HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I do not want an "as...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:32 PM

I do not want an "assault rifle" ban

I want every gun owner in the US to have to register their firearms....ALL of them...if you go to a firing range, you WILL need your "papers."

I want EVERY sale monitered by a federal agency. I want all sales of ammunition monitered...any more than normal, and I mean a normal day at the range, or a good turkey or deer hunt, or whatever woodland critter it is you are going after reported.

I want their to be annual federal taxes on the already owned guns...like property tax, only federal...to pay for that.

I do not want ANY of them grandfathered in. None. Zero. And that includes our old .22 rifle that sits in a trunk with no bullets around...the one we look at about every three years and talk about how much we miss Grandpa.

Have one of those cool black powder jobs over the mantle? Yeah. It's gonna cost you.

You guys love your guns? Well, I love my dog, my house, my Subaru...and every one of them require money every year.

You make a sale and don't report it, and pay the proper sales tax? Guess what? You just broke the law....

265 replies, 15105 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 265 replies Author Time Post
Reply I do not want an "assault rifle" ban (Original post)
JanMichael Dec 2012 OP
graham4anything Dec 2012 #1
TheMoreYouKnow Dec 2012 #3
bongbong Dec 2012 #5
TheMoreYouKnow Dec 2012 #9
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #26
graham4anything Dec 2012 #34
Mojorabbit Dec 2012 #53
graham4anything Dec 2012 #67
pop topcan Dec 2012 #66
tblue Dec 2012 #191
graham4anything Dec 2012 #11
Glassunion Dec 2012 #42
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #6
former-republican Dec 2012 #18
graham4anything Dec 2012 #36
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #37
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #41
graham4anything Dec 2012 #48
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #49
Ineeda Dec 2012 #62
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #65
Ineeda Dec 2012 #69
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #71
pop topcan Dec 2012 #73
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #78
graham4anything Dec 2012 #74
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #75
Chorophyll Dec 2012 #253
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #255
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #54
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #55
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #56
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #60
letemrot Dec 2012 #108
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #113
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #204
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #205
letemrot Dec 2012 #217
Kennah Dec 2012 #233
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #202
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #237
Chorophyll Dec 2012 #254
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #257
Chorophyll Dec 2012 #259
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #260
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #121
sanatanadharma Dec 2012 #193
JanMichael Dec 2012 #39
pop topcan Dec 2012 #72
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #240
morningfog Dec 2012 #175
Travis_0004 Dec 2012 #33
villager Dec 2012 #76
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #77
villager Dec 2012 #81
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #84
villager Dec 2012 #109
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #116
villager Dec 2012 #124
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #126
villager Dec 2012 #128
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #134
villager Dec 2012 #140
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #142
villager Dec 2012 #143
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #147
villager Dec 2012 #148
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #152
villager Dec 2012 #184
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #186
villager Dec 2012 #198
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #203
villager Dec 2012 #227
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #172
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #166
spanone Dec 2012 #2
Skidmore Dec 2012 #4
Hoyt Dec 2012 #7
ComplimentarySwine Dec 2012 #57
Hoyt Dec 2012 #79
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #80
ComplimentarySwine Dec 2012 #88
Hoyt Dec 2012 #110
ComplimentarySwine Dec 2012 #111
Hoyt Dec 2012 #114
ComplimentarySwine Dec 2012 #131
Hoyt Dec 2012 #199
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #179
MotherPetrie Dec 2012 #8
XRubicon Dec 2012 #123
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #10
JanMichael Dec 2012 #12
white_wolf Dec 2012 #14
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #16
TheOther95Percent Dec 2012 #13
JanMichael Dec 2012 #15
TheOther95Percent Dec 2012 #20
HereSince1628 Dec 2012 #17
JanMichael Dec 2012 #19
HereSince1628 Dec 2012 #23
TheOther95Percent Dec 2012 #21
JanMichael Dec 2012 #22
HereSince1628 Dec 2012 #24
RantinRavin Dec 2012 #44
TheOther95Percent Dec 2012 #92
slackmaster Dec 2012 #25
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #28
slackmaster Dec 2012 #29
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #31
WinkyDink Dec 2012 #122
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #132
WinkyDink Dec 2012 #119
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #125
JanMichael Dec 2012 #30
slackmaster Dec 2012 #38
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #40
JanMichael Dec 2012 #46
ComplimentarySwine Dec 2012 #61
pop topcan Dec 2012 #70
ComplimentarySwine Dec 2012 #89
pop topcan Dec 2012 #91
pop topcan Dec 2012 #82
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #86
XRubicon Dec 2012 #141
neverforget Dec 2012 #83
pop topcan Dec 2012 #93
neverforget Dec 2012 #95
pop topcan Dec 2012 #96
neverforget Dec 2012 #98
neverforget Dec 2012 #102
cantbeserious Dec 2012 #27
HereSince1628 Dec 2012 #32
socialindependocrat Dec 2012 #35
99Forever Dec 2012 #43
JanMichael Dec 2012 #45
99Forever Dec 2012 #47
beevul Dec 2012 #50
Xithras Dec 2012 #68
Buzz Clik Dec 2012 #51
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #52
JanMichael Dec 2012 #59
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #63
TheBlackAdder Dec 2012 #105
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #106
TheBlackAdder Dec 2012 #265
morningfog Dec 2012 #176
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #183
allinthegame Dec 2012 #58
pop topcan Dec 2012 #64
XRubicon Dec 2012 #97
pop topcan Dec 2012 #100
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #101
XRubicon Dec 2012 #117
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #120
XRubicon Dec 2012 #129
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #135
XRubicon Dec 2012 #137
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #138
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #139
XRubicon Dec 2012 #145
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #150
XRubicon Dec 2012 #155
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #156
XRubicon Dec 2012 #157
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #159
XRubicon Dec 2012 #164
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #169
XRubicon Dec 2012 #171
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #180
XRubicon Dec 2012 #182
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #185
XRubicon Dec 2012 #190
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #195
hrmjustin Dec 2012 #160
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #161
hrmjustin Dec 2012 #163
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #167
hrmjustin Dec 2012 #174
hrmjustin Dec 2012 #189
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #194
hrmjustin Dec 2012 #197
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #201
hrmjustin Dec 2012 #207
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #208
hrmjustin Dec 2012 #210
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #211
hrmjustin Dec 2012 #213
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #214
hrmjustin Dec 2012 #216
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #238
hrmjustin Dec 2012 #243
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #244
hrmjustin Dec 2012 #245
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #247
hrmjustin Dec 2012 #249
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #251
Mr Peabody Dec 2012 #85
Pholus Dec 2012 #87
graywarrior Dec 2012 #90
XRubicon Dec 2012 #94
pop topcan Dec 2012 #99
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #103
XRubicon Dec 2012 #136
pop topcan Dec 2012 #151
MADem Dec 2012 #104
former-republican Dec 2012 #107
Llewlladdwr Dec 2012 #112
former-republican Dec 2012 #115
XRubicon Dec 2012 #127
former-republican Dec 2012 #144
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #188
MADem Dec 2012 #261
WinkyDink Dec 2012 #118
JanMichael Dec 2012 #133
Agnosticsherbet Dec 2012 #130
libdem4life Dec 2012 #154
gonzo_del_oeste Dec 2012 #250
Hekate Dec 2012 #146
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #153
Hekate Dec 2012 #232
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #235
Hekate Dec 2012 #246
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #248
libdem4life Dec 2012 #149
NYC_SKP Dec 2012 #158
XRubicon Dec 2012 #162
NYC_SKP Dec 2012 #165
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #173
NYC_SKP Dec 2012 #177
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #181
morningfog Dec 2012 #178
NYC_SKP Dec 2012 #192
morningfog Dec 2012 #196
NYC_SKP Dec 2012 #200
morningfog Dec 2012 #206
NYC_SKP Dec 2012 #212
morningfog Dec 2012 #215
NYC_SKP Dec 2012 #218
morningfog Dec 2012 #219
NYC_SKP Dec 2012 #220
morningfog Dec 2012 #221
NYC_SKP Dec 2012 #222
morningfog Dec 2012 #224
NYC_SKP Dec 2012 #226
NYC_SKP Dec 2012 #223
morningfog Dec 2012 #225
NYC_SKP Dec 2012 #228
morningfog Dec 2012 #229
NYC_SKP Dec 2012 #230
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #236
NYC_SKP Dec 2012 #239
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #242
MurrayDelph Dec 2012 #168
X_Digger Dec 2012 #170
tblue Dec 2012 #187
Is That All There Is Dec 2012 #209
Deep13 Dec 2012 #231
Kennah Dec 2012 #234
JanMichael Dec 2012 #258
Kennah Dec 2012 #262
JanMichael Dec 2012 #263
Kennah Dec 2012 #264
darkangel218 Dec 2012 #241
Chorophyll Dec 2012 #252
yodermon Dec 2012 #256

Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:34 PM

1. I want the NRA classified as a terror org, and their funds frozen

 

I want bullets to cost $10,000 each

and I want all guns to remain off the streets, and only in a private home

(and that means too- NO gun in an apartment house, as there are other tennants who might be anti-gun)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:40 PM

3. So much for all that "common sense" talk

 

Good luck

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMoreYouKnow (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:43 PM

5. LOL

 

Have you run out of NRA Talking Points to parrot yet?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:46 PM

9. I didn't realize that calling out sheer insanity

 

Was now an NRA talking point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMoreYouKnow (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 06:35 PM

26. BongBong seems easily amused...

 

Also, anything that disagrees with zis views is "obviously" an NRA talking point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMoreYouKnow (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 06:55 PM

34. Guns are sheer insanity as you call it. Gun lovers who think someone is out to get them need meds

 

it is called paranoia
when they think they need a gun everywhere and anywhere because people are always after them

I live in the NY area, in the 70s at the stereotypical worst, I rode the subways at 3am

not once was I ever bothered, not in Times Square, not in the train, not in Brooklyn, Queens not anywhere

Just fear and paronia

and of course, hides the true reason most gun people actually want a gun and its not hunting,sport, or safety from a robber either.

nope but none of them admit the true reason

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #34)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:11 PM

53. The 70's were nothing like things are now. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #53)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:31 PM

67. They were 100 times worse then and in the past. Now all is peaceful except, and if, not for the gun

 

and the gangs in NY were at war with each other then, one Mafia shooting after another,
you couldn't eat a good Italian meal without worrying if a head will fall into the soup at the table next to you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #34)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:29 PM

66. If you were never bothered, why do you care either way?

 

What's the 'true reason' according to your Crystal (or Magic 8) ball?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #34)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:34 PM

191. I was saying to my SO just last night

This 'need' to own these weapons is a sign of psychological pathology. It's not healthy, rational, or moral. They don't need guns. They need professional help. And if they need professional help, they need to be closely monitored if they come anywhere near a firearm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMoreYouKnow (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:50 PM

11. only way to stop incidents in the street is to stop guns from being in the street Legal& illegal

 

keep the guns inside

People don't parade around with their Bowling Balls

and only say one bullet at one time and one gun at one time

unless someone is planning to take over a country, stockpiling guns is ridiculous
(after all, the stale lines for protection, how many guns after the first can one pick up in the middle of a dream if woken up by a person looking like all mass shootings comes through the door wearing fatigues?
by the time you reach, the person in the house is dead anyhow

