Another shooting....

[Fullsizexj]

any rifle with the capability to fire x number of bullets in x amount of time
try this, pick up a pen and see how many times a second you can click it open and click it closed in a second, now think about how many times a second you can pull a trigger, quite a difference from the medias portrayal of how many bullets per second these weapons are capable of firing since they are simi automatic and the trigger has to be pulled for each bullet to be fired. The media paints the worst picture they can come up with and is completely false to get what they want and will not let anyone have an equal chance to dispute it

 

[kayle666]

And I am so sorry, I forgot that Japan, Australia, and all the other countries that have little to no homicides caused by guns

uhhh....... you may have missed how Australia has a higher %per capita of serial killers than the U.S.......or how you can buy soiled undies from a vending machine in Japan..... but somehow my gun that has never been involved in a crime is a bad thing?

now consider Norway with MUCH STRICTER firearms laws has a two massacres with 1. a car bomb in oslo that killed 8 and injured 200+ (BAN CAR BOMBS! THAT WILL SAVE PEOPLE oh wait they are and it didnt)

2. youth camp shooting at Utøya in Tyrifjorden, Buskerud. that one killed 69 and injured 100+ (STRICTER GUN LAWS THAN THE US) oh and the island had no police force....hmmmmm easy target?

remember that shooting massacre at that gun range in Arizona? oh thats right, neither do i because it never happened!

lets go back to Japan because they dont allow guns!
how about the Osaka school massacre that took place on June 8, 2001, at Ikeda Elementary School???? 8 killed WITH A KNIFE!!!!!! BAN THEM!!!! kids killed with a knife, no civilian should have knives!!!!! only police and military should be able to cut things! knives kill people!!!!

remember the santa monica farmers market massacre?
"Weller was 86 when his 1992 Buick Le Sabre plowed at freeway speed into the crowded farmers market on July 16, 2003. In addition to the 10 killed, more than 70 people were injured."
who do you ban there? 92 le sabers, or 86 year olds?

would you care to hit any of us up with some solid logic that proves that my owning a firearm causes people to die? because i think my driving a pos XJ is wayyyyyyy more detrimental and dangerous to society.

 

[kayle666]

any rifle with the capability to fire x number of bullets in x amount of time
try this, pick up a pen and see how many times a second you can click it open and click it closed in a second, now think about how many times a second you can pull a trigger, quite a difference from the medias portrayal of how many bullets per second these weapons are capable of firing since they are simi automatic and the trigger has to be pulled for each bullet to be fired. The media paints the worst picture they can come up with and is completely false to get what they want and will not let anyone have an equal chance to dispute it

well said sir, well said.

 

[Gonepostal]

If you have time, go to this site a sign the petition to send one liberal lying jounalist home for good.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...piers-morgan-attacking-2nd-amendment/prfh5zHD

 

[DrMoab]

Posted this on FB a few days ago. Funniest shit I've seen in a long time. Then not long after I saw Jeremy Clarkson make this statement on FB

"Americans..It took us 40 years to get rid of Piers Morgan, please don't send him back."

 

[Gonepostal]

Currently at 67532 up from around 43000 when I checked it yesterday. The link goes to the Whithouse clown's own petition site. Let's send this halfwit back to England where he belongs. Then he can enjoy all the socialism he preaches about.

Sorry in advance Jeremy

 

[DrMoab]

Too bad he is on oBummers short list for dinner guests.

 

[heyhar]

Send Obummer with him. These clowns love gun-neutered Socialism so much, why don't they just go to Europe, or worse yet, the Middle East. All kinds of fun places with no rights. They could have a ball there, without all the hassle of Hopin' and Changin' us...

 

[urban yan]

Again, your logic is backwards here.

Few people actually line up at guns shops after these kinds of mass shootings to buy protection.

They line up in droves to buy the items that the Anti-Gun folks decry that they will be targeting.

Right now there are no AR15s, .223 cartridges, or Hi-Cap mags to be found, because they have all been horded.

If that was the effect anti-gun folks were looking for, they got it.
3 months from now, there will be an even larger supply of these items around than there was before all this anti-gun crap. We saw it when Obama came into office, and we will see it again and again until the anti-gun folks realize that by shouting "Ban", they are being counter productive.

