Well, maybe he had a "slide stock" on his AR-15. Might as well be fully automatic. Which, by-the-way, is a terrible way to shoot a lot of people. It's a great way to shoot a few people a lot of times.

NightOwl2255: Might as well be fully automatic.

You can do the same thing with a shoelace.

It's still a semi automatic machine.

NightOwl2255: Well, maybe he had a "slide stock" on his AR-15.

Those things are so much fun.

doglover: It's still a semi automatic machine.

Yes, which is why I said "might as well be" and not "turns it into" a fully automatic weapon.

brownribbon: NightOwl2255: Well, maybe he had a "slide stock" on his AR-15.

Those things are so much fun.

Damn sure are! Only problem is with .223 going for 80+ cents a round, it's damn expensive.

Meh, he misspoke. Dumb, but he's not a gun guy. I think he's more focused on the problem of people killing people and what can we do about it. He's under a lot of pressure from the "Won't someone think of the children" crowd.

Just for the record, I don't agree with the approach that's being pushed. Banning scarey guns and big 'clips' are only addressing the the problem of people being afraid and outraged, but it's not in any way a solution to the real social problem of people being so dehumanized that they want to kill other people.

MrBallou: I think he's more focused on the problem of people killing people and what can we do about it.

Really?




I voted for Obama because he's an intelligent politician. Unfortunately politics is not the same as wisdom. This is why I'm not Democrat or Republican.

Well, it did AUTOMATICALLY piss some people off.

I thought Lanza only used handguns?

vernonFL: I thought Lanza only used handguns?

Looks like I'm wrong.

The primary weapon used in the attack was a "Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon," said Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance.

doglover: MrBallou: I think he's more focused on the problem of people killing people and what can we do about it.

I voted for Obama because he's an intelligent politician.

Yeah. I kinda meant the school/movie theater massacres that have been in the news lately.  I should have made my post mis-interpretation-proof. Sorry.

I_C_Weener: Well, it did AUTOMATICALLY piss some people off.

Talk about full-auto

Meh, he's just following the advice of Josh Sugarmann from the Violence Policy Center:

Assault weapons-just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms-are anew topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons-anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.
-Assault Weapons and Accessories in America 1988 VPC report at VPC.org

It's pretty much a cliche now for people like Barack Obama who want to restrict semiautomatic guns to conflate them with real machine guns.

Now, there's only two ways this could happen:  Either he is badly misinformed, or he lied.  Neither reflects well upon him.

Doesn't matter.  The gun nuts think those should be legal too.  He could have called it an M-1 Abrams.  What's the difference if the weapon isn't the problem?

MrBallou: Meh, he misspoke. Dumb, but he's not a gun guy.

It would be one thing if he merely said "automatic", but he actually distinguished between semi-automatic and fully automatic, and proceeded to identify the type used in the Sandy Hook attack incorrectly.

That would be like me saying that Timothy Leary smoked LSD from a bong:  I'm not a druggie, but even I know the difference.

MrBallou: Yeah. I kinda meant the school/movie theater massacres that have been in the news lately.

If he gave a damn about that, he wouldn't be talking about gun legislation that wouldn't have prevented any of the incidents.

He does, however, show great acumen in supporting the the public upswell of people who don't know what a gun is or does except from movies and is riding the wave with perfect timing and simultaneously using North Korea to wag the dog and slip in unpopular moves while his political opponents are otherwise occupied or afraid of losing face by arguing loudly about something else when North Korea does something stupid.

I'm as amazed at his blatant power moves almost as much as how well he's doing them. It's like watching a hockey game in Pittsburgh back in 1990 and seeing Lemieux get the puck, only like a nightmare he's suddenly put on a Flyer's Jersey and is headed towards Pittsburgh's net.

dittybopper: MrBallou: Meh, he misspoke. Dumb, but he's not a gun guy.

It would be one thing if he merely said "automatic", but he actually distinguished between semi-automatic and fully automatic, and proceeded to identify the type used in the Sandy Hook attack incorrectly.

That would be like me saying that Timothy Leary smoked LSD from a bong:  I'm not a druggie, but even I know the difference.

He said, "but also make sure that we don't have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon -- by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly. ". Yeah, that's not a misspeak, that's just straight up wrong. He doesn't write his own speeches, at least not all of them, and it's someones job to vet these speeches. I would guess that today that person is out of work.

MrBallou: Meh, he misspoke. Dumb, but he's not a gun guy. I think he's more focused on the problem of people killing people and what can we do about it. He's under a lot of pressure from the "Won't someone think of the children" crowd.

Just for the record, I don't agree with the approach that's being pushed. Banning scarey guns and big 'clips' are only addressing the the problem of people being afraid and outraged, but it's not in any way a solution to the real social problem of people being so dehumanized that they want to kill other people.