(and its laughable that anyone would want to shoot a member of the mafia gang-when historically,anyone does that there will be severe consequences. Look at what happened to that person who accidentally hit a child on a bike that was the son of a leader. Ended up in acid).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:34 PM

42. You Sir owe an apology.

"People don't parade around with their Bowling Balls"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:43 PM

6. And a pony! Don't forget a pony!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 06:00 PM

18. Who doesn't want a pony

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:24 PM

36. The 19 kids in Oklahoma City and the 20 kids in CT probably would love to be riding horses today

 

but weapons of mass destruction killed all of them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #36)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:26 PM

37. "weapons of mass destruction"

Killed the kids in OKC. Not the ones in CT. Words, you know...mean stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #37)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:33 PM

41. but that gets in the way of a good rousing rant! n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #37)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:58 PM

48. Guns indeed are WMD. They are manufactured to kill. No other reason to have one

 

guns have killed more people than terrorists do, probably every year on record

rebrand, reframe, rehear the arguments in a new SCOTUS and then a new verdict

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #48)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:02 PM

49. and now you are engaging in pure bombast...

 

guns are WMD's? Really? They are set to wipe out large numbers of people, when deployed/used?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #49)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:26 PM

62. Well, the one used on Friday

was A: a weapon
and B: caused mass destruction
and C: wiped out a large number of people
Therefore a weapon of mass destruction, WMD.

Correct?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #65)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:33 PM

69. Edu-ma-cate yourself, pal.

The first line from the Wiki article: A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans (and other life forms)

So this didn't happen on Friday?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ineeda (Reply #69)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:35 PM

71. and what did the FBI page say?

 



“(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title (i.e. explosive device);
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title)(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life.”

WMD is often referred to by the collection of modalities that make up the set of weapons: chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive (CBRNE). These are weapons that have a relatively large-scale impact on people, property, and/or infrastructure.


Are you actually so incapable of comprehension as to NOT understand the above? Or are you just looking to score cheap points?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ineeda (Reply #69)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:40 PM

73. You conveniently took that snippet totally out of context: From the page

 

“(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title (i.e. explosive device);

That is dishonest. i.e. means, "that is", and is NOT that the same as e.g. which means "for example".


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pop topcan (Reply #73)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:46 PM

78. but they HAVE to take it out of context!

 

otherwise, the rhetoric is RUINED!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #65)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:41 PM

74. I could go&edit wiki if you would like to include guns as WMD and what a terrorist looks like too

 

it certainly is not what the NRA million dollar suits tell people that terrorist looks like

the terrorists look just like the guy who shot the school up, and Gabbie Giffords, and Oklahoma City, and a movie theatre, and shot MLK and JFK did.

It's funny-they stereotype what they wish Jesus looked like but anyone who is the least bit smart knows that Brad Pitt lookalike is not the truth, and they stereotype what bad people look like. Ironically, it is reverse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #74)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:43 PM

75. and what did that quote from the FBI page say?

 

why does your verbiage about "what a terrorist looks like" matter here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #49)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:48 AM

253. Uh, yes. They are in fact.

Taking out 27 people in 3 minutes isn't mass destruction enough for ya?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #253)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:53 AM

255. that's rapid fire, not mass destruction...

 

the FBI link I posted gives the definition.

Bombast... it makes rhetoric sound better!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #48)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:14 PM

54. Like I said, words have meaning.

So do phrases. "Weapons of mass destruction" has a well-known, broadly recognized meaning that has nothing to do with your convenient re-defining.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #54)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:17 PM

55. Lizzie Poppet... that would destroy the full emotional thrust of the rhetoric

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #55)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:18 PM

56. Good point.

When an appeal-to-emotion fallacy is the base of one's argument, it helps to make up the lexicon as one goes along, I suppose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #56)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:24 PM

60. I've been noticing a trend in a lot of "arguments" around here

 

1.) Get their attention
2.) show a big problem
3.) show your solution and why it MUST be used (insert appeal to emotion here)
4.) show why only your solution will work
5.) call to action

It's a classic propaganda trick. (Damn... I guess I DID learn something in grad school...)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #60)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:33 PM

108. Don't forget..

 

Anyone who disagrees with said action must be 1. Gun nut 2. NRA Troll 3. RWNJ gun nut NRA Troll.

Be sure to alert on posts and call any/all of these names in response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Reply #108)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:46 PM

113. pretty all of the classic ingredients for a witch hunt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #113)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:51 PM

204. Oh, dear!

I have it on good authority that I weigh the same as a duck, too...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #204)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:53 PM

205. Oops!

 

Well... This Pagan and his Wiccan lady aren't going to blithely give ourselves to the madding crowd...

I can always build lasers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #205)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:14 AM

217. But what Sharks with

 

'Friken lasers'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #204)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:58 AM

233. It must not cost much for you to fly

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Reply #108)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:51 PM

202. hit.nail.head

It's playground-level "logic," but it works, if the intention is to silence any meaningful debate or discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #202)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 08:44 AM

237. Lizzie Poppet...

 

I figure that's part of the actual goal...

1.) shut down dissent
2.) build the bandwagon
3.) after each "victory", redirect the crowd to a new target.

classic witch hunt...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #55)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:49 AM

254. Because dead children are emotional rhetoric.

Gotcha.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #254)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:56 AM

257. Dead children are a tragedy.

 

Using dead children to hype political movements is a form of rhetoric: Appeal to pathos.

So far, the groups on DU on this topic have all the makings for a witch hunt.

An "Assault Weapon" on its own isn't the problem. Crazy people getting their hands of them is the problem.

Why wasn't there red flags on regular mental health visits for this kid?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #257)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:44 PM

259. You've just basically given me the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" line.

There are crazy people all over the world. But sane countries have gun control.