-Ron

How can my logic be backwards when I agree with your comments? In fact, one of my earlier comments was that these mass shootings are great for gun sales.

No but you have Hollywood and the media. That's worth ten times the money the gun rights advocates have.

That was the same logic behind Super PACS, and that worked out great for your political process.

I have ZERO interest in guns, and i still think you and urban yan are nuts

Proof? I can produce a psychological evaluation (work related) that shows I have no psychopathological tendencies, and an intelligence quotient that supersedes yours.

but really, how can anyone think it's a good idea to not have a way to defend themselves or family? against civilian intruders or government.

Your second amendment alludes to a Well Regulated Militia; militias held a different meaning during the Constitution’s drafting. Today, they’ve been replaced by the National Guard. A standing army was created in favour of a militia to repel foreign invaders. I believe (and I could be mistaken here) the notion of self defence amended recently. Some folks here talk about the constitution as if it were a dead document –etched in stone like the 10 commandments – but it’s clearly something capable of change. The NRAs been quite keen to exploit the second amendment well above and beyond its initial intent.

Next Fact for all those liberal weaklings wanting to ban assault weapons. During my time in the military (early 1980s to late 80s) we were trained to be an assault weapon, with only our hands and bodies. So, please tell me again what you want to ban?

I’d like to ban your 'liberal weakling' comment... it's really no better than the liberal side calling the right gun-totting hillbillies. It drives a needless wedge in this debate.

No. What I don't like is someone who is a total anti gun nut gets a good 15 min bit of time on CNN then they give someone like Wayne LaPiere from the NRA about a 30 sec spot.

They are the reason people like you can't think for yourself. Everything you have said in this thread sounds like it comes right from the Brady campaign's bullet points.

And please....don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything about violent movies or video games. What I meant was that Hollywood...or more the idiots staring in Hollywood movies like to use their money and influence to try and tell the rest of America how to live their lives.

It's true there's a fair degree of hypocrisy in Hollywood. Many actors earn fat checks glamorizing violence only to blame responsible gun-owners every time there's a mass shooting. Also, there have been psychologists that publicly blamed the news media for giving these events too much air time (glamorizing the violence once more) thereby, provoking more unbalance individuals to contemplate similar actions.

Having said that I have a beef with LaPiere’s speech; we have the same violent video games and movies in Canada, our population has people with mental illnesses as well yet our gun crimes are considerably lower – Why, stricter gun regulations. We’re not a nation of liberal weaklings either, we hunt, and we have gun ranges just like our neighbours to the south. His speech seemed more a desperate attempt to keep his near-million dollar salary rather than offer some trackable solutions.

Tell me the difference between these two rifles? You know what it is? It's the paint. One of these however would be on the new bills ban list and the other would not. One is made for hunting and one is....well, also made for hunting but the government, media and Hollywood would want you to buy the one with wood because it looks less scary. Thats it...the only difference.

If they're the same than why would you care if the "scary" looking one got banned? You'd still have alternatives. Having said that, I see your point which begs the question, what’s the solution that will make both sides happy?

 

[DrMoab]

If they're the same than why would you care if the "scary" looking one got banned? You'd still have alternatives. Having said that, I see your point which begs the question, what’s the solution that will make both sides happy?

If you ban something for no other reason than it looks "scary" you are banning something for the completely wrong reason that will have no effect what so ever other than costing a lot of money to implement and making certain people feel better about themselves that personally...I have no interest in making any more comfortable at all. It's a giant waste of time and money.

Of course our current political leaders are masters at that.

 

[Alienspecimen]

So, rationally, can you answer the questions I posed about the worth of magazine capacity laws and banning rifles with evil looks?

Can you rationally state that outlawing the sale of firearms that are statistically irrelevant in the overall picture of firearm violence is going to reduce the violence?

The guy that shot up Virginia Tech did so with a handgun that held 10 rounds, yet he managed to kill a bunch of people.
So again.

Explain to me how limiting magazine capacity is the solution.
Explain to me how a pistol grip or bayonet lug makes a rifle an assault weapon.

Someone sent me this link, it was written by an admittedly left leaning author and it was written before the Newtown event.
http://kontradictions.wordpress.com...ew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/

read that, look at the pictures, tell me how pistol grips change the function of a firearm.

