right why not use it as a revenue stream and apply it to the excersising of as many rights as possible?
 
2013-03-29 12:13:57 PM  

Giltric: I think they should put an amendment on the bill that couples the fee for firearms with the fee for voter registration. If you are going to start charging people to exercise a right why not use it as a revenue stream and apply it to the excersising of as many rights as possible?


Pass a gun ownership version of the 24th Amendment and you might have a point.
 
2013-03-29 12:14:10 PM  

violentsalvation: Dinki: BayouOtter: I can't hunt rabbits and deer with the same gun.

So you need a high caliber rifle for big game, a small caliber for small game, a shotgun for birding. and one pistol for self defense. Maybe another for plinking/target shooting. That makes 5. Still doesn't explain those people that have 2 or 3 versions of ar-15s, 6-7-8 different semi-auto pistols, and assorted other guns. It's beyond need, beyond simple hobby, and into obsession.

No it isn't. I mean, it can be, there are actual nuts out there armed to the teeth, but for the most part it is just a collection like the sewing machines. I never really understood the concern about how many guns I own as long as I am owning them and not turning them right out on the street as a straw buyer. It's not like I'm going to grow 20 more arms to bear arms with and become some death murder massacre machine, I can still only use one at a time.


img95.imageshack.usView Full Size
 
2013-03-29 12:14:17 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Car_Ramrod: And to be fair, I think that if we are going to increase regulation, there should be more regulations on gun manufacturers rather than owners to ensure that their products are being responsibly sold and tracked.

The NRA would never stand for any regulation which would slow the flow of guns to criminals. That would negatively impact gun manufacturers profits.


Right, because the manufacturers make all their money from stolen guns, obviously. Just like how Ford makes money from stolen car chop-shops!

Marcus Aurelius:
You need a dangerous device permit.  A $200 item.  My form and fingerprints are already on file with the ATF.

Oh wait, you're lying.

Again.
Destructive Device26 U.S.C. § 5845(F)
For the purposes of the National Firearms Act, the term "Destructive Device" means:
A missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than 1/4 oz.Any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may readily be converted to expel a projectile, by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore greater than one-half inch in diameter.A combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a device into a destructive device and from which a destructive device can be readily assembled.
That fully-automatic machine gun falls under the rules I posted previously.
 
2013-03-29 12:16:15 PM  

BayouOtter: Giltric:
Vehicle registration is just another revenue stream that's not called a tax. How does it keep us safer?

So you're against the idea of firearm registration. Excellent, thank you.



Yes most definately. Firearm registries have been used in the past to go door to door to seize firearms and force people to turn them in under penalty of law.

I don't think LGS should keep a list of names of who own what weapons either. Thats like how FB and Google and the telecoms cooperate with government by turning over information on people voluntarily and circumventing the 4th amendment.
 
2013-03-29 12:16:39 PM  
NRA argues we need to enforce the laws we already have first and foremost, learn more about gun violence, and educate the public.

Obama signs executive orders to enforce the laws we already have first and foremost, learn more about gun violence, and educate the public.

RIGHT WING SHIATSTORM YALL!
 
2013-03-29 12:16:44 PM  

Mugato: Yeah, God forbid we have actual background checks to enforce the laws we already have about people trying to buy guns who are actual felons and actual psychos.


Indeed. Unfortunately, the proposed "universal background check" bill proposed by Sen. Schumer (S.374) goes well beyond that into the realm of criminalizing common stuff by criminalizing a lot of "temporary transfer of possession" rather than "transfer of ownership": if my wife and I are shooting on private property or on BLM land (this is really common in Arizona, as you can shoot out in the desert) and I hand her one of my guns to shoot, that's a federal crime. If I go over to a buddy's house and he wants to see one of my guns and I hand it to him, that's a federal crime (I could own hand it to him in my own house, not his). If someone is traveling on business for more than a week and leaves their gun with their roommate, that's a federal crime. This lawyer discusses some of the issues with the law, as does this site.

People aren't necessarily opposed to requiring background checks on private transfers, they're opposed to flawed, overreaching bills like S.374.

chiett: Good luck with all of that.
Take the 30+ round magazines, full auto weapons, and the really scary "military" style weapons.
Then enforce the laws on the books.

And finally leave my shiat alone.


Considering that 30+ round mags are overwhelmingly used for lawful purposes and have only been used in a handful of crimes (where they often fail, as they're not terribly reliable, as seen in Aurora), why should they be restricted?

When was the last time a legal full-auto weapon was used in a crime? Are the few that exist in private hands and are owned responsibly by collectors really a problem? Do you really think that someone's going to take their $10,000+ legal machine gun and go hold up a 7-Eleven? Why is that even an issue?

The 'really scary "military" style weapons', like the AR-15, are the most commonly-owned guns in the country and widely used for perfectly lawful purposes, including recreational shooting, sport, hunting (they're growing in popularity among hunters as they fire the same ammo, are lightweight, accurate, and modular), and competition (including the "world series" of competitive shooting, the National Matches). They're also some of the least-used in crime (using numbers provided by Sen. Feinstein, a proponent of banning such guns, and the FBI, "assault weapons" are used on ~0.6% of all firearm-related homicide). Banning them would do essentially nothing to reduce violent crime and overwhelmingly affect the law-abiding owners of such guns.

Many of the gun-control groups have indicated that their focus on so-called "assault weapons" is just a starting point to further restrictions. I'm not saying they're going for total bans/confiscations, but it's unlikely they'd stop with just scary-looking semi-autos.
 
2013-03-29 12:17:26 PM  

BayouOtter: Philip Francis Queeg: Car_Ramrod: And to be fair, I think that if we are going to increase regulation, there should be more regulations on gun manufacturers rather than owners to ensure that their products are being responsibly sold and tracked.

The NRA would never stand for any regulation which would slow the flow of guns to criminals. That would negatively impact gun manufacturers profits.

Right, because the manufacturers make all their money from stolen guns, obviously. Just like how Ford makes money from stolen car chop-shops!


They profited from the original sale of every gun. If criminals were entirely cut off from access to guns tomorrow demand, sales and profits would plummet for gun manufacturers.
 
2013-03-29 12:17:51 PM  
He needs to start taking guns away from his Chicago voter base.  That will lower the death numbers really quickly.
 
2013-03-29 12:20:05 PM  
Philip Francis Queeg:
They profited from the original sale of every gun. If criminals were entirely cut off from access to guns tomorrow demand, sales and profits would plummet for gun manufacturers.

I'm not following your logic. Spell it out for me.
 
2013-03-29 12:20:19 PM  

heypete: Mugato: Yeah, God forbid we have actual background checks to enforce the laws we already have about people trying to buy guns who are actual felons and actual psychos.

Indeed. Unfortunately, the proposed "universal background check" bill proposed by Sen. Schumer (S.374) goes well beyond that into the realm of criminalizing common stuff by criminalizing a lot of "temporary transfer of possession" rather than "transfer of ownership": if my wife and I are shooting on private property or on BLM land (this is really common in Arizona, as you can shoot out in the desert) and I hand her one of my guns to shoot, that's a federal crime. If I go over to a buddy's house and he wants to see one of my guns and I hand it to him, that's a federal crime (I could own hand it to him in my own house, not his). If someone is traveling on business for more than a week and leaves their gun with their roommate, that's a federal crime. This lawyer discusses some of the issues with the law, as does this site.

People aren't necessarily opposed to requiring background checks on private transfers, they're opposed to flawed, overreaching bills like S.374.

chiett: Good luck with all of that.
Take the 30+ round magazines, full auto weapons, and the really scary "military" style weapons.
Then enforce the laws on the books.

And finally leave my shiat alone.

Considering that 30+ round mags are overwhelmingly used for lawful purposes and have only been used in a handful of crimes (where they often fail, as they're not terribly reliable, as seen in Aurora), why should they be restricted?

When was the last time a legal full-auto weapon was used in a crime? Are the few that exist in private hands and are owned responsibly by collectors really a problem? Do you really think that someone's going to take their $10,000+ legal machine gun and go hold up a 7-Eleven? Why is that even an issue?

The 'really scary "military" style weapons', like the AR-15, are the most commonly-owned guns in the country an ...


THIS
 
2013-03-29 12:21:01 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: If criminals were entirely cut off from access to guns tomorrow demand, sales and profits would plummet for gun manufacturers.


encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.comView Full Size
 
2013-03-29 12:21:20 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: You need a dangerous device permit. A $200 item. My form and fingerprints are already on file with the ATF.


Not exactly. You do need a tax stamp for the transfer, yes, and it does cost $200.

Each NFA item requires a separate Form 4, payment of the tax, background check, fingerprints, local law enforcement approval, etc. If you own 5 NFA items you need to go through the process 5 times -- they don't just skip certain parts because you're already in the system.

/NFA owner
 
2013-03-29 12:22:26 PM  

BayouOtter: Car_Ramrod:

But not this. You having a gun kid doesn't keep me safe in any way, shape, or form. I'll be damned if I'll pay for your hobby child.

So you're against taxes for schools if your kid doesn't go there, or roads you don't drive on, etc?

And actually, my having a gun does keep you safe (in the home or CC), because the criminals do not know who is armed, and are less likely to engage in a violent confrontation. When Flordia passed their concealed carry laws, they becan to notice a trend - a spike in crime against tourists. The criminals shifted away from Florida residents, partly because they now had no way to know if they would meet the end of a gun.


Schools create smart kids which improves society in general. Study after study has shown that the more schooling a kid has, the less likely they are to become a criminal. So yes, schools do keep society safer. As far as roads, I need roads across the country to transport products and services so they are accessible to me. Whether that makes me safer... well it measurably makes this country better by increasing economic activity, which does tend to decrease crime everywhere.

I'd like to read about that concealed carry - tourism connection if you happen to have a link handy. I tried a quick google but didn't see anything and I'm lazy. But I will ask how a criminal necessarily knows the difference between a resident and a tourist. I personally credit my safety to police presence in my neighborhood and being in a generally middle class area. But that's me.
 
2013-03-29 12:22:33 PM  

heypete: Marcus Aurelius: You need a dangerous device permit. A $200 item. My form and fingerprints are already on file with the ATF.

Not exactly. You do need a tax stamp for the transfer, yes, and it does cost $200.

Each NFA item requires a separate Form 4, payment of the tax, background check, fingerprints, local law enforcement approval, etc. If you own 5 NFA items you need to go through the process 5 times -- they don't just skip certain parts because you're already in the system.

/NFA owner


Its pretty clear this guy knows nothing about the NFA and is just making stuff up.
 
2013-03-29 12:23:48 PM  
Checks are fine; government should just stop trying to ban them.
 
2013-03-29 12:23:50 PM  

BayouOtter: Right, because the manufacturers make all their money from stolen guns, obviously. Just like how Ford makes money from stolen car chop-shops!


Most of it comes from scared white men who have been conditioned to have a gut response to seeing a news piece about a violent crime, or gun control legislation, of  A)BUY MOARS GUNZ!, and  B) vote and protest to expand police powers.

You think gun manufacturers  don't profit from heightened social unrest?
 
2013-03-29 12:24:42 PM  
Besides....didn't the AGs office put out a paper that claimed the same thing that firearm owners are claiming?  That criminals will not seek out legal transfers and that UBC might even force more guns to be transfered without background checks?

Obama also mentioned that 40% stat the other day. A talking point taken from a study done the year after background checks were mandated with all firearms purchases. The study is flawed and so is the talking point because if the person survyed bought their firearm before implementation of background cheks odds are they could answer that they never had gone through a background check.

Maybe the gun control crowd would get more cooperation if they didn't resort to flawed studies (just like with the medical bankruptcies study during the health care debate. If you owed 1000 bucks or more in medical costs they considered that a medical bankruptcy while ignoring the 90k in credit card debt that actually put you in bankruptcy).

But the gun control corwd will never be honest. If they were honest they would not have any legs to stand on since the data does not help their cause.
 