As to regular mental health visits: the killer's mom was affluent and paranoid about the government. I guess she thought she could handle it herself. That seems to be the gun-clutcher attitude.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #259)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:50 PM

260. Right back atcha

 

There are crazy people all over the world. But sane countries have gun control.


And most places, the crazies are monitored and/or detained.

As to regular mental health visits: the killer's mom was affluent and paranoid about the government.


And others can call it in...

I guess she thought she could handle it herself.


Other people can make the safety call..

That seems to be the gun-clutcher attitude.


That just shows bombastic propaganda on your part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #48)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:52 PM

121. Then Bush was right to invade Iraq? The place was and is crawling with AK's

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #37)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:37 PM

193. Guns may not be weopons of mass destruction until someone shoots 100 in a church...

...but they are weapons of terror.
Some buy guns by the dozens because they live in terror of life.
Everyone else lives in terror of the day an idolator snaps and and in terror of the small penis posse-s of poseurs who should never have access to the guns diverted from the unregulated and stolen from legal market.
It is the faith in guns rather than God or your fellow (wo)man that drives this insanity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #36)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:27 PM

39. Yep. They might have wanted ponies for Christmas

even if they were just toy ones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #36)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:36 PM

72. You actually believe that stuff, don't you?

 

Amazing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pop topcan (Reply #72)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 09:53 AM

240. Of course

That's because as anyone who understands what the terms mean in their ordinary usage understands the difference between a terrorist and a psycho. The former have political motivations for their attacks on innocents, the latter do not. "Terrorist" doesn't refer simply to someone who makes people afraid...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:17 PM

175. The NRA fanboy can't stay away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 06:50 PM

33. I might support bullets costing 10k

I could retire tomorrow!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:44 PM

76. I would like to have the NRA classified as what they really are, as well

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #76)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:45 PM

77. other than a lobbying party for gun manufacturers, what would that be?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #77)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:50 PM

81. Well "lobbying party for gun manufacturers" is a start, Geek Bob.

And a big step for you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #81)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:52 PM

84. Have I ever said anything other than that about the NRA

 

big step? let me guess... you like to "raise consciousnesses," don't you...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #84)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:37 PM

109. So -- just to be clear -- you consider your mission to "lower consciousness?"

I admit, it would explain many of your posts!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #109)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:48 PM

116. okay then...

 

"raising consciousness" is usually when some group - usually "socially liberal" in name - decides that people need to think in a different way, regardless of the targeted group's wishes.

Just to be clear, I don't like witch hunts, and I don't like propaganda. I also find your attempts at snark to be revelaing of the paucity of your arguments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #116)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:53 PM

124. Okay, Bob! I will keep an eye out for those dreaded "social liberals!"

Dangerous lot, those social liberals!

Though I'm confused -- when was the last "social liberal" witchhunt? I don't think Joseph McCarthy was a "social liberal," was he?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #124)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:56 PM

126. Ever hear of Marcuse? How about "politically correct?"

 

McCarthy wasn't a social liberal, but there is the whole field of Critical Theory, Freiran style eudcation, and the ever popular image of the Marxist professor.

Marcuse was all about certain people not being allowed to talk, and VERY against citizens having firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #126)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:58 PM

128. So, the only example of a "social liberal" witchhunt you give is by someone who isn't

...actually a "social liberal," by your own admission?

Which, even if he was, would just constitute a single opinion, and not an actual witchhunt at all?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #128)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:02 PM

134. speech codes have gotten a good play

 

jebbers christmas, but you guys get predictable.

Te next thing you are likely to talk about is how wide spread I am casting for a fear net.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #134)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:18 PM

140. Bob, what on earth are you talking about now? And who are "you guys?"


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #140)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:19 PM

142. You are going to tell me that you have never heard of speech codes?

 

Seriously?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #142)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:20 PM

143. Well, is that something used by social liberals in their witch hunts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #143)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:22 PM

147. okay... let's stop a minute...

 

Are you seriously saying that you have never heard of a speech code. Does the "water buffalo incident" ring any bells?

Yes, Liberals use these as witch hunts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #147)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:27 PM

148. Bob, why don't you just say want you want to say, directly. Attack liberals straight on

....instead of obliquely.

Just tell us why you can't stand liberals, and get it out, instead of hinting around at it all the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #148)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:41 PM

152. so, you're baitin', is what you are saying...

 

I am a progressive. I believe in the idea of civil rights and individual freedoms.

So far, this thread has been about how to "amend" (lovely word, that) the constitution, and you guys obviously know so much more...

So... what makes you smarter?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #152)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:27 PM

184. Bob, who are "you guys?" You keep insisting I'm one of "them," but who is "them?"

I'm sounding like a Pogo comic strip, nearly, but I'm trying to cut through the Gordian Knot of your rhetoric (to freely mix imagery).

Who's this "them?" Some insidious group I am evidently part of, but which you -- lone valiant defender of individual freedoms -- stand apart from?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #184)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:28 PM

186. I liked the mixed up imagery... I think you've got something there

 

You were the one throwing stereotypes, so I thought it was a game everyone could play...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #186)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:43 PM

198. You mean, because I dared stereotype... the NRA!?

That, after all, is where this sub-thread came in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #198)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:51 PM

203. Actually, some were stereotyping ME, so I returned the favor...

 

I'd never drive a Hummer... not enough hauling capacity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #203)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:35 AM

227. Well, "some" may have been, but I wasn't. Though I believe I was accused of trying

...to raise consciousness!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #76)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:15 PM

172. You would have First Amendment problems with that. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:09 PM

166. Did you send your wish list to Santa?

It is almost Christmas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:35 PM

2. it's called an assault rifle for a good reason. ban them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:41 PM

4. Send this to Biden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:44 PM

7. I like it. Whatever happens, I hope it is enough to close a bunch of gun stores, bankrupt a few


manufacturers, cause folks that that have been accumulating a lethal weapons cache to thin the heard at plunging prices, etc., . . . . . . and cause the gun cultist to hide their bad habit because the vast majority of non-cultists now consider them a blight on society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:19 PM

57. Why would prices plunge if manufacturers and dealers went out of business?

 

It seems that the limited supply would cause prices to rise, just like the '86 machine gun ban did. A pre-'86 M-16 that used to sell for $1,000 or so and costs less than that to manufacturer now sells for something like $15k. The people with the stockpiles seem to be in the best position if something like that were to happen...I imagine that that is why a lot of them are stockpiling to begin with.