Fo what it's worth I do not support the NRA either. I do not donate money to them. I choose other groups to donate my money to to protect my second amendment rights.

I did not have the time to follow the link, but to answer your first two questions: I am confused too and think that most people have the wrong idea, on both sides of the political spectrum. Here is what I am thinking:

You can have any weapon you afford, well...almost. The prerequisite is that there is time and place for everything, so you are obligated to use at the shooting range of choice and that's it. You will also have the freedom to rent it to some not so fortunate that cannot afford the weapon you have.

The range setup will be such, that would allow you and your friends to assemble freely and hone your wartime skills, in order to be prepared for the time when the government turns on its own people. Once again, you can have anything, including fully automatic weapons as long as it is not something in the scale of an atomic bomb...

You come and you go whenever you wish, but the weapon does not leave the premises. It should be traceable (GPS?)and as soon as leaves the borders of the shooting range, the authorities are automatically notified.

Hunting works similarly. Hunting ranges with their associated borders are established. Only weapons dedicated for hunting are allowed. Once the gun leaves the area, authorities are notified. You can request weapon transfer at any time, but you cannot transfer the weapon yourself.

Looks like a win-win situation. It is an entirely new concept, that allows gun owners to enjoy their weapons and own/have access to weapons currently banned. Kinda like the fighters, they do understand that the ring is where which one is the best is determined.

Will the above solve all gun-related problems overnight - no, remember I said that good things happen slowly. It took the founding fathers seventeen years to craft the constitution...

 

[DrMoab]

I got a horrible headache reading that. It was by far the dumbest thing I've read on the Internet....possibly ever.

 

[87manche]

We needed a "well regulated militia" as your beloved second amendment states. A well regulated militia is NOT every civilian toting around the same weapons our army uses to fight world wars because they have the "right" to.

Merry Christmas to all

No. The second amendment was deemed an INDIVIDUAL right by the supreme court. So take all that "it was just for the militia" BS and leave with it.

I use assault weapons because that is what the ban is called. It is literally called the assault weapons ban. It is the job of lawmakers and politicians to work out the details of what exactly is an "assault weapon." I am not going to say any rifle with the capability to fire x number of bullets in x amount of time, I am going to save myself the time and characters and just say assault weapon like everyone else. Once you guys can even remotely come on board with such an idea, THEN we will work out the details of the exact definition of an assault rifle.

and when the politicians figure out what an "assault weapon" is, don't you think that all of the gun owner's will promptly figure out a way to defeat the legislation?
Again, they do not understand the basic function of the machines they are trying to regulate. They will attack looks. Anything with a pistol grip will become evil. OK, so I'll take down my AK and kae it compliant, and it will still take 30 round mags.
This is the problem:


They don't comprehend what they're trying to regulate. You cannot make effective laws if you refuse to educate yourself about the subject.

Your second amendment alludes to a Well Regulated Militia; militias held a different meaning during the Constitution’s drafting. Today, they’ve been replaced by the National Guard. A standing army was created in favour of a militia to repel foreign invaders. I believe (and I could be mistaken here) the notion of self defence amended recently. Some folks here talk about the constitution as if it were a dead document –etched in stone like the 10 commandments – but it’s clearly something capable of change. The NRAs been quite keen to exploit the second amendment well above and beyond its initial intent.

No, as I've already stated, our supreme court has deemed that the framers of the constitution meant for the 2nd to apply to individuals. Not only that, but they didn't agree with a standing army, as it has the potential to become too powerful. Why don't you try reading some of what our founders wrote before you attempt to gauge their intent.


If they're the same than why would you care if the "scary" looking one got banned? You'd still have alternatives. Having said that, I see your point which begs the question, what’s the solution that will make both sides happy?
That's the whole point of my argument. Banning "scary" rifles will not affect anything. It's an emotional response that gets nothing accomplished, aside from making a bunch of people that were law abiding citizens criminals.

Think about what you just said. Banning of evil features will not change the fact that we have alternatives, so why do you believe that more gun control will stop another mass shooting from happening? Won't a deranged individual simply figure out an alternative?