2013-03-29 12:25:53 PM  
Oh good the whack a doodles are going to drive the farking price of ammunition up again. I really hate those right wing scared retards. The worst part about them is they buy huge amounts of ammo, but rarely go to the range, which screws the rest of us who enjoy shooting sports, like to spend time at the range, and rarely keep more then a box on hand.
 
2013-03-29 12:26:12 PM  
Car_Ramrod:
Schools create smart kids which improves society in general. Study after study has shown that the more schooling a kid has, the less likely they are to become a criminal. So yes, schools do keep society safer. As far as roads, I need roads across the country to transport products and services so they are accessible to me. Whether that makes me safer... well it measurably makes this country better by increasing economic activity, which does tend to decrease crime everywhere.

So yeah, socialism works, thank you.

I'd like to read about that concealed carry - tourism connection if you happen to have a link handy. I tried a quick google but didn't see anything and I'm lazy. But I will ask how a criminal necessarily knows the difference between a resident and a tourist.

They look for rental cars, mostly. I'll dig around a bit.

I personally credit my safety to police presence in my neighborhood and being in a generally middle class area. But that's me.


Batesian mimicry is also your friend. The criminal doesn't know if you've a gun or not, so he's less likely to get in a direct confrontation.
 
2013-03-29 12:26:15 PM  
The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence

I give you modern republicans - a people so in love with the literal definition of 'conservative' that they are against learning new things.
 
2013-03-29 12:27:11 PM  
that bosnian sniper:
You think gun manufacturers  don't profit from heightened social unrest?

That wasn't the claim. Leave those goalposts alone.
 
2013-03-29 12:27:35 PM  

Giltric: If you want to stay safe by making sure dangerous people do not get a hold of a firearm than chip in....just like the costs of police are cocialized, just like fire departments, just like social safety nets that keep the poors from robbing you.

/im rubber youre glue
//infinity +1


Police and fire departments are a community expenditure, because you never know when you're going to need it. It's like insurance.

But a background check is a very specific cost from a very specific, pre-planned activity (gun purchasing). If I own a car, I buy extra insurance because I know if can be dangerous. If I go skydiving or bungee jumping, those are specific actions that require specific regulations, waivers, and fees to ensure safety.

What I'm saying is police presence and fire coverage are passive and communal, whereas buying a gun is active and personal. You don't need to own a gun. If you want one, pay for it and everything that comes with it.
 
2013-03-29 12:28:35 PM  

heypete: 30+ round mags are overwhelmingly used for lawful purposes


heypete: they often fail, as they're not terribly reliable


hahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
 
2013-03-29 12:28:42 PM  

johnryan51: It's scary that they get so afraid.


Almost childlike, isn't it?
 
2013-03-29 12:28:52 PM  

BayouOtter: Philip Francis Queeg:
They profited from the original sale of every gun. If criminals were entirely cut off from access to guns tomorrow demand, sales and profits would plummet for gun manufacturers.

I'm not following your logic. Spell it out for me.


There are an estimated 200,000,000 guns in the US. Some gun manufacturer profited from the original sale of each and every one of those guns. a portion of those guns, and a portion of the overall demand for those guns is from criminals. If not for the demand from criminals, there would be fewer gun sales. Fewer gun sales mean lower profits for the gun manufacturers.

Let's take two examples.

1.  Your stolen gun example: One of your guns is stolen. Do you do without that weapon or do you buy a new one? Probably you replace it with a new one. The gun manufacturer profits.
2. The more important example, straw purchases. A convicted felon wants a gun. He/she pays someone without a record to purchase the gun for them. The gun manufacturer profits.

Regulations which would effectively limit straw purchases are directly detrimental to gun manufacturers since they would limit demand and sales of their product. They, and their representatives in the NRA, will oppose any regulation which threatens to do so.
 
2013-03-29 12:29:46 PM  

violentsalvation: Dinki: BayouOtter: I can't hunt rabbits and deer with the same gun.

So you need a high caliber rifle for big game, a small caliber for small game, a shotgun for birding. and one pistol for self defense. Maybe another for plinking/target shooting. That makes 5. Still doesn't explain those people that have 2 or 3 versions of ar-15s, 6-7-8 different semi-auto pistols, and assorted other guns. It's beyond need, beyond simple hobby, and into obsession.

No it isn't. I mean, it can be, there are actual nuts out there armed to the teeth, but for the most part it is just a collection like the sewing machines. I never really understood the concern about how many guns I own as long as I am owning them and not turning them right out on the street as a straw buyer. It's not like I'm going to grow 20 more arms to bear arms with and become some death murder massacre machine, I can still only use one at a time.


Exactly and if you like shooting sports you tend to acquire the gear, like any other sport, and in this case it is guns. Sometimes you purchase guns that you barely ever use, just because it was fun, sometimes you inherit your fathers or grandfathers guns and suddenly you have "too many".
 
2013-03-29 12:30:07 PM  
Virginia Tech: 32, Handguns (Nineteen 10- and 15- round magazines)
Newtown: 26, AR-15 (used handgun to kill self)
Killeen: 23, Handguns
San Ysidro: 21, Handgun, Shotgun, Uzi Carbine
Austin: 17, shotguns, rifles, handguns
Edmond: 14, handguns
Columbine: 13, handguns, shotguns, carbine (Thirteen 10-round magazines)
Binghamton: 13, handguns
Ft. Hood: 13, handguns
Camden: 13, handgun
Dishonorable mention: Aurora: 12, AR-15 (100-round magazine), shotgun, handguns (58 wounded)

The most popular long-arm in America, the "military-style" "assault weapon" AR-15, despite being available for civilian purchase for 50 years, has managed to make the top-11 US mass shootings list twice, and only once as the primary creator of casualties. And not even #1. And in BOTH cases, the "high-capacity" magazine jammed.

On the other hand, there is one consistent thing throughout that list... maybe an AR-15 isn't the best weapon to use against unarmed civilians and forcing people to use another weapon only makes things worse.
 
2013-03-29 12:32:32 PM  

vygramul: Virginia Tech: 32, Handguns (Nineteen 10- and 15- round magazines)
Newtown: 26, AR-15 (used handgun to kill self)
Killeen: 23, Handguns
San Ysidro: 21, Handgun, Shotgun, Uzi Carbine
Austin: 17, shotguns, rifles, handguns
Edmond: 14, handguns
Columbine: 13, handguns, shotguns, carbine (Thirteen 10-round magazines)
Binghamton: 13, handguns
Ft. Hood: 13, handguns
Camden: 13, handgun
Dishonorable mention: Aurora: 12, AR-15 (100-round magazine), shotgun, handguns (58 wounded)

The most popular long-arm in America, the "military-style" "assault weapon" AR-15, despite being available for civilian purchase for 50 years, has managed to make the top-11 US mass shootings list twice, and only once as the primary creator of casualties. And not even #1. And in BOTH cases, the "high-capacity" magazine jammed.

On the other hand, there is one consistent thing throughout that list... maybe an AR-15 isn't the best weapon to use against unarmed civilians and forcing people to use another weapon only makes things worse.


Oh, can I guess?

The crazy nutball mass killer? Is that the common thread?

Like in these incidents:
Unknown : 95 : Our Lady of the Angels School fire
Jin Ruchao : 108 :  Shijiazhuan with an ill-synced bomb attack (4 bombs that went off at once)
Zhang Pilin : 112 : crashed China Northern Airlines Flight 6136 with a cabin fire
Robert Dale Segee : 200+ : Arson
Kim Dae-han, a 56 year old half-paralyzed man: 198 : Daegu subway fire
Gameel Al-Batouti : 217 : Cause a plane crash.
Adilson Marcelino Alves : 300+ : Arson
 Li Xianliang managed : 17 people : A Tractor (While Drunk)
William Unek :  21 people, axe

That's like two minutes on google. In the absence of a gun, for whatever reason, a nutball murderer will still kill people. They will kill a lot of people.

Guns aren't the problem. Nutball murderers are. 'Gun Control' won't keep them from killing people, the best case is that it will change their method - at great cost, financially, socially, and to liberty.

I might even argue that the presence of firearms lowers the bodycounts of nutball murderers. A gun is very psychologically attractive, as its direct approach favors their narcissistic empowerment. Thus the gun is selected over other, indirect methods like arson. These indirect methods are more effective at racking up bodycounts, but generally less desirable to the non-rational nutball.

Thus the presence of arms causes the nutball to self-select a method that is sub-optimal for mass killings, resulting in lower bodycounts.
 
2013-03-29 12:32:40 PM  

Karac: The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence

I give you modern republicans - a people so in love with the literal definition of 'conservative' that they are against learning new things.


I thought it was children of single moms (NSFW Language) that caused gun violence.
 
2013-03-29 12:34:19 PM  

Jackson Herring: heypete: 30+ round mags are overwhelmingly used for lawful purposes

heypete: they often fail, as they're not terribly reliable

hahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh


Yes? Have I said something that's incorrect?

While 30+ round mags (like the 100 round Beta-C mag) aren't nearly as common as their more standard-capacity counterparts, the vast majority of those in private hands are used for lawful purposes, mostly recreational shooting. Very few are used in crime.

They're not nearly as reliable as more traditional box magazines, as they have more moving parts, complex geometry, etc.
 
2013-03-29 12:34:25 PM  

BayouOtter: vygramul: Virginia Tech: 32, Handguns (Nineteen 10- and 15- round magazines)
Newtown: 26, AR-15 (used handgun to kill self)
Killeen: 23, Handguns
San Ysidro: 21, Handgun, Shotgun, Uzi Carbine
Austin: 17, shotguns, rifles, handguns
Edmond: 14, handguns
Columbine: 13, handguns, shotguns, carbine (Thirteen 10-round magazines)
Binghamton: 13, handguns
Ft. Hood: 13, handguns
Camden: 13, handgun
Dishonorable mention: Aurora: 12, AR-15 (100-round magazine), shotgun, handguns (58 wounded)

The most popular long-arm in America, the "military-style" "assault weapon" AR-15, despite being available for civilian purchase for 50 years, has managed to make the top-11 US mass shootings list twice, and only once as the primary creator of casualties. And not even #1. And in BOTH cases, the "high-capacity" magazine jammed.

On the other hand, there is one consistent thing throughout that list... maybe an AR-15 isn't the best weapon to use against unarmed civilians and forcing people to use another weapon only makes things worse.

Oh, can I guess?

The crazy nutball mass killer? Is that the common thread?

Like in these incidents:
Unknown : 95 : Our Lady of the Angels School fire
Jin Ruchao : 108 :  Shijiazhuan with an ill-synced bomb attack (4 bombs that went off at once)
Zhang Pilin : 112 : crashed China Northern Airlines Flight 6136 with a cabin fire
Robert Dale Segee : 200+ : Arson
Kim Dae-han, a 56 year old half-paralyzed man: 198 : Daegu subway fire
Gameel Al-Batouti : 217 : Cause a plane crash.
Adilson Marcelino Alves : 300+ : Arson
 Li Xianliang managed : 17 people : A Tractor (While Drunk)
William Unek :  21 people, axe

That's like two minutes on google. In the absence of a gun, for whatever reason, a nutball murderer will still kill people. They will kill a lot of people.

Guns aren't the problem. Nutball murderers are. 'Gun Control' won't keep them from killing people, the best case is that it will change their method - at great cost, financially, socially, and to liberty.
...


Seems like you know a lot about being a nutball murderer.
 
2013-03-29 12:36:19 PM  
Philip Francis Queeg:
Regulations which would effectively limit straw purchases are directly detrimental to gun manufacturers since they would limit demand and sales of their product.

Yeah, because they care so much about background checks and straw purchases.

They, and their representatives in the NRA, will oppose any regulation which threatens to do so.

The NRA doesn't represent the industry.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the trade association for the firearms industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of more than 7,000 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen's organizations and publishers.
 
2013-03-29 12:36:19 PM  

Communist_Manifesto: Seems like you know a lot about being a nutball murderer.