If everything that I wanted wasn't sold out everywhere I've looked (especially that M21), I imagine that I would be stockpiling as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ComplimentarySwine (Reply #57)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:47 PM

79. Couple of reasons - everyone will be dumping them because of annual tax and future ban on sales

Also, as they are no longer marketed with sexy ads, yahoos will quit drooling over them. And only yahoos will want one anyway because people who give a shit about society wouldn't be caught dead with them.

Make the cost of owning one prohibitive , reduce sexiness of lethal weapons, limit private sales, etc., and the yahoos who "invested" hoping to make a buck off death will lose their ass - justice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #79)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:49 PM

80. it certainly worked out imported sports cars

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #79)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:01 PM

88. I'm not sure that you're thinking this through

 

Did the price of cocaine go up or down once it was banned and a black market was started for it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ComplimentarySwine (Reply #88)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:37 PM

110. You don't understand - the annual carrying cost, the stigma , fact one can't sell it

after five years, lucky of sexy/lethal marketing, etc., will have kill demand. Then the purchasers will just become yahoos, and they already have one.

But, don't listen to me - run out and buy all you can grab.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #110)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:42 PM

111. What's going to prevent them from selling them after 5 years?

 

Don't you think that among "crazy" gun people, they will just form a black market?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ComplimentarySwine (Reply #111)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:47 PM

114. The law would say that. Then we'd see just how un-law-abiding gun culture is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #114)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:59 PM

131. And after we see how "un-law-abiding" they are

 

then what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ComplimentarySwine (Reply #131)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:45 PM

199. Like I said, you gonna play Randy Weaver.?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #114)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:20 PM

179. Your crystal ball needs tuning. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:45 PM

8. How the fuck does any of that preclude banning assault weapons?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:53 PM

123. How many Hummer H2's did you see on the road today?

Think about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:46 PM

10. They are not assault riffles

The right has managed to subvert the term. They are infantry battle riffles. Period.

For reasons that have to do with the culture don't think this will pass, but send it over to the WH.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:52 PM

12. exactly...this "assault rifle ban" is going to get talked about...

and in the end...what the HELL is an "assault rifle?" The right is setting the language again....and there will be more horrific shootings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:55 PM

14. Assault rifle or infantry battle rifle neither belongs on the streets.

It's as simple as that. If you actually legitimately need a weapon like an AK-47 for self defense then you are way over your head and odds are that gun won't save from the mafia or whoever you pissed off, because your average citizen does not need a weapon designed for the battlefield.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to white_wolf (Reply #14)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:58 PM

16. Terminology and framing matters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:54 PM

13. I like the idea of a property and/or sales tax too.

I would like all gun sales to be subject to a background check and whatever modifications are needed to make sure you can't buy a gun that can spray bullets in a room full of people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheOther95Percent (Reply #13)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:56 PM

15. The taxes will go to pay the employees of my new

Gun Nutter Agency, or whatever you want to call it. I am sure it will be a branch of the ATF.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Reply #15)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 06:08 PM

20. Anything left over should go to mental health programs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:59 PM

17. No, do not call it a tax, it'd be an annual license fee. To cover the costs

of government needed to regulate guns, police their use, prosecute violators, and to pay for corrections activity that may be involved in implementing criminal penalties.

Sort of like an auto license...one for every car.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #17)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 06:05 PM

19. I like that; thank you

as another poster made so clear above, language matters so much. This is a good idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Reply #19)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 06:14 PM

23. Just like cars you could also require insurance coverage

to deal with 'accidents' during lawful use.

That way everybody has some financial protection from the effects of Dick Cheney when he's out bird hunting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #17)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 06:09 PM

21. Better Idea.

Although like the federal tax on gasoline, I think there should be a considerable tax on firearms and ammunition at the point of sale.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheOther95Percent (Reply #21)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 06:13 PM

22. oh absolutely....tax the crap out of them

at every turn. But, I want a liscense on EVERY one sold since ....what? Should we say Jan. 1st, 1800 or so? That covers quite a few. Or should we go back a bit further?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheOther95Percent (Reply #21)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 06:29 PM

24. Best of all requiring fees of users is pure Ronald Reagan

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheOther95Percent (Reply #21)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:41 PM

44. There already is a tax

A federal excise tax of 10% on handguns, 11% on long guns and ammunition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RantinRavin (Reply #44)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:08 PM

92. In that case, it should be higher. Much higher.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 06:33 PM

25. It's not going to happen

 

Your totalitarian wet dream will remain forever a sick fantasy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #25)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 06:37 PM

28. If it happens...

 

I intend a brisk trade in cheap laser pistols...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #28)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 06:38 PM

29. Yes, and tragic boating accidents, shovels, and ABS pipe.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #29)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 06:40 PM

31. Not to mention axes, swords, and point-ed sticks n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #31)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:52 PM

122. Hey, "Bob," did Adam Lanza choose any of THOSE?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #122)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:00 PM

132. so a crazy person goes for the most convenient weapon...