I did not have the time to follow the link, but to answer your first two questions: I am confused too and think that most people have the wrong idea, on both sides of the political spectrum. Here is what I am thinking:

You can have any weapon you afford, well...almost. The prerequisite is that there is time and place for everything, so you are obligated to use at the shooting range of choice and that's it. You will also have the freedom to rent it to some not so fortunate that cannot afford the weapon you have.

The range setup will be such, that would allow you and your friends to assemble freely and hone your wartime skills, in order to be prepared for the time when the government turns on its own people. Once again, you can have anything, including fully automatic weapons as long as it is not something in the scale of an atomic bomb...

You come and you go whenever you wish, but the weapon does not leave the premises. It should be traceable (GPS?)and as soon as leaves the borders of the shooting range, the authorities are automatically notified.

Hunting works similarly. Hunting ranges with their associated borders are established. Only weapons dedicated for hunting are allowed. Once the gun leaves the area, authorities are notified. You can request weapon transfer at any time, but you cannot transfer the weapon yourself.

Looks like a win-win situation. It is an entirely new concept, that allows gun owners to enjoy their weapons and own/have access to weapons currently banned. Kinda like the fighters, they do understand that the ring is where which one is the best is determined.

Will the above solve all gun-related problems overnight - no, remember I said that good things happen slowly. It took the founding fathers seventeen years to craft the constitution...

So, yo're saying that I can own guns, I just can't possess them in my own home? Doesn't that kind of defeat the whole "right to bear arms" for self defense notion?
Also, supreme court says otherwise. Look up the mcdonald case.

Look, the 2nd amendment has stood up in our courts, the "gun crazies" have case law on our side.
For those of you that would like to educate yourself on this.

Here's Heller:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]

and then mcdonald

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010), was a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

The first overturned the Federal ban on handguns in the District of Columbia. The second then got that ruling incorporated to all of the states.

and then to top all of that off Ezell V. Chicago finished their gun control laws:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17044109654189761463&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

You see, Chicago thought they could simply make the requirements so onerous that they would still be able to control guns in the city limits. The courts struck that down too, stating that the restriction of a right was not permissible even if you could go elsewhere to exercise it.

So, are there any other of your opinions and misconceptions of our constitutional right to keep and bear arms that you'd like me to clear up for you?

Let's not even get into the fact that a registry is forbidden, and that legislation passed in 86. In fact, gun owners gave up the new manufacture and sale of fully automatic arms to get certain protections in writing from Congress, and never having a registry is one of them.

You can go ahead and look up the Firearms Owners Protection Act if you'd care too.

oh here, I'll just do that one for you too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

 

[Gonepostal]

Oh Goody....Look what the TOTALLY IGNORANT little Dianne has in mind. What a stupid B!tch

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

Start calling and writing your elected officials NOW if you want to keep this garbage from happening.

 

[DrMoab]

Well....it's still gotta pass.

Remember she has tried this before three times. Every time it was thrown out before it even hit the floor. While I think it might get more consideration I'm hoping there is at least a few idiots in congress that aren't THAT much of an idiot.

 

[87manche]

the scariest bits from that:

Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, <- Really? F that. the NFA was not designed for this, and we all know the ATF is painfully inept at all things.

Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law;<- yeah, no potential for abuses of the "good ol boy" club there. Same as Feinstein having a CHL in Cali, where it's nearly impossible for the average joe to get one.

andDedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

Oh yay, more spending on an agency that has such a history of responsibility.

 

[urban yan]

I wouldn't worry about tougher gun laws. Nothing will pass.

The same, guns don't kill people/people kill people, cars kill more people, arm everyone with guns lines were used in this, 40 year old, All in the Family episode.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpJsrm4paos

 

[heyhar]

I forgot what a useless libtard Meathead was...

 

[Gonepostal]

I forgot what a useless libtard Meathead was...

Don't you mean ....IS. The a$$ was playing himself in All in the Family. He hasn't changed one bit in real life.

Also, I respect everyone’s view that none of this will pass, but I have to disagree. We have a very emotional situation that has galvanized the public and it’s not in our favor. Additionally, we have our little boy king in the Whitehouse and if he can’t throw a temper tantrum and get his way he merely signs an executive order. Sit this one out or let others fight our fight and we will pay with a loss.

 

[DrMoab]

The bill actually takes away some constitutional rights. It won't pass. Parts of it will probably but not in its currant form.