I bet you know more about pedophilia than he does about nutball murdering.
 
2013-03-29 12:37:17 PM  

BayouOtter: Car_Ramrod:
Schools create smart kids which improves society in general. Study after study has shown that the more schooling a kid has, the less likely they are to become a criminal. So yes, schools do keep society safer. As far as roads, I need roads across the country to transport products and services so they are accessible to me. Whether that makes me safer... well it measurably makes this country better by increasing economic activity, which does tend to decrease crime everywhere.

So yeah, socialism works, thank you.


Well, that's not exactly socialism. But living in a communal society works, yes. But I strongly regret the notion that paying for private citizens to have a gun equates to a communal function.

I'd like to read about that concealed carry - tourism connection if you happen to have a link handy. I tried a quick google but didn't see anything and I'm lazy. But I will ask how a criminal necessarily knows the difference between a resident and a tourist.

They look for rental cars, mostly. I'll dig around a bit.

I personally credit my safety to police presence in my neighborhood and being in a generally middle class area. But that's me.

Batesian mimicry is also your friend. The criminal doesn't know if you've a gun or not, so he's less likely to get in a direct confrontation.


Well here on the North Side of Chicago, there's no conceal carry, and people aren't getting attacked left and right. I should be getting confronted all the time, right?

/South Side is its own ball of wax, they have a lot of problems down there
 
2013-03-29 12:37:19 PM  

BayouOtter: that bosnian sniper:
You think gun manufacturers  don't profit from heightened social unrest?

That wasn't the claim. Leave those goalposts alone.


No, it is. You're just too ideologically-driven, or stupid, not that the two are exclusive, to see it.
 
2013-03-29 12:37:43 PM  
Heypete

First I am a Gun (multiple) owner.

There is NO reason a person (other than Military or Police) NEEDS a 30 round or more magazine for ANY firearm unless you suck at shooting, and are to lazy to reload. What the NRA is scared of (and in a lot of cases justly so) is that once they take that then they take 10 round Mags, then 6 and so on. Domino principle.
 
2013-03-29 12:42:58 PM  

chiett: Heypete

First I am a Gun (multiple) owner.

There is NO reason a person (other than Military or Police) NEEDS a 30 round or more magazine for ANY firearm unless you suck at shooting, and are to lazy to reload.


Nobody needs to have alcohol. It's at best a device of recreational indulgence, and at worst it leads to fatal alcohol-related diseases, DUI fatalities, and untold numbers of beaten spouses and children (and probably drunken crimes in general). The first two account for far more deaths in the country than guns do every year (80K+ vs. 20K+), so why wouldn't you support banning alcohol? Maybe enforcing maximum ounce purchases to ensure nobody gets drunk? Okay, we'll let you get a slight buzz, but nobody needs to down an entire six pack and crash their car into a van with a family in it.

I will say, though, that I don't understand why in one breath you can say a cop needs to have a standard 17 round magazine in his pistol when he has a belt of extra magazines, body armor, and backup, but when Joe American in in his boxers at 2am trying to protect his family a 10 round magazine will do.
 
2013-03-29 12:46:37 PM  

chiett: First I am a Gun (multiple) owner.


Me too.

There is NO reason a person (other than Military or Police) NEEDS a 30 round or more magazine for ANY firearm unless you suck at shooting, and are to lazy to reload. What the NRA is scared of (and in a lot of cases justly so) is that once they take that then they take 10 round Mags, then 6 and so on. Domino principle.

Need really doesn't have anything to do with it. There's a lot of things that people have or do that they don't need. There's no evidence that restricting magazine capacity would have any meaningful effect on crime (mass shooters would just carry more magazines, as they do, and ordinary criminals average less than 5 shots, so they wouldn't really be affected) and it'd only affect law-abiding people. I don't like arbitrary limits, particularly when they're ineffective.
 That said, you're right about the domino effect. New York State is a good example: they recently passed a law that said people can keep the 10 round mags they were allowed to have under a previous restriction but were only legally allowed to load 7 rounds into those 10 round mags. All new magazines need to be a maximum of 7 rounds.
 
2013-03-29 12:46:39 PM  

Dinki: I'm a hardcore computer gamer- I have one PC.


i'm not a gamer. nor am i particularly nerdy. but i have 4 desktop computers in here and a laptop.

which one of us represents gamers/computer geeks best? and why does the number of toys we have matter.
 
2013-03-29 12:47:24 PM  
Because cops have to do it everyday. Joe American doesn't.

And don't even THINK about touching my beer!
 
2013-03-29 12:48:18 PM  

Alphakronik: You want to pass background checks for law abiding Americans?  Pass an executive order that recognizes a Muslim-American's right to bear arms.  Yes, I know they already can, but much like Republicans pointless laws, it would scare the shiat out of the right bad enough that they'd be willing to submit to background checks solely based upon forcing Muslims to be subject to further scrutiny.


...We should do this. Now. Yesterday, if possible.
 
2013-03-29 12:51:52 PM  
The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership.

Yeah that's all about "taking your guns."

Fail as usual, subby. inb4 b-b-but satire
 
2013-03-29 12:54:30 PM  

Silly Jesus: He needs to start taking guns away from his Chicago voter base.  That will lower the death numbers really quickly.


B b but I'm a chicago gun owner :(
 
2013-03-29 12:54:50 PM  
Too many of you trust politicians too much.
 
2013-03-29 12:59:04 PM  

scarmig: Too many of you trust politicians too much.


Because the private sector gun lobbies have really come through on this.  All we have to do is grit our teeth through another school massacre every few years.
 
2013-03-29 01:00:37 PM  

whidbey: scarmig: Too many of you trust politicians too much.

Because the private sector gun lobbies have really come through on this.  All we have to do is grit our teeth through another school massacre every few years.


And the government plans would have stopped any of the massacres how exactly?
 
2013-03-29 01:02:26 PM  

Bravo Two: As a gun owner and strong opponent of bans...I'm OKAY with background checks and processes that vet people who buy guns.

I don't care if i have to go through some checks and training in exchange for the right to carry a weapon in public, and while many of my brethren believe that I'm a 2ASINO because I believe that with the right to go armed and own weaponry comes the responsibility to use it responsibly.

I don't give keys to drunk guys, and I support barkeepers requiring people who order stiff drinks taking keys from people.

I don't let kids play around on heavy equipment like tractors and trucks and other such things where they might do something stupid.

I don't let kids play with knives, and supervise kids with sharp objects or guns.

It's just farking responsibility.

Were that the media were half as responsible about what they posted and the aftereffects of same. Were that people were responsible enough to realize that every action has a cause.

Anyway, that's not germane. What is germane is that maybe we can get to a point where gun owners and gun grabbers can agree on ways that enforce the responsibility of firearms and their proper use without equally forcing their view of what is and isn't appropriate on us.


Ah, the ol' gun owners should compromise.  Of course, by compromise you mean give up what we haven't yet let them "compromise" away and people like you feel safer at night.  Some of the laws they're putting forth would mean you couldn't leave your gun home with a roommate if you were on vacation for more than 7 or 10 days, how is that germane?

Also, for all the idiots who think the .gov statistics system would be a good thing, consider that it would be run by the .gov and would never have a chance of putting out legitimate statistics.  They just need new ones that further their agenda; we already have plenty of stats and they say this is all retarded and will do nothing for crime.  Then again, you probably have to have serious cognitive dissonance to not have read those stats and know that already.

We supported you for SOPA/PIPA, but when it comes to an amendment you don't care about, you couldn't care less.  Good luck with that.  A lot of us are starting to turn our backs on being equitable about our views.  Gay marriage?  Go fark yourself.  Free speech?  What do you need it for?

http://www.westernjournalism.com/biden-no-ordinary-american-cares-ab ou t-their-constitutional-rights/

Enjoy thinking they'll stop with the 2nd.
 
2013-03-29 01:05:01 PM  

Freeballin: Enjoy thinking they'll stop with the 2nd.


Because regulation=eliminating Constitutional Amendments

Sit down. Shut up.
 
2013-03-29 01:06:34 PM  
Don't worry guys, it can't happen here.  Dictatorships and authoritarians are a thing of the past.  Society can never collapse.  Let's just turn in all the guns except for hunting rifles.   That's the only reason people could ever need them ever.  Everyone in the red states are just dumb rednecks anyways.  I'm surprised they haven't all accidentally shot themselves in the face by now.

/God you people are smarmy as fark.
 
2013-03-29 01:07:25 PM  

whidbey: scarmig: Too many of you trust politicians too much.

Because the private sector gun lobbies have really come through on this.  All we have to do is grit our teeth through another school massacre every few years.


You're like a real life soccer mom.
 
2013-03-29 01:09:16 PM  

Frank N Stein: whidbey: scarmig: Too many of you trust politicians too much.

Because the private sector gun lobbies have really come through on this.  All we have to do is grit our teeth through another school massacre every few years.

You're like a real life soccer mom.


No, but you've proven that you're incapable of contributing honest discussion to this topic.  Yeah that goes past "unwilling."
 
2013-03-29 01:10:25 PM  

dehehn: Don't worry guys, it can't happen here.  Dictatorships and authoritarians are a thing of the past.  Society can never collapse.  Let's just turn in all the guns except for hunting rifles.   That's the only reason people could ever need them ever.  Everyone in the red states are just dumb rednecks anyways.  I'm surprised they haven't all accidentally shot themselves in the face by now.

/God you people are smarmy as fark.


Fantasy talk does not equate to honest discussion either.
 
2013-03-29 01:15:03 PM  

Bravo Two: ilambiquated: [inspirably.com image 380x333]

oh look, it's you again.  Here to spout meaningless platitudes instead of engaging in meaningful conversation? I noticed you didn't bother to show up to the last thread where we had an actual reasonable conversation on the topic.


Let me guess, Jeremy?
 
2013-03-29 01:15:10 PM  
The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership.

Interesting how the stuff he does is far more level headed than the Left pushes for. He really is trying to be a bipartisan President, it would seem. None of these are a bad thing, as I see it.
 
2013-03-29 01:15:27 PM  
excellent "journalism" in this totally non-misleading article:


Obama uses executive power to move gun control agenda forwardBy Jordy Yager -  03/29/13 06:00 AM ETPresident Obama is quietly moving forward on gun control.


The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership.
 
2013-03-29 01:15:40 PM  

Freeballin: We supported you for SOPA/PIPA, but when it comes to an amendment you don't care about, you couldn't care less.  Good luck with that.  A lot of us are starting to turn our backs on being equitable about our views.  Gay marriage?  Go fark yourself.  Free speech?  What do you need it for?

http://www.westernjournalism.com/biden-no-ordinary-american-cares-ab ou t-their-constitutional-rights/

Enjoy thinking they'll stop with the 2nd.


Honest question: What are you talking about?
 
2013-03-29 01:15:53 PM  

heypete: They're not nearly as reliable as more traditional box magazines, as they have more moving parts, complex geometry, etc.


So then you should want to get rid of these unsafe magazines, right? You don't want that sh*t to fail in a key moment, right?
 
2013-03-29 01:17:20 PM  

Mikey1969: The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership.

Interesting how the stuff he does is far more level headed than the Left pushes for. He really is trying to be a bipartisan President, it would seem. None of these are a bad thing, as I see it.


"Interesting" how you've decided "the Left" isn't for the same kinds of solutions, like enforceable background checks and a national registry.
 
2013-03-29 01:17:27 PM  

Mikey1969: The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership.

Interesting how the stuff he does is far more level headed than the Left pushes for. He really is trying to be a bipartisan President, it would seem. None of these are a bad thing, as I see it.



That is the craziest thing about it.  Does anyone seriously contend that those three items are bad things?

Oh wait, I forgot.  We're dealing with the gun-crazy right, who view any attempt to "discriminate against guns" (a.k.a., inanimate objects designed to kill things) as a full-frontal assault on liberty and the constitution itself.
 