 

The problem isn't the firearms, it's the crazies on the loose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #28)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:51 PM

119. Har-de-har-har.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #119)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:53 PM

125. Did I make a joke? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #25)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 06:39 PM

30. really. Works in other countries.

And how is it "sick?" Furthermore, how is having a liscense to own a firearm "totalitarian?"

You don't have to own one; not requiring that-

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Reply #30)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:26 PM

38. The United States of America is not "other countries"

 

Furthermore, how is having a liscense to own a firearm "totalitarian?"

Do you need a license to have free speech, or the right to a jury trial, or to be free from unreasonable search and seizure?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #38)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:32 PM

40. There are limits to the first

No right is absolute.

There are already, for all intents and purposes, licensed gun owners in the US and you know it...1934...we could very well do this for infantry riffles. Let's call them what they are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #38)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:51 PM

46. What in the world do those have to do with

buying and owning something? You are taxed on most things you own; since guns are causing so many problems for people (medical bills, funeral costs, lead poisoning in the ground at old shooting ranges)...then you get liscensed and taxed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Reply #30)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:24 PM

61. How many other countries have 9 guns for every 10 people?

 

How many other first-world countries were founded from a citizen overthrow of an established government? (I really dont know.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ComplimentarySwine (Reply #61)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:34 PM

70. The Arab Spring (which Democrats strongly support) would be an abortion without individuals

 

trying to overthrow dictators having guns...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pop topcan (Reply #70)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:02 PM

89. Perhaps we have different definitions of "first world" n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ComplimentarySwine (Reply #89)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:07 PM

91. Just a guess...you've never been outside of Podunk County...right?

 

The elegance and infrastructure in many middle eastern countries make Peoria look like a Mumbai slum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #25)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:50 PM

82. It's really ironic isn't it, how on every OTHER issue the bulk of DU worships Franklin's warning

 

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

And no, the loss of 20 kids is not a 'little' thing, but one must also consider the millions who have been similarly lost to fascism, dictatorships, ethnic cleansing, religious warfare, et sad cetera.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pop topcan (Reply #82)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:54 PM

86. it's classic propaganda...

 

find a nefarious target to focus people's anger on...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #86)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:18 PM

141. Dont reply to your sock....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #25)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:51 PM

83. Registering, licensing and taxing are totalitarian?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to neverforget (Reply #83)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:09 PM

93. Well, now that you mention it...no. Let's bring back poll taxes, that will solve some of the 'black

 

problem'....


(do I need here?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pop topcan (Reply #93)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:13 PM

95. Nice dodge

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to neverforget (Reply #95)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:13 PM

96. Thanks...can you answer it?

 

or not...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pop topcan (Reply #96)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:14 PM

98. I'll answer after you do

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pop topcan (Reply #96)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:17 PM

102. Hate to tell you this but there are taxes on guns and ammo now

http://www.ttb.gov/tax_audit/atftaxes.shtml

Pistols and Revolvers 10% of sale price

Other Firearms and Ammunition 11% of sale price

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 06:36 PM

27. Yes - All Good Suggestions

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:03 PM

35. Let's just have a "Net WorthTax"..

That way everyone will pay 1% of their total net worth and we can get rid of the debt problem.

Then, when people die we just burn them in a county incinerator because
heaven knows we wouldn't want them taking up valuable real estate
when they're dead and we can no longer tax them.

No, no, let's grind them into dog food some we cam make one last doller off of every-body.

You people sound more like Republicans every day!

I guess they'll be a run on pitch forks and torches at Home Depot this weekend...

At lest we'll be supporting small business!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialindependocrat (Reply #35)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:41 PM

43. Things that make you go hmmmmmm,.

This guy is calling people here Republicans, because they want gun nutjobs to foot the bill for their own fetish, in one line..


.. and then in the next two line calls Home Depot "a small business."



Ya can't make this shit up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #43)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:45 PM

45. that poster lost me at the "dog food" comment

I just ignored the post. Sounds like teafuckery to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Reply #45)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:53 PM

47. Smells a lot like the underside of a bridge to me. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:06 PM

50. Firearm registration is federally illegal per..

Firearm registration is federally illegal per the firearm owners protection act of 1986.

Sure, you could repeal it, but then you'd be opening the NFA registry to newly manufactured (and post 1986) fully automatic weapons.


Probably not what you had in mind, huh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #50)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:31 PM

68. Per the Supreme Court, there's no way to force existing users to register anyway. It's a moot point.

The original 1934 NFA, the law that banned fully automatic machine guns and silencers, required that the existing owners of those weapons register them, and banned felons from owning firearms. In 1968 a convicted felon was caught with an automatic firearm and was charged with not registering it.

The guy claimed that a law requiring him to register his firearms would be illegal. Why? Because he's a felon, so owning a gun is a crime. By forcing him to register a firearm that he originally purchased legally, the government was essentially FORCING him to confess to a crime, which was a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court agreed in Haynes vs. United States. The court decision created a completely idiotic registration framework where law-abiding citizens were required to register their firearms, but CRIMINALS were constitutionally protected from doing so.

The NFA was amended shortly afterward to put into place the system we have today. Instead of the original and unconstitutional system, where people were forced to register their own firearms, the law instead refocused on the resale and transfer of firearms. The Supreme Court has upheld that as being legal. The governments presumption was that, by heavily regulating them at the point of sale, the availability of the weapons would decrease over time as the current owners sold them off or died. This has largely been borne out, and today it's exceptionally rare to find someone who owns one of these guns without an NFA license. There have only been two incidents of NFA registered automatic weapons being used in a crime in the U.S. in nearly 80 years (and one of those incidents involved a police officer who went nuts).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:08 PM

51. I want them banned. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #51)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:10 PM

52. them...what?

 

full autos? semi-autos?