I've said before that if the Gun Nut Crowd wants decent gun legislation, it will work with the Everyone Else Of Us crowd and help. Because gun legislation's coming, you can bet your got damn cold dead hands on it.

So far, the gun nut crowd has spectacularly not taken my advice, and has instead dug its heels in and said "Come And Take It."

Challenge accepted, asswits.

Who gives a shiat?  I can only imagine how the gun nuts will be pissing themselves over this completely unimportant issue.  Hell, the mods greened it.  Surely Johnny Machine Gun will be shouting at his computer screen when he reads about it.

Farking maniacs.

NightOwl2255: dittybopper: MrBallou: Meh, he misspoke. Dumb, but he's not a gun guy.

It would be one thing if he merely said "automatic", but he actually distinguished between semi-automatic and fully automatic, and proceeded to identify the type used in the Sandy Hook attack incorrectly.

That would be like me saying that Timothy Leary smoked LSD from a bong:  I'm not a druggie, but even I know the difference.

He said, "but also make sure that we don't have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon -- by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly. ". Yeah, that's not a misspeak, that's just straight up wrong. He doesn't write his own speeches, at least not all of them, and it's someones job to vet these speeches. I would guess that today that person is out of work.

All the parsing of minutae involving assault or semi assult or wtf I don't give a fk assult weapons is what you Gun Nut people are experts at. Of course you are, you're the gun geeks.

Here's the truth though: More of us want your damn toys outlawed, and if you don't help us to enact basic common sense legislation like universal background checks then I say (and many others do too) the hell with the lot of you, we're banning everything.

Your crowd had 30 years of this language parsing protecting your own gun rights at the expense of allowing every crazy nutbag out there easy access. The result is dead grade school children because OF A MEMBER OF THE NRA.

You guys don't have the moral high ground, your imagined interpretation of the Second Amendment (or Scalia's for that matter) be damned.

Come And Take It indeed.

vernonFL: I thought Lanza only used handguns?

That would be NRA propaganda to discredit any reform bills.

GAT_00: vernonFL: I thought Lanza only used handguns?

That would be NRA propaganda to discredit any reform bills.

That was what the news reported for the first couple days.

NightOwl2255: Well, maybe he had a "slide stock" on his AR-15. Might as well be fully automatic. Which, by-the-way, is a terrible way to shoot a lot of people. It's a great way to shoot a few people a lot of times.

In terms of little kids, it doesn't take much to ensure a closed casket funeral.

Sorry I went there but I find the horror of what happened and how badly ripped apart these little children were is a detail that gets glossed over far two often.  A death is a death and the senseless loss of a child but how badly these beautiful children's bodies were destroyed is a detail that only compounds the horror of those involved.  I think having surgeon's describe the types of injuries these weapons cause is something that should be part of the debate.

Let's focus on minutia so we can continue to have a gun violence rate far and away higher than every other civilized country. That's what's important here

dittybopper: MrBallou: Meh, he misspoke. Dumb, but he's not a gun guy.

It would be one thing if he merely said "automatic", but he actually distinguished between semi-automatic and fully automatic, and proceeded to identify the type used in the Sandy Hook attack incorrectly.

That would be like me saying that Timothy Leary smoked LSD from a bong:  I'm not a druggie, but even I know the difference.

Then I would say, "Dumb, but he's not a druggie". BFD.

Lionel Mandrake: Doesn't matter.  The gun nuts think those should be legal too.  He could have called it an M-1 Abrams.  What's the difference if the weapon isn't the problem?


Call me crazy, but if somebody is calling for a ban on a certain item, maybe he should know about the basics regarding said item.

doglover: MrBallou: Yeah. I kinda meant the school/movie theater massacres that have been in the news lately.

If he gave a damn about that, he wouldn't be talking about gun legislation that wouldn't have prevented any of the incidents.

I think he does give a damn, but knows he can only get done what the public support, so the pant-wetting hand-wringers are getting their way, even though it's stupid.

I'm as amazed at his blatant power moves almost as much as how well he's doing them.

Please. Send it to American Thinker. Is he a Totally Ineffectual Empty Suit or History's Greatest Monster this week?

mrshowrules: Sorry I went there but I find the horror of what happened and how badly ripped apart these little children were is a detail that gets glossed over far two often. A death is a death and the senseless loss of a child but how badly these beautiful children's bodies were destroyed is a detail that only compounds the horror of those involved. I think having surgeon's describe the types of injuries these weapons cause is something that should be part of the debate.

From what I have read, he had one 30 round (standard for an AR-15) magazine. My point is, if it was fully automatic weapon, he might have got off a couple of burst. Not a very good method for shooting a large number of people. If you want to shoot a few people a lot of times, it's the ticket.