2013-03-29 01:17:43 PM  

Mugato: Yeah, God forbid we have actual background checks to enforce the laws we already have about people trying to buy guns who are actual felons and actual psychos.

These gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they just admitted that they like to play with their toys and would drop the pretense that the second amendment is still about keeping the government from getting out of control with the threat of armed insurrection.


These anti gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they'd admit that they ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns, so they probably shouldn't be mucking about trying to make laws and influence legislators.
 
2013-03-29 01:18:28 PM  

Mikey1969: The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership.

Interesting how the stuff he does is far more level headed than the Left pushes for. He really is trying to be a bipartisan President, it would seem. None of these are a bad thing, as I see it.


Are you kidding? We're pushing for that sh*t too! Have you seen the polls? Rachel Maddow was on last night talking about the need for this stuff.
 
2013-03-29 01:19:29 PM  

Mikey1969: These anti gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they'd admit that they ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns


No, your problem is that we do understand about guns.
 
2013-03-29 01:19:34 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: heypete: They're not nearly as reliable as more traditional box magazines, as they have more moving parts, complex geometry, etc.

So then you should want to get rid of these unsafe magazines, right? You don't want that sh*t to fail in a key moment, right?


No. You want those mags to fail at key moments....like when someone is shooting up a theatre. If he used 20 round mags the chance of failure would be 0.
 
2013-03-29 01:21:19 PM  
mississippiautoarms.comView Full Size

These stupid things fail so often that making them mandatory would actually slow down mass shooters.
 
2013-03-29 01:21:25 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: So then you should want to get rid of these unsafe magazines, right? You don't want that sh*t to fail in a key moment, right?


Nice strawman.

I never said they were unsafe, only relatively unreliable compared to more traditional box magazines. They're great if a high degree of reliability isn't necessary, like having fun at the range while shooting targets.

I wouldn't recommend them for any sort of serious purpose, but that hardly suggests that I think they should be banned outright.
 
2013-03-29 01:23:57 PM  

Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: heypete: They're not nearly as reliable as more traditional box magazines, as they have more moving parts, complex geometry, etc.

So then you should want to get rid of these unsafe magazines, right? You don't want that sh*t to fail in a key moment, right?

No. You want those mags to fail at key moments....like when someone is shooting up a theatre. If he used 20 round mags the chance of failure would be 0.


Really? A 20-round magazine never, ever fails? Zero times?

Okay, You're totally right. We should give him the capacity to make 10 extra people dead on the off-chance that it fails.
 
2013-03-29 01:24:05 PM  
ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns

No, your problem is that we do understand about guns.


What makes a Mini-14 with a 30 round mag less lethal than an AR-15 with a 30 round mag?

What makes 4 inches of travel on a "collapsable" stock more lethal than a fixed stock firearm?

What makes a frearm more lethal in a shooting when it has a bayonet lug compared to a firearm without one?
 
2013-03-29 01:24:48 PM  

heypete: cameroncrazy1984: So then you should want to get rid of these unsafe magazines, right? You don't want that sh*t to fail in a key moment, right?

Nice strawman.

I never said they were unsafe, only relatively unreliable compared to more traditional box magazines. They're great if a high degree of reliability isn't necessary, like having fun at the range while shooting targets.

I wouldn't recommend them for any sort of serious purpose, but that hardly suggests that I think they should be banned outright.


Why not? We ban other things for a lot less.
 
2013-03-29 01:25:23 PM  

Giltric: ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns

No, your problem is that we do understand about guns.

What makes a Mini-14 with a 30 round mag less lethal than an AR-15 with a 30 round mag?

What makes 4 inches of travel on a "collapsable" stock more lethal than a fixed stock firearm?

What makes a frearm more lethal in a shooting when it has a bayonet lug compared to a firearm without one?


Why don't you ask Adam Lanza, who picked up an AR-15 and left a hunting rifle at home.
 
2013-03-29 01:26:08 PM  

Mikey1969: Mugato: Yeah, God forbid we have actual background checks to enforce the laws we already have about people trying to buy guns who are actual felons and actual psychos.

These gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they just admitted that they like to play with their toys and would drop the pretense that the second amendment is still about keeping the government from getting out of control with the threat of armed insurrection.

These anti gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they'd admit that they ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns, so they probably shouldn't be mucking about trying to make laws and influence legislators.


Then teach us. Tell us what would be regulations that would make things safer for everyone. Don't look down your noses at us and yell "YOU SAID CLIP WHEN YOU MEANT MAGAZINE! GOD YOU'RE STUPID!" That doesn't build a good conversation. Have a counter proposal. It seems anytime anyone even makes an attempt to fix the gun problem in our country, NRA/gun owners claim any action would be oppressing their freedom, and that everything is just fine how it is. That's obviously not true, so give us some ideas. Help us out here. Otherwise, you'll end up with the flat out bans and/or useless/harmful regulation you don't want.
 
2013-03-29 01:26:37 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns

No, your problem is that we do understand about guns.

What makes a Mini-14 with a 30 round mag less lethal than an AR-15 with a 30 round mag?

What makes 4 inches of travel on a "collapsable" stock more lethal than a fixed stock firearm?

What makes a frearm more lethal in a shooting when it has a bayonet lug compared to a firearm without one?

Why don't you ask Adam Lanza, who picked up an AR-15 and left a hunting rifle at home.



So you have no answers and would like to change the subject?

I thought you knew about guns?
 
2013-03-29 01:28:29 PM  

Giltric: ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns

No, your problem is that we do understand about guns.

What makes a Mini-14 with a 30 round mag less lethal than an AR-15 with a 30 round mag?

What makes 4 inches of travel on a "collapsable" stock more lethal than a fixed stock firearm?

What makes a frearm more lethal in a shooting when it has a bayonet lug compared to a firearm without one?


This is exactly the shiat I was talking about in my last post. We get it, you know a shiat ton about guns. Us that to help the national conversation that needs to occur instead of trying to belittle people.
 
2013-03-29 01:28:34 PM  

Giltric: So you have no answers and would like to change the subject?

I thought you knew about guns?


I do know about guns. Why do you think Lanza picked up an AR-15 and not the hunting rifle? It's a legitimate question. if one is no more lethal than the other, why did he pick it? Why does no army in the world use a Ruger Mini-14?
 
2013-03-29 01:28:42 PM  

whidbey: Mikey1969: The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership.

Interesting how the stuff he does is far more level headed than the Left pushes for. He really is trying to be a bipartisan President, it would seem. None of these are a bad thing, as I see it.

"Interesting" how you've decided "the Left" isn't for the same kinds of solutions, like enforceable background checks and a national registry.


Sorry, the Left is for bans and incorrectly classifying guns, then more bans.
 
2013-03-29 01:29:03 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Why not? We ban other things for a lot less.


So, just because ItemA is relatively unreliable compared to ItemB, even though it doesn't pose a danger to the user, we should impose a federal ban on ItemA?

If that particular type of magazine had a tendency to explode or otherwise fail in some catastrophic way that's harmful, ok, you'd have a point. But simply because it's slightly less reliable? That doesn't make much sense.
 
2013-03-29 01:29:25 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns

No, your problem is that we do understand about guns.

What makes a Mini-14 with a 30 round mag less lethal than an AR-15 with a 30 round mag?

What makes 4 inches of travel on a "collapsable" stock more lethal than a fixed stock firearm?

What makes a frearm more lethal in a shooting when it has a bayonet lug compared to a firearm without one?

Why don't you ask Adam Lanza, who picked up an AR-15 and left a hunting rifle at home.


Yeah, but he was a trained shooter.

static2.businessinsider.comView Full Size
 
2013-03-29 01:29:54 PM  

heypete: it doesn't pose a danger to the user,


But it DOES pose a danger to others, does it not?
 
2013-03-29 01:30:37 PM  

Mikey1969: whidbey: Mikey1969: The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership.

Interesting how the stuff he does is far more level headed than the Left pushes for. He really is trying to be a bipartisan President, it would seem. None of these are a bad thing, as I see it.

"Interesting" how you've decided "the Left" isn't for the same kinds of solutions, like enforceable background checks and a national registry.

Sorry, the Left is for bans and incorrectly classifying guns, then more bans.


Delusional much?
 
2013-03-29 01:30:39 PM  

Chummer45: Mikey1969: The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership.

Interesting how the stuff he does is far more level headed than the Left pushes for. He really is trying to be a bipartisan President, it would seem. None of these are a bad thing, as I see it.


That is the craziest thing about it.  Does anyone seriously contend that those three items are bad things?

Oh wait, I forgot.  We're dealing with the gun-crazy right, who view any attempt to "discriminate against guns" (a.k.a., inanimate objects designed to kill things) as a full-frontal assault on liberty and the constitution itself.


I think a large portion of the "gun-crazy right" are like me(Not a Rightie or a Leftie), and just tired of people with no idea what they are talking about trying to dictate laws. I know that's my problem. People who wouldn't know a "barrel shroud" from a sling trying to make the things illegal.
 
2013-03-29 01:30:49 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Mikey1969: Mugato: Yeah, God forbid we have actual background checks to enforce the laws we already have about people trying to buy guns who are actual felons and actual psychos.

These gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they just admitted that they like to play with their toys and would drop the pretense that the second amendment is still about keeping the government from getting out of control with the threat of armed insurrection.

These anti gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they'd admit that they ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns, so they probably shouldn't be mucking about trying to make laws and influence legislators.

Then teach us. Tell us what would be regulations that would make things safer for everyone. Don't look down your noses at us and yell "YOU SAID CLIP WHEN YOU MEANT MAGAZINE! GOD YOU'RE STUPID!" That doesn't build a good conversation. Have a counter proposal. It seems anytime anyone even makes an attempt to fix the gun problem in our country, NRA/gun owners claim any action would be oppressing their freedom, and that everything is just fine how it is. That's obviously not true, so give us some ideas. Help us out here. Otherwise, you'll end up with the flat out bans and/or useless/harmful regulation you don't want.


How about everything doesn't have a solution.  There are 300 million people in the U.S.  If one of those people really wants to kill someone, they are going to.  Trying to craft laws to prevent these mass shootings is asinine.
 
2013-03-29 01:31:40 PM  

Mikey1969: whidbey: Mikey1969: The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership.

Interesting how the stuff he does is far more level headed than the Left pushes for. He really is trying to be a bipartisan President, it would seem. None of these are a bad thing, as I see it.

"Interesting" how you've decided "the Left" isn't for the same kinds of solutions, like enforceable background checks and a national registry.

Sorry, the Left is for bans and incorrectly classifying guns, then more bans.


Who are these people?
 
2013-03-29 01:32:50 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Mikey1969: These anti gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they'd admit that they ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns

No, your problem is that we do understand about guns.


No, you don't know shiat. You sit around in your circle-jerk sessions and convince each other that you're well educated on the subject, but I have seen few situations where someone is more ignorant of something that they are pushing for laws on than guns. Liquor in Utah comes to mind, but that's about the only time the people with the regulation gleam in their eyes have been anywhere near as clueless.
 
2013-03-29 01:33:20 PM  

Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns

No, your problem is that we do understand about guns.

What makes a Mini-14 with a 30 round mag less lethal than an AR-15 with a 30 round mag?

What makes 4 inches of travel on a "collapsable" stock more lethal than a fixed stock firearm?

What makes a frearm more lethal in a shooting when it has a bayonet lug compared to a firearm without one?

Why don't you ask Adam Lanza, who picked up an AR-15 and left a hunting rifle at home.


So you have no answers and would like to change the subject?

I thought you knew about guns?


I'm a little sick of the gun lecture myself.

National registry:  yes or no?  Why or why not?
Background checks: Yes or no, why or why not?

Do you agree with the President's actions?
 
2013-03-29 01:33:32 PM  

Silly Jesus: [www.mississippiautoarms.com image 330x310]
These stupid things fail so often that making them mandatory would actually slow down mass shooters.