Luckily, YOU don't get to override constitutional rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #52)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:20 PM

59. the amendment reads a "well regulated militia." I want it

regulated out the freaking wazoo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Reply #59)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:26 PM

63. and therein lies the tale...

 

1.) Well Regulated has some wiggle room
2.) Militia can mean
2a.) National Guard/Standing army
2b.) Civilian enforcement
2c.) all able bodied men between the ages of 14 through mid sixties. (Classic for the Anglo-Saxon Folk)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #63)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:25 PM

105. It's a shame that's not the definition of 'Militia'. Also, 'Well Regulated' means something too!

Keep twisting the English language.

Perhaps you should read the Federalist Papers where they thought disciplining a civilian militia was futile, not something that can be achieved in a day or week every so often, but on a regular routine basis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheBlackAdder (Reply #105)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:28 PM

106. And I'm twisting the language...

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia

1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
See militia defined for English-language learners »
See militia defined for kids »


There... shows a fair bit of wiggle room.

Personally, I think there's an ulterior motive to the "let's ban guns" groups.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #106)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:55 PM

265. The laugh is... You have no concept of what I had written. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #63)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:19 PM

176. I'd like to introduce you to the 21st century. Welcome.

Please come in and leave your arcane thoughts and paranoia at the door.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #176)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:24 PM

183. I was pointing out the vagaries of language...

 

Fog, I'm willing to bet a pizza in the restaurant of your choice that I'm more in touch with the 21st Century than you are.

How shall we compare our "century with-it-ness?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:19 PM

58. TAX

ammunition to the hilt. If you want to have 10,000 rounds sitting on your living room floor you should have to pay for them in a significant way....so significant that you might not want to have all that stuff sitting in your living room.
This goes with a license and a waiting period and a certificate of use and a "James Bond" lock and anything else that would almost make having this garbage worth having.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:27 PM

64. Fortunately, what you claim to want is less likely than Madonna becoming President.

 

...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pop topcan (Reply #64)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:14 PM

97. Keep lying to yourself...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XRubicon (Reply #97)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:16 PM

100. Okay...more like Lady GaGa becoming president.

 

mox nix

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XRubicon (Reply #97)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:16 PM

101. how is he lying to himself? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #101)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:50 PM

117. I think there will be new gun taxes, maddonna wont be president either.

Its a great way to pay for security at schools and take money from stupid people. The "dumb tax".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XRubicon (Reply #117)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:52 PM

120. and who are the stupid people?

 

kind of showing some prejudices on your part, aren't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #120)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:58 PM

129. People who own guns

Maybe you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XRubicon (Reply #129)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:04 PM

135. ah... figured as much...

 

So, being able to quickly recognize patterns and prioritize into a firing solution shows ineptitude...

Your snark shows the paucity of your "proof."

What makes you smarter, kid?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #135)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:07 PM

137. How many guns do you own?

Fancy words...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XRubicon (Reply #137)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:12 PM

138. I guess it's those two graduate degrees and the upcoming third...

 

that compels me to use "fancy words." (usually considered a sign of "verbal Intelligence."

As for how many guns do I own... how do you want to classify firearms? I've no "Assault weapons..."

How about you climb off the bandwagon and explain what the alternatives are to greeting a home intruder? Should I give said intruder a sternly worded lecture? My choice is applying a 5 amp stun stick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #138)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:17 PM

139. by the way...

 

were you trying for the "appeal to gallery" or the "appeal of the common touch" when you stated your

Fancy words...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #138)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:22 PM

145. Was there a sale at University of Phoenix?

My graduate degree is from Columbia...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XRubicon (Reply #145)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:39 PM

150. great! I kind of figured something along those lines...

 

Columbia was the host for the ISR, and the taint never really left.

my first two are from state schools, as will the third.

Aside from "fancy words" as per your institution, what makes you smarter?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #150)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:45 PM

155. I see this tax thing really has your brain overheating, that's why I like it.

Do you drive a Hummer too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XRubicon (Reply #155)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:50 PM

156. WOW... you're just full of stereotypes...

 

Actually, I drive a modded 10 year old hyrbrid civic. I ripped out the main battery, and added a fuel cell. The FC uses up more room in the back, but I get better mileage.

Any more stereotypes you'd like to throw out?

If you really want to get to it, I don't "hate" liberals. I "hate" socialists. I consider them mentally ill and untrustworthy.

If we are going to play stereotypes, then that last comment covers you, as the stereotype of Columbia students is the urban Marxist wannabes.


<checks forehead> nope... no fever...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #156)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:59 PM

157. Please define socialist, I'd like to hear your definition

Tip: Open two browser windows, go to Rush Limbaugh's web site and do a control F on "socialist".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XRubicon (Reply #157)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:03 PM

159. As I don't listen to Limbo, that won't help much...

 


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

so·cial·ism

1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done


It seems to be a system that is operationally incapable of working, despite the incredible number of erudite adherents.

Here's a hint, sparky... when you try and bait people, try for subtlety...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #159)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:09 PM

164. No need for subtlety with you to get results.

So, start naming socialists Senator.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XRubicon (Reply #164)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:13 PM

169. I'm a senator, now? Sweet!

 

I know that Bernie Sander is a socialist, and I'll hold judgement on him... I haven't reviewed his record.

How about all of those countries that LEFT the socialist fold? Why did they do that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #169)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:15 PM

171. Do you have a list?

Dont show it to anyone, I think you should just waive around to make a point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XRubicon (Reply #171)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:20 PM

180. So now I'm McCarthy?

 

Neat trick... How was I raised from the dead?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

Also, Bernie describes himself as a "democratic socialist," as opposed to socialist (as per the Merriam Webster)

He seems to like small businesses, and therefore would not fit the classic definition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #180)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:22 PM

182. Check out the big brain on Bob.... what do they call a quarter pounder in France?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XRubicon (Reply #182)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:27 PM

185. no idea...