MrBallou: Is he a Totally Ineffectual Empty Suit or History's Greatest Monster this week?

No idea. I'm glad I voted for him.

I just wish he'd kept out of the gun debate longer. Like 4 more years.

doglover: MrBallou: Is he a Totally Ineffectual Empty Suit or History's Greatest Monster this week?

No idea. I'm glad I voted for him.

I just wish he'd kept out of the gun debate longer. Like 4 more years.

Amen.

The_Sponge: Lionel Mandrake: Doesn't matter.  The gun nuts think those should be legal too.  He could have called it an M-1 Abrams.  What's the difference if the weapon isn't the problem?


Call me crazy, but if somebody is calling for a ban on a certain item, maybe he should know about the basics regarding said item.

Won't matter. The gun folks will find some other middling point to whine about. Then deflect to health care which they won't bother mentioning they oppose any changes to our current system

I would ask my friends on the left to think back to the last election cycle and remember when several Republican candidates made ridiculous, non-scientific and just plain wrong statements regarding rape and reproductive health.  Those candidates were correctly called out on their lack of knowledge as many people did not want those candidates writing legislation regarding issueson which they were so uninformed.

In recent months, several Democrat candidates and politicians have made ridiculous, non-scientific and just plain wrong statements regarding firearms and gun safety.  These people should also be called out for their lack of knowledge and should not be in a position to write legislation regarding an issue on which they are so ill-informed.

I have no doubt that additional gun control legislation will pe proposed and probably passed on both the state and national levels.  I just hope that those proposing the legislation take some time to become informed about the issues before doing so.

Generation_D: More of us want your damn toys outlawed

What toys? Revolvers? Pistols? Bolt action rifles? Semi-automatic rifles? Or do you think the American people want a complete ban on firearm ownership?

Generation_D: and if you don't help us to enact basic common sense legislation like universal background checks

Which would have, in no way, prevented the Newtown shooting. The shooter tried to buy a weapon on his own, and left the store when told about the back-ground check. The weapons he used were purchased legally by by his mother, who passed a back-ground check.

Generation_D: Your crowd had 30 years of this language parsing protecting your own gun rights at the expense of allowing every crazy nutbag out there easy access. The result is dead grade school children because OF A MEMBER OF THE NRA.

I detest the NRA. And have said so in many Fark threads.

Generation_D: You guys don't have the moral high ground, your imagined interpretation of the Second Amendment (or Scalia's for that matter) be damned.

Not really clear on this whole rule of law thing we got going on here in the U.S. and have had for over 200 years, are you?

Peter von Nostrand: Let's focus on minutia so we can continue to have a gun violence rate far and away higher than every other civilized country. That's what's important here

Let's focus on the fact that if people are calling of a ban on things, maybe they should know what they are talking about.

"ZOMG.....weed needs to be illegal because it's just as bad as crack."

I'm sorry, but fark all of you and your gun mania.

If you can look at this farking picture, see the terror and shock on these kids' faces (especially the girl in blue--who looks almost EXACTLY how my daughter looked at that age) and NOT think something needs to be done, then you have given up your right to be considered human.



You're a heartless piece of shiat and I don't want to know people like you even exist. It farking bums me out.

AdolfOliverPanties: I'm sorry, but fark all of you and your gun mania.

If you can look at this farking picture, see the terror and shock on these kids' faces (especially the girl in blue--who looks almost EXACTLY how my daughter looked at that age) and NOT think something needs to be done, then you have given up your right to be considered human.

[static4.businessinsider.com image 850x444]

You're a heartless piece of shiat and I don't want to know people like you even exist. It farking bums me out.


You're right, something needs to be done, and it involves the mental health system, not some band-aid like gun control.

The_Sponge: Peter von Nostrand: Let's focus on minutia so we can continue to have a gun violence rate far and away higher than every other civilized country. That's what's important here

Let's focus on the fact that if people are calling of a ban on things, maybe they should know what they are talking about.

"ZOMG.....weed needs to be illegal because it's just as bad as crack."

Lol. Never ever give up. Deflect and distract

vernonFL: vernonFL: I thought Lanza only used handguns?

Looks like I'm wrong.

The primary weapon used in the attack was a "Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon," said Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance.

You might have thinking about the Virginia Tech massacre which was handguns only I believe.  Hard to keep all the massacres straight.  They need an App for that or something.

AdolfOliverPanties: I'm sorry, but fark all of you and your gun mania.

If you can look at this farking picture, see the terror and shock on these kids' faces (especially the girl in blue--who looks almost EXACTLY how my daughter looked at that age) and NOT think something needs to be done, then you have given up your right to be considered human.