Yeah, I wouldn't trust something like that.
 
2013-03-29 01:33:44 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: heypete: They're not nearly as reliable as more traditional box magazines, as they have more moving parts, complex geometry, etc.

So then you should want to get rid of these unsafe magazines, right? You don't want that sh*t to fail in a key moment, right?

No. You want those mags to fail at key moments....like when someone is shooting up a theatre. If he used 20 round mags the chance of failure would be 0.

Really? A 20-round magazine never, ever fails? Zero times?

Okay, You're totally right. We should give him the capacity to make 10 extra people dead on the off-chance that it fails.


No they do not fail. It is a rarity that a 10, 20 or 30 round magazine fails. The rate of failure is so insignificant that the odd failure can be thrown out like a low olympic score when tallying the average.

If you limit citizens to a 10 round magazine with the theory that a victim (those not shot and laying on the ground mortally wounded) will rush their spree killing attacker when the attacker changes magazines would that theory not apply to a pair of criminals who is breaking into someones home? Do you also think criminals will get rid of their 20 or 30 round magazines because the law states they can only use a 10 round magazine?

Odds are the criminal has broken into numerous houses before, where as the victim will be defending their life and home for the first time. (this has to do with stress and adrenaline and experience...courage under fire so to speak)
 
2013-03-29 01:34:14 PM  

PDid: http://www.guns.com/2013/03/16/guns-com-talks-gun-control-and-politic s -with-ucla-professor-mark-kleiman-video/

I agree with Kleiman.


"If you're Wayne LaPierre and you want to stand up for the rights of law-abiding gun-owners, you make a deal that sacrifices the non-law-abiding: universal background checks, better record-keeping and data analysis, stronger gun-tracing, tough penalties for scofflaw gun dealers and straw purchasers who knowingly arm criminals. But if you're Wayne LaPierre and your job is making sure the dollars keep flowing from customers to your gun-manufacturer sponsors and from those sponsors to the NRA's bank account (and your own), then you mount a national scare campaign to stimulate gun sales. I'll leave it up to you to figure out which Wayne LaPierre is actually running the NRA. "

Indeed.
 
2013-03-29 01:34:45 PM  

Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: heypete: They're not nearly as reliable as more traditional box magazines, as they have more moving parts, complex geometry, etc.

So then you should want to get rid of these unsafe magazines, right? You don't want that sh*t to fail in a key moment, right?

No. You want those mags to fail at key moments....like when someone is shooting up a theatre.


Maybe. If they failed before he got off SIXTY-FIVE ROUNDS.
 
2013-03-29 01:34:54 PM  

Silly Jesus: If one of those people really wants to kill someone, they are going to.  Trying to craft laws to prevent these mass shootings is asinine.


Making it more difficult for someone to kill a lot of people is asinine? Sure you can kill one person if you're really bent on it. But 20? That's a lot harder without a gun.
 
2013-03-29 01:35:07 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns

No, your problem is that we do understand about guns.

What makes a Mini-14 with a 30 round mag less lethal than an AR-15 with a 30 round mag?

What makes 4 inches of travel on a "collapsable" stock more lethal than a fixed stock firearm?

What makes a frearm more lethal in a shooting when it has a bayonet lug compared to a firearm without one?

Why don't you ask Adam Lanza, who picked up an AR-15 and left a hunting rifle at home.


Ahhh, the "no answer" route. We know it well around here.

Oh, but you sure do "understand" about guns.
 
2013-03-29 01:35:37 PM  
How about we start by telling the Republicans to stop gobbling the NRA knob and pass an ATF nominee so we can get back to enforcing the laws already on the books?
 
2013-03-29 01:35:42 PM  

Mikey1969: Chummer45: Mikey1969: The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership.

Interesting how the stuff he does is far more level headed than the Left pushes for. He really is trying to be a bipartisan President, it would seem. None of these are a bad thing, as I see it.


That is the craziest thing about it.  Does anyone seriously contend that those three items are bad things?

Oh wait, I forgot.  We're dealing with the gun-crazy right, who view any attempt to "discriminate against guns" (a.k.a., inanimate objects designed to kill things) as a full-frontal assault on liberty and the constitution itself.

I think a large portion of the "gun-crazy right" are like me(Not a Rightie or a Leftie), and just tired of people with no idea what they are talking about trying to dictate laws. I know that's my problem. People who wouldn't know a "barrel shroud" from a sling trying to make the things illegal.


This is a common tactic: bully anyone who calls for regulation by stating that "you don't know about Part XC359BR so you're unqualified to discuss the subject. The end."

Bullshiat, dude.
 
2013-03-29 01:35:44 PM  

Mikey1969: cameroncrazy1984: Mikey1969: These anti gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they'd admit that they ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns

No, your problem is that we do understand about guns.

No, you don't know shiat. You sit around in your circle-jerk sessions and convince each other that you're well educated on the subject, but I have seen few situations where someone is more ignorant of something that they are pushing for laws on than guns. Liquor in Utah comes to mind, but that's about the only time the people with the regulation gleam in their eyes have been anywhere near as clueless.


Who is this "you?"
 
2013-03-29 01:35:50 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Giltric: ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns

No, your problem is that we do understand about guns.

What makes a Mini-14 with a 30 round mag less lethal than an AR-15 with a 30 round mag?

What makes 4 inches of travel on a "collapsable" stock more lethal than a fixed stock firearm?

What makes a frearm more lethal in a shooting when it has a bayonet lug compared to a firearm without one?

This is exactly the shiat I was talking about in my last post. We get it, you know a shiat ton about guns. Us that to help the national conversation that needs to occur instead of trying to belittle people.



Why should I help you restrict my rights? Why should I compromise with those who wish for nothing other than total disarmament? After I compromise on this piece of legislation what will you want me to compromise with when they seek to further restrict firearms and their ownership?
 
2013-03-29 01:36:30 PM  

Mikey1969: Ahhh, the "no answer" route. We know it well around here.

Oh, but you sure do "understand" about gun


No, it's inconvenient to your position, that Lanza and other mass shooters choose assault rifles over Ruger Mini-14s. Why do you think they do that?
 
2013-03-29 01:37:10 PM  

whidbey: Mikey1969: whidbey: Mikey1969: The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership.

Interesting how the stuff he does is far more level headed than the Left pushes for. He really is trying to be a bipartisan President, it would seem. None of these are a bad thing, as I see it.

"Interesting" how you've decided "the Left" isn't for the same kinds of solutions, like enforceable background checks and a national registry.

Sorry, the Left is for bans and incorrectly classifying guns, then more bans.

Delusional much?


You're right, NOBODY calls for gun bans. Sorry, all that stuff on the news, as well as the past gun bans were all delusions.

Jesus, at least stand up for your Party and admit their actions.
 
2013-03-29 01:38:52 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: So you have no answers and would like to change the subject?

I thought you knew about guns?

I do know about guns. Why do you think Lanza picked up an AR-15 and not the hunting rifle? It's a legitimate question. if one is no more lethal than the other, why did he pick it? Why does no army in the world use a Ruger Mini-14?


Cause Call of Duty does not feature hunting rifles. And because Ruger salesmen suck more than FNH or KAC or DD or Colt.
 
2013-03-29 01:40:03 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: No, it's inconvenient to your position, that Lanza and other mass shooters choose assault rifles over Ruger Mini-14s


Can you list the mass shooters that choose assault rifles?

A majority choose handguns accoridng to the list compiled by mayors against guns.
 
2013-03-29 01:40:35 PM  

Mikey1969: whidbey: Mikey1969: whidbey: Mikey1969: The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership.

Interesting how the stuff he does is far more level headed than the Left pushes for. He really is trying to be a bipartisan President, it would seem. None of these are a bad thing, as I see it.

"Interesting" how you've decided "the Left" isn't for the same kinds of solutions, like enforceable background checks and a national registry.

Sorry, the Left is for bans and incorrectly classifying guns, then more bans.

Delusional much?

You're right, NOBODY calls for gun bans. Sorry, all that stuff on the news, as well as the past gun bans were all delusions.

Jesus, at least stand up for your Party and admit their actions.


More like "Jesus stop constructing strawman arguments and learn how to debate the actual topic."

Well not Jesus. You.
 
2013-03-29 01:40:38 PM  

Giltric: Why should I compromise with those who wish for nothing other than total disarmament?


Most NRA members wish for total disarmament?
 
2013-03-29 01:41:20 PM  

Car_Ramrod: It seems anytime anyone even makes an attempt to fix the gun problem in our country, NRA/gun owners claim any action would be oppressing their freedom, and that everything is just fine how it is. That's obviously not true, so give us some ideas.


Well, what if one thinks that insofar as gun regulations are concerned, the status quo is fairly reasonable? Dealers are required to make background checks on purchasers (and such checks are enforceable, unlike requiring checks on private sales), machine guns and other things like explosives are heavily regulated, and guns that fire a single shot per pull of the trigger (regardless of what they look like) are legal. That seems pretty reasonable. Sure, there could be some improvements, like getting the states to send more comprehensive, uniform data to the background check system, but there's no real evidence that the proposals currently pending in Congress would have any effect on crime.

The people committing the overwhelming majority of gun-related crimes are criminals with records that prohibit them from possessing guns. Anyone transferring guns to them is also violating the law. More laws making their already-illegal actions slightly more illegal aren't really going to help.

Even with gun laws being as they are, gun sales at or near all-time highs, and the amount of guns-per-capita being at an all-time high,, gun-related homicide is at its lowest point since 1964 and has been declining since it peaked in 1980.
 
There have been a fair number of proposals from gun owners (including myself), both on Fark and elsewhere. The overall trend is "crack down on traffickers and straw purchasers of guns, end the War on (some) Drugs, provide meaningful assistance/opportunities to people in communities plagued by poverty, drug trafficking, and gangs". Healthy, stable, prosperous people are statistically very unlikely to commit crimes.

I'm of the opinion that violent crime is a symptom of a deeper problem (like poverty, drugs, gangs, etc.) and that until society addresses those problems, the symptom will continue regardless of what band-aids are applied.
 
2013-03-29 01:42:22 PM  

Giltric: Why should I help you restrict my rights? Why should I compromise with those who wish for nothing other than total disarmament? After I compromise on this piece of legislation what will you want me to compromise with when they seek to further restrict firearms and their ownership?


You're welcome to show how anything in TFA or the President's plan calls for "total disarmament."

I've given you a lot of chances, Giltic. Why am I still doing this?
 
2013-03-29 01:42:31 PM  
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.comView Full Size

"If I could've gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America turn 'em all in -- I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

This might be why some people are reluctant to go along with these first steps...
 
2013-03-29 01:42:42 PM  

Heraclitus: How about we start by telling the Republicans to stop gobbling the NRA knob and pass an ATF nominee so we can get back to enforcing the laws already on the books?


Considering that most of the nominees have been ultra leftist gun control opponents maybe Obama should nominate a moderate.
 
2013-03-29 01:43:27 PM  

Giltric: Heraclitus: How about we start by telling the Republicans to stop gobbling the NRA knob and pass an ATF nominee so we can get back to enforcing the laws already on the books?

Considering that most of the nominees have been ultra leftist gun control proponents maybe Obama should nominate a moderate.


FTFM
 
2013-03-29 01:45:03 PM  

whidbey: Giltric: Why should I help you restrict my rights? Why should I compromise with those who wish for nothing other than total disarmament? After I compromise on this piece of legislation what will you want me to compromise with when they seek to further restrict firearms and their ownership?

You're welcome to show how anything in TFA or the President's plan calls for "total disarmament."

I've given you a lot of chances, Giltic. Why am I still doing this?



Sorry Whidbey there are a few of us in this thread who are having a conversation. If you would like to report us for discussing something other than the specifities of the article go right ahead. I already have you pegged as someone willing to "name names" anyway.
 
2013-03-29 01:45:59 PM  

whidbey: Giltric: Why should I help you restrict my rights? Why should I compromise with those who wish for nothing other than total disarmament? After I compromise on this piece of legislation what will you want me to compromise with when they seek to further restrict firearms and their ownership?

You're welcome to show how anything in TFA or the President's plan calls for "total disarmament."

I've given you a lot of chances, Giltic. Why am I still doing this?


See post directly below yours.
 
2013-03-29 01:46:00 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Mikey1969: Mugato: Yeah, God forbid we have actual background checks to enforce the laws we already have about people trying to buy guns who are actual felons and actual psychos.

These gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they just admitted that they like to play with their toys and would drop the pretense that the second amendment is still about keeping the government from getting out of control with the threat of armed insurrection.

These anti gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they'd admit that they ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns, so they probably shouldn't be mucking about trying to make laws and influence legislators.

Then teach us. Tell us what would be regulations that would make things safer for everyone. Don't look down your noses at us and yell "YOU SAID CLIP WHEN YOU MEANT MAGAZINE! GOD YOU'RE STUPID!" That doesn't build a good conversation. Have a counter proposal. It seems anytime anyone even makes an attempt to fix the gun problem in our country, NRA/gun owners claim any action would be oppressing their freedom, and that everything is just fine how it is. That's obviously not true, so give us some ideas. Help us out here. Otherwise, you'll end up with the flat out bans and/or useless/harmful regulation you don't want.


The problem is with labeling the guns in the first place. The labels are flawed, and the shiat falls apart as a result. "Let's ban high-powered assault rifles like the AR-15!!" is a great example. First, it's not very "high powered", second, there are weapons, such as the Ruger Mini-14 that are virtually identical to the AR-15, but since they have a wood stock, suddenly they are considered "hunting rifles", and are therefore "OK". It really does all boil down to looks, everyone freaks out at the AR-15, because it "looks" scary. They might make other claims, but when presented with something like the Mini-14, suddenly they say "Sure, that gun looks fine.". This is the problem most of us have, the loudest ban voices won't listen to what they've farked up, they won't pay attention to why something like a bayonet lug is a stupid thing to base a ban on, and a huge percentage of the time, they don't even know what the parts do that they're trying to get banned, but they either sound scary, or someone told them they should be banned. A great example of this is the "barrel shroud" interview.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo

Add to this the fact that they knowingly spread misinformation, bad statistics, and pure fabrications regarding numbers, gun parts, and other shiat, and it's kind of hard to trust these people to craft a law based on reality.
 
2013-03-29 01:47:05 PM  

Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: So you have no answers and would like to change the subject?

I thought you knew about guns?

I do know about guns. Why do you think Lanza picked up an AR-15 and not the hunting rifle? It's a legitimate question. if one is no more lethal than the other, why did he pick it? Why does no army in the world use a Ruger Mini-14?

Cause Call of Duty does not feature hunting rifles. And because Ruger salesmen suck more than FNH or KAC or DD or Colt.


Yeah, that's it. The AR-15 is the most popular assault weapon of choice because Ruger salesmen are terrible at their job.

Are you serious right now, Clark?
 
2013-03-29 01:48:02 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: But it DOES pose a danger to others, does it not?


Not really. I mean, I wouldn't want someone to drop one on my foot as they're fairly heavy and awkward, but they're not really dangerous...well, they do have some coiled springs inside that might poke you with a fair bit of force.

They're basically a variant on the "box-with-a-spring" type magazine, only with more complex geometry that poses reliability issues.

It's the user who has the potential to pose a danger to others. By far, the vast majority of users of such magazines do not pose a danger to others.
 
2013-03-29 01:48:33 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: So you have no answers and would like to change the subject?

I thought you knew about guns?

I do know about guns. Why do you think Lanza picked up an AR-15 and not the hunting rifle? It's a legitimate question. if one is no more lethal than the other, why did he pick it? Why does no army in the world use a Ruger Mini-14?

Cause Call of Duty does not feature hunting rifles. And because Ruger salesmen suck more than FNH or KAC or DD or Colt.

Yeah, that's it. The AR-15 is the most popular assault weapon of choice because Ruger salesmen are terrible at their job.

Are you serious right now, Clark?


You done with that list of assault weapon armed spree killers yet? I have to be at the range in 26 minutes.
 
2013-03-29 01:48:53 PM  

whidbey: This is a common tactic: bully anyone who calls for regulation by stating that "you don't know about Part XC359BR so you're unqualified to discuss the subject. The end."

Bullshiat, dude.


Look, if you don't know about  Part XC359BR, what makes you THINK that you're qualified to discuss making a law to ban it? I don't understand why people can't grasp this part of the equation. WHy make laws and call for laws on something that you don't even understand the function of?
 
2013-03-29 01:49:06 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: No, it's inconvenient to your position, that Lanza and other mass shooters choose assault rifles over Ruger Mini-14s. Why do you think they do that?


Maybe he wanted something black and scary since the mini-14 and AR-15 are almost exactly the same weapon, shoot the same cartridge and have the same action.
 
2013-03-29 01:49:36 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Mikey1969: cameroncrazy1984: Mikey1969: These anti gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they'd admit that they ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns

No, your problem is that we do understand about guns.

No, you don't know shiat. You sit around in your circle-jerk sessions and convince each other that you're well educated on the subject, but I have seen few situations where someone is more ignorant of something that they are pushing for laws on than guns. Liquor in Utah comes to mind, but that's about the only time the people with the regulation gleam in their eyes have been anywhere near as clueless.

Who is this "you?"


Well, it would be... You.
 
2013-03-29 01:49:51 PM  

Giltric: Can you list the mass shooters that choose assault rifles?


These guys liked them pretty well.

img2.timeinc.netView Full Size
timenewsfeed.files.wordpress.comView Full Size
static.guim.co.ukView Full Size
gannett-cdn.comView Full Size
 
2013-03-29 01:51:12 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: Can you list the mass shooters that choose assault rifles?

These guys liked them pretty well.

[img2.timeinc.net image 220x300][timenewsfeed.files.wordpress.com image 200x300][static.guim.co.uk image 200x300][www.gannett-cdn.com image 215x300]


Add those guys together and you get an average month in Chicago....
Sensationalism works.
 
2013-03-29 01:51:32 PM  

Mikey1969: Well, it would be... You.


And why would you say that?
 
2013-03-29 01:51:53 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Mikey1969: Ahhh, the "no answer" route. We know it well around here.

Oh, but you sure do "understand" about gun

No, it's inconvenient to your position, that Lanza and other mass shooters choose assault rifles over Ruger Mini-14s. Why do you think they do that?


No reason not to. They both accept the same magazine and fire the same ammo. There is nothing special about the AR-15 that the Mini-14 doesn't have. Fun fact: The A-Team used Mini-14's in their show, not AR-15s, all you do is put in the bigger mag, which the gun will come with.
 
2013-03-29 01:51:54 PM  
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.comView Full Size
 
2013-03-29 01:52:24 PM  

o5iiawah: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: Can you list the mass shooters that choose assault rifles?

These guys liked them pretty well.

[img2.timeinc.net image 220x300][timenewsfeed.files.wordpress.com image 200x300][static.guim.co.uk image 200x300][www.gannett-cdn.com image 215x300]

Add those guys together and you get an average month in Chicago....
Sensationalism works.


So what I'm getting from this thread is that there should be tighter regulations on handguns and universal background checks?

Sold.
 
2013-03-29 01:52:34 PM  

Giltric: Marcus Aurelius: The background check typically costs less than a box of ammo. I'm already spending a thousand dollars, I can cover the check

The new legislation regarding proposed background checks places the determination of fees on the AG. Many proponents of gun control who hold elected office want this to be as sky high as possible in order to deter people from buying firearms. Do you think a pro gun control AG would set the fee at 40$ or 400$?

I think they should put an amendment on the bill that couples the fee for firearms with the fee for voter registration. If you are going to start charging people to exercise a right why not use it as a revenue stream and apply it to the excersising of as many rights as possible?


I was not aware of that.  I'm in PA, so the fee will either be low or the AG will be gone.
 
2013-03-29 01:53:06 PM  

Mikey1969: cameroncrazy1984: Mikey1969: Ahhh, the "no answer" route. We know it well around here.

Oh, but you sure do "understand" about gun

No, it's inconvenient to your position, that Lanza and other mass shooters choose assault rifles over Ruger Mini-14s. Why do you think they do that?

No reason not to. They both accept the same magazine and fire the same ammo. There is nothing special about the AR-15 that the Mini-14 doesn't have. Fun fact: The A-Team used Mini-14's in their show, not AR-15s, all you do is put in the bigger mag, which the gun will come with.


Can you explain to me why the Ruger Mini-14 isn't used by any military in the world? I mean, it's not any more lethal, right?
 
2013-03-29 01:54:16 PM  

o5iiawah: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: Can you list the mass shooters that choose assault rifles?

These guys liked them pretty well.

[img2.timeinc.net image 220x300][timenewsfeed.files.wordpress.com image 200x300][static.guim.co.uk image 200x300][www.gannett-cdn.com image 215x300]

Add those guys together and you get an average month in Chicago....
Sensationalism works.


Is the topic about handguns now? You don't see many people walking around the streets of any city with an AR-15...
 
2013-03-29 01:55:44 PM  
politix.topix.comView Full Size

Murder Weapons

Well, obviously, we should start banning AR-15's, which are a small subset of Rifles.  Durr.
 
2013-03-29 01:56:28 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: o5iiawah: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: Can you list the mass shooters that choose assault rifles?

These guys liked them pretty well.

[img2.timeinc.net image 220x300][timenewsfeed.files.wordpress.com image 200x300][static.guim.co.uk image 200x300][www.gannett-cdn.com image 215x300]

Add those guys together and you get an average month in Chicago....
Sensationalism works.

So what I'm getting from this thread is that there should be tighter regulations on handguns and universal background checks?

Sold.


Or you could enforce the laws you already have, enact harsher sentences for peopele who use guns in crimes, prosecute people who are unable to obtain a firearm and try to do so anyway.  or you know...what the NRA has been crowing for for decades.

Gangbangers buy guns out of car trunks.  That is already illegal
Making straw purchases for someone who is unable to legally obtain a firearm is already illegal

Making it double-plus illegal doesn't solve the problem.
 
2013-03-29 01:56:45 PM  

Giltric: No they do not fail. It is a rarity that a 10, 20 or 30 round magazine fails. The rate of failure is so insignificant that the odd failure can be thrown out like a low olympic score when tallying the average.

If you limit citizens to a 10 round magazine with the theory that a victim (those not shot and laying on the ground mortally wounded) will rush their spree killing attacker when the attacker changes magazines would that theory not apply to a pair of criminals who is breaking into someones home? Do you also think criminals will get rid of their 20 or 30 round magazines because the law states they can only use a 10 round magazine?

Odds are the criminal has broken into numerous houses before, where as the victim will be defending their life and home for the first time. (this has to do with stress and adrenaline and experience...courage under fire so to speak)


One of the Columbine guys used a 10-round magazine. Didn't seem to help the victims that he had to keep reloading, and I don't think that limiting him to 10 rounds produced less victims.
 
2013-03-29 01:57:30 PM  

Mikey1969: Chummer45: Mikey1969: The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership.

Interesting how the stuff he does is far more level headed than the Left pushes for. He really is trying to be a bipartisan President, it would seem. None of these are a bad thing, as I see it.


That is the craziest thing about it.  Does anyone seriously contend that those three items are bad things?

Oh wait, I forgot.  We're dealing with the gun-crazy right, who view any attempt to "discriminate against guns" (a.k.a., inanimate objects designed to kill things) as a full-frontal assault on liberty and the constitution itself.

I think a large portion of the "gun-crazy right" are like me(Not a Rightie or a Leftie), and just tired of people with no idea what they are talking about trying to dictate laws. I know that's my problem. People who wouldn't know a "barrel shroud" from a sling trying to make the things illegal.