[static4.businessinsider.com image 850x444]

You're a heartless piece of shiat and I don't want to know people like you even exist. It farking bums me out.

I have never felt actively proud of having favorited someone before. Well said.

NightOwl2255: mrshowrules: Sorry I went there but I find the horror of what happened and how badly ripped apart these little children were is a detail that gets glossed over far two often. A death is a death and the senseless loss of a child but how badly these beautiful children's bodies were destroyed is a detail that only compounds the horror of those involved. I think having surgeon's describe the types of injuries these weapons cause is something that should be part of the debate.

From what I have read, he had one 30 round (standard for an AR-15) magazine. My point is, if it was fully automatic weapon, he might have got off a couple of burst. Not a very good method for shooting a large number of people. If you want to shoot a few people a lot of times, it's the ticket.

I was making a separate point, not really a response.

Are you you saying a semi-automatic rifle poses a larger threat in these types of shootings than a fully-automatic weapon?

The_Sponge: Lionel Mandrake: Doesn't matter.  The gun nuts think those should be legal too.  He could have called it an M-1 Abrams.  What's the difference if the weapon isn't the problem?


Call me crazy, but if somebody is calling for a ban on a certain item, maybe he should know about the basics regarding said item.

You're right.

I think a few Republicans could use a vaginal wanding, or have the government refuse to recognize their spouses for a while.

AdolfOliverPanties: I'm sorry, but fark all of you and your gun mania. My incredibly emotional argument that doesn't even have facts takes precedence to me because of personal reasons.

We all think something needs to be done. What you are not getting is that current gun laws would have prevented Sandyhook if gun laws actually stopped crimes.

The reason all the "gun nuts" are talking about mental health is because if the mother had been able to get her kid affordable treatment, maybe he wouldn't have snapped. That's a possible solution.

But so far all of the new gun legislation to come down the pike is nothing but knee jerk bullshiat from people who don't know a bullet from a nuclear bomb. We're opposed to it because IT WOULDN'T HAVE STOPPED ANYTHING. Those kids would still be crying all the same.

Propose a decent solution based on real facts and watch rational dialogue open up.

If the gun nuts want a voice, than express actual options for gun control. Shouting down every idea as "stupid" with no basis, proposing vague platitudes of "mental health," and arguing pedantically about semantic usage is nothing but deflection and avoidance.

mrshowrules: Are you you saying a semi-automatic rifle poses a larger threat in these types of shootings than a fully-automatic weapon?

What I'm saying is that one AR-15 with one 30 round magazine could be used to easily kill 30 kids. It would be nearly impossible for an M4 (a fully automatic AR-15, basically) being used in full auto mode with one 30 round magazine, to kill 30 kids.

doglover: Propose a decent solution based on real facts and watch rational dialogue open up.

How about mental health screenings for the gun buyer and their immediate families? Paid for by a tax on guns and ammunition?

vernonFL: doglover: Propose a decent solution based on real facts and watch rational dialogue open up.

How about mental health screenings for the gun buyer and their immediate families? Paid for by a tax on guns and ammunition?


How about no?

And immediate family members?  Get real.

doglover: AdolfOliverPanties: I'm sorry, but fark all of you and your gun mania. My incredibly emotional argument that doesn't even have facts takes precedence to me because of personal reasons.

We all think something needs to be done. What you are not getting is that current gun laws would have prevented Sandyhook if gun laws actually stopped crimes.

The reason all the "gun nuts" are talking about mental health is because if the mother had been able to get her kid affordable treatment, maybe he wouldn't have snapped. That's a possible solution.

But so far all of the new gun legislation to come down the pike is nothing but knee jerk bullshiat from people who don't know a bullet from a nuclear bomb. We're opposed to it because IT WOULDN'T HAVE STOPPED ANYTHING. Those kids would still be crying all the same.

Propose a decent solution based on real facts and watch rational dialogue open up.

You're high if you think the gun crowd will ever allow a rationale discussion

Peter von Nostrand: You're high if you think the gun crowd will ever allow a rationale discussion


It's difficult when the anti-gun crowd keeps proposing silly ideas like bans on semi-auto rifles and magazines.

justtray: If the gun nuts want a voice, than express actual options for gun control. Shouting down every idea as "stupid" with no basis, proposing vague platitudes of "mental health," and arguing pedantically about semantic usage is nothing but deflection and avoidance.

There are about 300 million firearms in the hands of Americans. No new bans, or back-ground checks, will stop gun violence, obviously. I think what the gun-nuts and the gun-grabbers don't want to admit, or at least say out-loud, is that there is nothing that can be done. We are down the rabbit hole. This is the world we have made for ourselves.