I don't think the problem is that lawmakers don't understand how guns work.  I think that fundamentally, the gun rights crowd believes that any attempt to regulate/ban certain types of weapons or accessories is inherently arbitrary and will not do anything to stop gun violence.

Primarily, I see the "OMG YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT GUNS" line of argument as an utterly disingenuous way to divert attention away from constructive conversation.  The way it plays out is this:

person A: we should regulate/ban (something relating to guns)

person B: OMG! That is such a bad idea because because XYZ. You have no idea about how guns work.  Did you know that a semiautomatic AR-15 is the exact same thing in every way as a mini-14, because they use the same caliber round?  You  didn't?  Well, you shouldn't be talking about passing laws on subjects that you know nothing about.

person A: Yeah, except an AR-15 is significantly different from a mini-14 in shouldering, maneuverability, weight, accessories, etc.  But in any event, we should probably ban them both, or at least limit magazine sizes, because gun violence (and horrific mass shootings in particular) are a big problem in America.

Person B:  You just want to ban all guns and empower criminals, and you don't even understand anything about guns.  This is just tyranny by overly emotional, ignorant people like you who want to rob me of my essential liberty based on arbitrary things!  *Person B runs down to the gun store, buys a new AR and ammo, and the gun/ammo manufacturers (patrons of the NRA) say "CHA-CHING!!!!"*
   
Really, Person A's response should have been "ok first, what you are saying is disingenuous.  But assuming that it is true for the sake of argument, please enlighten me - whatgun regulations do you think ARE reasonable, if any?"

At the end of the day you will find that either (1) the gun rights person supports many reasonable gun restrictions, or (2) the guns rights person absolutely opposes any gun regulation whatsoever, so it is pointless to even try to have a reasonable discussion with them.

These tactics are largely how the NRA is so successful.  It has convinced its members that anyone that supports any new/tighter gun regulations are ignorant "gun control activists," who know nothing about guns, have irrational fears about them, and at the end of the day anything they propose is to further their ultimate goal of banning guns altogether.   That's why these threads always devolve into a trolling/shouting match instead of a discussion about how we can have reasonable gun regulation in this country.
 
2013-03-29 01:58:10 PM  

Silly Jesus: [politix.topix.com image 514x385]
Murder Weapons

Well, obviously, we should start banning AR-15's, which are a small subset of Rifles.  Durr.


Ok - lets enact much stricter handgun regulations, then.  Are you open to that?
 
2013-03-29 01:59:38 PM  

o5iiawah: Or you could enforce the laws you already have,


Okay, what laws that we already have prevent someone from buying a gun from a friend without a background check?

I'll wait while you look it up.
 
2013-03-29 01:59:40 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Can you explain to me why the Ruger Mini-14 isn't used by any military in the world? I mean, it's not any more lethal, right?


Well, the Mini-14 is based somewhat on the M14 design, which was in turn based on the M1 design. The M1 and M14 were extremely popular military rifles in the US and elsewhere for many years. There's no particular reason why it wouldn't be suitable for military use, if they decided to use it. The AR-type rifles tend to be somewhat more rugged, though, which probably makes a bit of a difference.

That said, Mini-14s are fairly common among police departments and prison officers in the US -- Ruger tends to offer really good pricing for such groups. They're also used by the military of Honduras and Bermuda, as well as various international police and tactical units..
 
2013-03-29 02:01:10 PM  

Mikey1969: whidbey: This is a common tactic: bully anyone who calls for regulation by stating that "you don't know about Part XC359BR so you're unqualified to discuss the subject. The end."

Bullshiat, dude.

Look, if you don't know about  Part XC359BR, what makes you THINK that you're qualified to discuss making a law to ban it? I don't understand why people can't grasp this part of the equation. WHy make laws and call for laws on something that you don't even understand the function of?


We understand what firearms do.  If we are in doubt, we solicit expert advice.  Continuing the inane head game of "you liberals don't even know the most intimate detail of what a gun does" is total bullshiat.

And rather than address that, your tactic is to make me repeat the obvious.
 
2013-03-29 02:01:50 PM  
libertyendanger.files.wordpress.comView Full Size
 
2013-03-29 02:01:56 PM  

heypete: cameroncrazy1984: Can you explain to me why the Ruger Mini-14 isn't used by any military in the world? I mean, it's not any more lethal, right?

Well, the Mini-14 is based somewhat on the M14 design, which was in turn based on the M1 design. The M1 and M14 were extremely popular military rifles in the US and elsewhere for many years. There's no particular reason why it wouldn't be suitable for military use, if they decided to use it. The AR-type rifles tend to be somewhat more rugged, though, which probably makes a bit of a difference.

That said, Mini-14s are fairly common among police departments and prison officers in the US -- Ruger tends to offer really good pricing for such groups. They're also used by the military of Honduras and Bermuda, as well as various international police and tactical units..


Anyway, the point is that the AR-15 is far more durable, reliable, expandable, upgradeable and accurate than the Ruger Mini-14. That's the point.
 
2013-03-29 02:02:44 PM  

Giltric: whidbey: Giltric: Why should I help you restrict my rights? Why should I compromise with those who wish for nothing other than total disarmament? After I compromise on this piece of legislation what will you want me to compromise with when they seek to further restrict firearms and their ownership?

You're welcome to show how anything in TFA or the President's plan calls for "total disarmament."

I've given you a lot of chances, Giltic. Why am I still doing this?


Sorry Whidbey there are a few of us in this thread who are having a conversation. If you would like to report us for discussing something other than the specifities of the article go right ahead. I already have you pegged as someone willing to "name names" anyway.


This isn't a private forum.  Address the part in bold as you were asked to do.
 
2013-03-29 02:02:54 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Can you explain to me why the Ruger Mini-14 isn't used by any military in the world? I mean, it's not any more lethal, right?


Its used by police departments and patrol forces the world over.  From a tactical perspective, the AR-15 is more customisable which makes it preferable to the Mini if you're looking for using it for a specific/niche application.  Thats not to say you cant sporterize a mini-14 or do it up tactically as well.

Why do people choose a ford F-150 over a toyota tundra?  Brand recognition? cosmetic features? appearance?
 
2013-03-29 02:03:01 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Mikey1969: cameroncrazy1984: Mikey1969: Ahhh, the "no answer" route. We know it well around here.

Oh, but you sure do "understand" about gun

No, it's inconvenient to your position, that Lanza and other mass shooters choose assault rifles over Ruger Mini-14s. Why do you think they do that?

No reason not to. They both accept the same magazine and fire the same ammo. There is nothing special about the AR-15 that the Mini-14 doesn't have. Fun fact: The A-Team used Mini-14's in their show, not AR-15s, all you do is put in the bigger mag, which the gun will come with.

Can you explain to me why the Ruger Mini-14 isn't used by any military in the world? I mean, it's not any more lethal, right?


For the same reasons that they don't use an AR-15. BECAUSE THEY AREN'T MILITARY WEAPONS.

See what I mean about you not knowing what you're talking about?
 
2013-03-29 02:03:56 PM  

Chummer45: Silly Jesus: [politix.topix.com image 514x385]
Murder Weapons

Well, obviously, we should start banning AR-15's, which are a small subset of Rifles.  Durr.

Ok - lets enact much stricter handgun regulations, then.  Are you open to that?


I'm open to enforcing the laws we already have.  Lock up all the felons in Chicago caught with a gun for 30 years and we'll be well on our way to a better society.
 
2013-03-29 02:05:08 PM  

heypete: cameroncrazy1984: Can you explain to me why the Ruger Mini-14 isn't used by any military in the world? I mean, it's not any more lethal, right?

Well, the Mini-14 is based somewhat on the M14 design, which was in turn based on the M1 design. The M1 and M14 were extremely popular military rifles in the US and elsewhere for many years. There's no particular reason why it wouldn't be suitable for military use, if they decided to use it. The AR-type rifles tend to be somewhat more rugged, though, which probably makes a bit of a difference.

That said, Mini-14s are fairly common among police departments and prison officers in the US -- Ruger tends to offer really good pricing for such groups. They're also used by the military of Honduras and Bermuda, as well as various international police and tactical units..



What is the point of this conversation?  They're similar, but different rifles.  And generally speaking, modern militaries prefer the AR-15 variant for a number of reasons.

What's the point of this discussion?  Oh yeah - "if two rifles are semiautomatic with detachable box magazines and in the same caliber, they are EXACTLY THE SAME IN EVERY WAY.  therefore, any attempt to regulate or restrict assault weapons is completely pointless."

You guys are just having a back and forth where one guy just keeps falling back on a false premise.
 
2013-03-29 02:05:31 PM  

o5iiawah: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: Can you list the mass shooters that choose assault rifles?

These guys liked them pretty well.

[img2.timeinc.net image 220x300][timenewsfeed.files.wordpress.com image 200x300][static.guim.co.uk image 200x300][www.gannett-cdn.com image 215x300]

Add those guys together and you get an average month in Chicago....
Sensationalism works.


No, but desensitization apparently worked on you a long time ago if you're really that willing to dismiss gun violence as a numbers game.
 
2013-03-29 02:06:13 PM  

Mikey1969: One of the Columbine guys used a 10-round magazine. Didn't seem to help the victims that he had to keep reloading, and I don't think that limiting him to 10 rounds produced less victims.


Eight.
 
2013-03-29 02:07:10 PM  

mpirooz: o5iiawah: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: Can you list the mass shooters that choose assault rifles?

These guys liked them pretty well.

[img2.timeinc.net image 220x300][timenewsfeed.files.wordpress.com image 200x300][static.guim.co.uk image 200x300][www.gannett-cdn.com image 215x300]

Add those guys together and you get an average month in Chicago....
Sensationalism works.

Is the topic about handguns now? You don't see many people walking around the streets of any city with an AR-15...


Oh........ *snap*
 
2013-03-29 02:07:45 PM  

Silly Jesus: Chummer45: Silly Jesus: [politix.topix.com image 514x385]
Murder Weapons

Well, obviously, we should start banning AR-15's, which are a small subset of Rifles.  Durr.

Ok - lets enact much stricter handgun regulations, then.  Are you open to that?

I'm open to enforcing the laws we already have.  Lock up all the felons in Chicago caught with a gun for 30 years and we'll be well on our way to a better society.



That may be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
 
2013-03-29 02:08:32 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Anyway, the point is that the AR-15 is far more durable, reliable, expandable, upgradeable and accurate than the Ruger Mini-14. That's the point.


They're actually fairly comparable in regards to durability and reliability, though the AR does have the dust cover that can be snapped shut over the ejection port to prevent dirt and stuff from getting into the action. ARs tend to be somewhat easier to maintain, which is an advantage.

In terms of accuracy, the AR does have a bit of an edge: in general they have heavier barrels that are a bit less flexible when warm (though one can buy "pencil" barrels which are thinner and lighter).

The AR definitely has the advantage when it comes to expandability and upgradeability. That's one of the big reasons why AR-pattern rifles are so popular. Sure, there's some accessories and options for the Mini, and you can get certain models or aftermarket stocks that have standard mounting rails for stuff like scopes and lights, but a lot of the major customizations (like swapping calibers) are much easier on the AR.

Most of the M16/M4s in the military are pretty bog-standard. When I was in the army we had red-dot sights and a laser designator, both of which could easily be affixed to a Mini-14.
 
2013-03-29 02:08:54 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Okay, what laws that we already have prevent someone from buying a gun from a friend without a background check?

I'll wait while you look it up.


http://www.justice.gov/usao/ut/psn/documents/guncard.pdf

Like I said, it is already illegal to give, sell or make a straw purchase for a felon.
 
2013-03-29 02:09:15 PM  

Silly Jesus: [libertyendanger.files.wordpress.com image 850x479]


so, basically like putting a spoiler and body kit on a honda civic.
 
2013-03-29 02:11:05 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mikey1969: One of the Columbine guys used a 10-round magazine. Didn't seem to help the victims that he had to keep reloading, and I don't think that limiting him to 10 rounds produced less victims.

Eight.


I would be fine with strict registration requirements for all semiautomatic firearms, with stricter, universal background checks, waiting periods, and storage requirements.  And I own about a dozen guns.

Seriously, what's so bad about my suggestions?  Why shouldn't gun owners have to be accountable for the dangerous weapons that they own?  Why should it be so damn easy to own and transfer a gun, with so little oversight?
 
2013-03-29 02:11:26 PM  

whidbey: No, but desensitization apparently worked on you a long time ago if you're really that willing to dismiss gun violence as a numbers game.


If you genuinely thought gun violence was a problem, your first priority would be the half a dozen counties that account for 70% of the gun murders in this country with 70% of those firearms being handguns.
 
2013-03-29 02:11:53 PM  

Chummer45: Silly Jesus: Chummer45: Silly Jesus: [politix.topix.com image 514x385]
Murder Weapons

Well, obviously, we should start banning AR-15's, which are a small subset of Rifles.  Durr.

Ok - lets enact much stricter handgun regulations, then.  Are you open to that?

I'm open to enforcing the laws we already have.  Lock up all the felons in Chicago caught with a gun for 30 years and we'll be well on our way to a better society.


That may be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.


Which part?  Enforcing existing laws or removing repeat felons from society?
 
2013-03-29 02:14:03 PM  

Chummer45: What's the point of this discussion? Oh yeah - "if two rifles are semiautomatic with detachable box magazines and in the same caliber, they are EXACTLY THE SAME IN EVERY WAY. therefore, any attempt to regulate or restrict assault weapons is completely pointless."


Basically, yeah.

Do the two rifles differ in certain ways? Sure, but these differences don't have any bearing on how deadly or dangerous one is compared to the other -- if they were put behind a screen and fired there would be essentially no way to differentiate between the two based on what effect they caused.

Trying to define one as a "normal rifle" and one as an "assault weapon" doesn't really make sense.

Considering that ARs are the most common rifle in the country and are used in only the tiniest fraction of crimes, restricting such guns likely would have the slightest effect. Focusing on "assault weapons" is a red herring and distracts from more meaningful action.
 
2013-03-29 02:14:07 PM  

Chummer45: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mikey1969: One of the Columbine guys used a 10-round magazine. Didn't seem to help the victims that he had to keep reloading, and I don't think that limiting him to 10 rounds produced less victims.

Eight.

I would be fine with strict registration requirements for all semiautomatic firearms, with stricter, universal background checks, waiting periods, and storage requirements.  And I own about a dozen guns.

Seriously, what's so bad about my suggestions?  Why shouldn't gun owners have to be accountable for the dangerous weapons that they own?  Why should it be so damn easy to own and transfer a gun, with so little oversight?


Because criminals won't follow those rules.  You're just making it more difficult for law abiding gun owners to give a gift to their son / father etc. while felons are still buying guns out of the trunks of cars on the streets in Chicago.
 
2013-03-29 02:14:46 PM  

Chummer45: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mikey1969: One of the Columbine guys used a 10-round magazine. Didn't seem to help the victims that he had to keep reloading, and I don't think that limiting him to 10 rounds produced less victims.

Eight.

I would be fine with strict registration requirements for all semiautomatic firearms, with stricter, universal background checks, waiting periods, and storage requirements.  And I own about a dozen guns.

Seriously, what's so bad about my suggestions?  Why shouldn't gun owners have to be accountable for the dangerous weapons that they own?  Why should it be so damn easy to own and transfer a gun, with so little oversight?


Most gun owners have similar opinions. It's the manufacturers' shills and their dupes making all the fuss.
 
2013-03-29 02:15:10 PM  

o5iiawah: whidbey: No, but desensitization apparently worked on you a long time ago if you're really that willing to dismiss gun violence as a numbers game.

If you genuinely thought gun violence was a problem, your first priority would be the half a dozen counties that account for 70% of the gun murders in this country with 70% of those firearms being handguns.


But those are just blah people.  These mass shootings kill mostly whites.  Wait, is the left racist?  OMG NAZIS!!!!
 
2013-03-29 02:15:14 PM  

heypete: Considering that ARs are the most common rifle in the country and are used in only the tiniest fraction of crimes, restricting such guns likely would have the slightest effect. Focusing on "assault weapons" is a red herring and distracts from more meaningful action.


whidbey would say you are desensitized and treating gun violence like a "Numbers game"
 
2013-03-29 02:16:29 PM  

Silly Jesus: But those are just blah people.  These mass shootings kill mostly whites.  Wait, is the left racist?  OMG NAZIS!!!!


If I had a son, He would look like some of the kids killed at Sandy Hook.
 
2013-03-29 02:17:14 PM  

Silly Jesus: Chummer45: Silly Jesus: Chummer45: Silly Jesus: [politix.topix.com image 514x385]
Murder Weapons

Well, obviously, we should start banning AR-15's, which are a small subset of Rifles.  Durr.

Ok - lets enact much stricter handgun regulations, then.  Are you open to that?

I'm open to enforcing the laws we already have.  Lock up all the felons in Chicago caught with a gun for 30 years and we'll be well on our way to a better society.


That may be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Which part?  Enforcing existing laws or removing repeat felons from society?



It's dumb because it does nothing to address the problem.   Felons are already locked up for possession of firearms.  Putting them in jail, except now forever, just further increases the burden on our prison system.    And "enforcing existing laws" is just a meaningless copout to make it sound like (1) our current laws are sufficient, and (2) you actually support some form of regulation.

I guess I would take the "lets enforce existing laws" argument more seriously if it wasn't the primary argument made by the NRA while, at the same time, it actively lobbies to weaken/eliminate existing regulations.
 
2013-03-29 02:18:11 PM  

Chummer45: At the end of the day you will find that either (1) the gun rights person supports many reasonable gun restrictions, or (2) the guns rights person absolutely opposes any gun regulation whatsoever, so it is pointless to even try to have a reasonable discussion with them.

These tactics are largely how the NRA is so successful.  It has convinced its members that anyone that supports any new/tighter gun regulations are ignorant "gun control activists," who know nothing about guns, have irrational fears about them, and at the end of the day anything they propose is to further their ultimate goal of banning guns altogether.   That's why these threads always devolve into a trolling/shouting match instead of a discussion about how we can have reasonable gun regulation in this country.


Like I said, my problem is with the people who don't know the functuional reasons for things wanting to enact bans because the item sounds scary, or because someone told them it was. What happens in the long run, is that things that have no business being on the list are banned because of some similarity, while things that are far more dangerous are considered fine, usually because of a wooden stock. Seriously, when people hold up a "I will allow this, but I won't allow this" picture, they will quite often pick items that are almost identical(Such as the AR-15/Mini 14 comparison), except for all of the scary looking black things on the "banned" gun. I keep trying to use this as an example, but living in Utah, I have first hand knowledge of what happens when people who abstain from something decide that they are qualified to write laws regarding it. Seriously, people run for liquor board positions here based solely on the fact that they DON'T drink. As a result, we have laws here that say that restaurants have to pour drinks in a separate room from the rest of the restaurant, because kids might "see the colorful drinks being mixed and become alcoholics".
 
2013-03-29 02:18:53 PM  

heypete: Chummer45: What's the point of this discussion? Oh yeah - "if two rifles are semiautomatic with detachable box magazines and in the same caliber, they are EXACTLY THE SAME IN EVERY WAY. therefore, any attempt to regulate or restrict assault weapons is completely pointless."

Basically, yeah.

Do the two rifles differ in certain ways? Sure, but these differences don't have any bearing on how deadly or dangerous one is compared to the other -- if they were put behind a screen and fired there would be essentially no way to differentiate between the two based on what effect they caused.

Trying to define one as a "normal rifle" and one as an "assault weapon" doesn't really make sense.

Considering that ARs are the most common rifle in the country and are used in only the tiniest fraction of crimes, restricting such guns likely would have the slightest effect. Focusing on "assault weapons" is a red herring and distracts from more meaningful action.


So what's the harm in restricting assault weapons?  Oh that's right, hobbyists and those guys who insist that they love hunting with ARs will be upset.   Well, I guess we'll just have to keep enduring mass shootings because some guys don't want their hobby interfered with.
 
2013-03-29 02:20:42 PM  

Chummer45: So what's the harm in restricting assault weapons


The civilian-variant AR-15 is not an assault weapon.  You dont even know what you're trying to ban.  Just point to the scary picture of the gun and tell us which part scares you the most.
 
2013-03-29 02:21:42 PM  

Mikey1969: Chummer45: At the end of the day you will find that either (1) the gun rights person supports many reasonable gun restrictions, or (2) the guns rights person absolutely opposes any gun regulation whatsoever, so it is pointless to even try to have a reasonable discussion with them.

These tactics are largely how the NRA is so successful.  It has convinced its members that anyone that supports any new/tighter gun regulations are ignorant "gun control activists," who know nothing about guns, have irrational fears about them, and at the end of the day anything they propose is to further their ultimate goal of banning guns altogether.   That's why these threads always devolve into a trolling/shouting match instead of a discussion about how we can have reasonable gun regulation in this country.

Like I said, my problem is with the people who don't know the functuional reasons for things wanting to enact bans because the item sounds scary, or because someone told them it was. What happens in the long run, is that things that have no business being on the list are banned because of some similarity, while things that are far more dangerous are considered fine, usually because of a wooden stock. Seriously, when people hold up a "I will allow this, but I won't allow this" picture, they will quite often pick items that are almost identical(Such as the AR-15/Mini 14 comparison), except for all of the scary looking black things on the "banned" gun. I keep trying to use this as an example, but living in Utah, I have first hand knowledge of what happens when people who abstain from something decide that they are qualified to write laws regarding it. Seriously, people run for liquor board positions here based solely on the fact that they DON'T drink. As a result, we have laws here that say that restaurants have to pour drinks in a separate room from the rest of the restaurant, because kids might "see the colorful drinks being mixed and become alcoholics".



It sounds like you just don't like the idea of banning assault rifles.  I disagree, but that's ok.  How about registration requirements?  The thing that drives me nuts is the knee jerk reaction from fellow gun owners  that any regulation is "gun control," and is therefore bad/nefarious/tyrannical.  I think that owning firearms is a great responsibility, and that it's pretty absurd how loosely regulated gun ownership is in this country.
 
2013-03-29 02:22:20 PM  

o5iiawah: Chummer45: So what's the harm in restricting assault weapons

The civilian-variant AR-15 is not an assault weapon.  You dont even know what you're trying to ban.  Just point to the scary picture of the gun and tell us which part scares you the most.



Thank you for proving my point.
 
2013-03-29 02:22:31 PM  

whidbey: Mikey1969: whidbey: This is a common tactic: bully anyone who calls for regulation by stating that "you don't know about Part XC359BR so you're unqualified to discuss the subject. The end."

Bullshiat, dude.

Look, if you don't know about  Part XC359BR, what makes you THINK that you're qualified to discuss making a law to ban it? I don't understand why people can't grasp this part of the equation. WHy make laws and call for laws on something that you don't even understand the function of?

We understand what firearms do. If we are in doubt, we solicit expert advice.  Continuing the inane head game of "you liberals don't even know the most intimate detail of what a gun does" is total bullshiat.

And rather than address that, your tactic is to make me repeat the obvious.



You don't understand how they work, though.

And your "expert advice" is apparently pretty weak.

We don't want "intimate details". We want people to quit trying to ban shiat that they don't understand, because you get it wrong. Every. Farking. Time.
 
2013-03-29 02:23:07 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: So you have no answers and would like to change the subject?

I thought you knew about guns?

I do know about guns. Why do you think Lanza picked up an AR-15 and not the hunting rifle? It's a legitimate question. if one is no more lethal than the other, why did he pick it? Why does no army in the world use a Ruger Mini-14?


i.imgur.comView Full Size


So does the The Compagnies Républicaines de Sécurité , and in Honduras, and some south american military units.