 

there was a well received movie that would state that your answer would be "a royale with cheese"...

So... do you have a list of pure socialist countries with a higher standard of living, as per that list I posted?

Three pizzas says you don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #185)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:33 PM

190. Laughter is the best medicine and you Bob have provided much tonight

I need to sign off, one more day of work before vacation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XRubicon (Reply #190)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:38 PM

195. good to know you can laugh at yourself...

 

It's the best way to stay sane.

Get some sleep, and then off to work with you. I finished grading papers yesterday.

We can correspond some other time.

Cheers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #156)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:03 PM

160. How progressive of you to hate socialists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #160)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:05 PM

161. thank you for the kind words...

 

As Socialism seems to thrive on repression, OF COURSE I'd hate it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #161)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:07 PM

163. Many countries are socialistic and are not repressive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #163)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:11 PM

167. Really?

 

Do tell...

How shall we differentiate between socialist and socialistic? Are you going to use the same logic as the "one drop" rule?

They have more social mobility? More civil rights? A higher Standard of living:

Easy access to a dense form of protein?
Easy access to vitamins?
Easy access to information of one's choice?
Easy access to methods of transfer of information?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #167)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:16 PM

174. Aren't most European countries Socialistic.

Tax the rich at high rates, and put the money into social programs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #156)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:31 PM

189. So you don't hate liberals, Are you a liberal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #189)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:37 PM

194. My wife and I usually considerourselves to be "progressive"

 

How are you defining "Liberal?"

If you mean a person who loves individual liberties coupled with responsibilities, civil rights, and equal opportunties for all...

Emphatically YES

If you mean a person who wants to push an agenda of victim culture*, politics of resentment, and/or economic leveling

Emphatically NO

* for the record, I had a number of "hard knocks" that gave me brain damage and PTSD. I consider myself a survivor, not a victim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #194)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:43 PM

197. Politics of resentment sounds like you mean class warfare. Do you think that liberals push

class warfare and a victim culture. I think liberals push for fairness in the tax code and look out for the little guy. We don't push victimhood.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #197)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:47 PM

201. and that's why I ask for clarification...

 

I think certain groups push victimhood culture. I don't think we can lump the UAW mindset in with the Marxist Crit Theory prof.

If you read Iriagaray, you'll see some of "teh crazy..."

politics of resentment are also called the school of resentment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_Resentment

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #201)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:54 PM

207. So you would consider yourself a moderate democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #207)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:55 PM

208. and there we go again...

 

What are the goal posts to mark moderate from liberal? Where does a progressive fit in?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #208)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:58 PM

210. I don't know. I consider myself a liberal.

I believe in higher taxes on the rich, equal rights for all, pro-choice, marriage equality, gun control, and cutting military spending. I think that makes me a liberal or progressive if you like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #210)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:00 AM

211. I can agree with all of those, provided we can define "gun control..." n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #211)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:03 AM

213. I support banning military style weapons. Do not ask me what types. I know nothing of guns.

Closing gun show loopholes and a uniform waiting period nation wide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #213)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:04 AM

214. then we are in accord... n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #214)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:07 AM

216. So I guess we agree on much.

Perhaps I misjudged you. I thought you were a conservative. Sorry about that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #216)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 09:17 AM

238. No problems

 

My wife says I'm a populist/progressive/cranky-yankee inventor

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #238)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:49 AM

243. Again I am sorry I was harping on you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #243)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:58 AM

244. No need to apologize...

 

so...

How do you feel about the idea of schools putting in anti-gun fields?

Here's the idea:

have a set of fat-switchable RF transmitters, and attached receivers. When the system's turned on, the transmitters rapidly go "up the dial" and freeze frequencies when the the receivers get a traveling wave guide bounceback. THen the transmitters go to full power, making the barrel of the gun impossible to use, unless the user only wants a backfire.

If this sounds good to you, share it. If it makes money, I'd like 5%. If you want me to build it, give parts money, a little labor cost, and a meal and a beer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #244)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:03 AM

245. That is an interesting idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #245)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:36 AM

247. The major problem is going to be the power usage...

 

No real way around that...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #247)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:40 AM

249. And when the cops show up you might need to turn it off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #249)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:45 AM

251. Not a problem

 

once the field is switched on at a period of time, it can be switched off.

The barrels of any guns will have been rendered useless.

Power requirement's going to be a pain in the neck...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:54 PM

85. Do you believe in Santa claus? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:57 PM

87. Just grab all those "Man Card" registrations that Bushmaster has...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:04 PM

90. Why not insure them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:12 PM

94. I agree 100%, I still want assault ban though. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XRubicon (Reply #94)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:15 PM

99. Good plan, I support a ban on assaults too!

 

Maybe even make them felonies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pop topcan (Reply #99)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:17 PM

103. +50! n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pop topcan (Reply #99)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:05 PM

136. Are you sure?

Do you have a lawyer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XRubicon (Reply #136)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:41 PM

151. I used to have a lawyer, but he died when

 

an ambulance backed over him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:23 PM

104. I don't think you'll get your wish. If an assault weapon ban came back into fashion, that would be

a huge "win" by most people's standards. I think it will be a fight to get that, even....we'll see what the NRA has up their sleeves on Friday.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #104)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:30 PM

107. I think the NRA is going to support a MAG ban on anything over 10 rounds.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #107)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:44 PM

112. I think you're wrong.

Considering the millions of +10 round magazines already in circulation such a ban would be worse than useless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Llewlladdwr (Reply #112)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:48 PM

115. It's an easy gesture on their part

 

New guns will come with ten rounders like before the AWB expired.
It wasn't that big a deal back then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Llewlladdwr (Reply #112)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:57 PM

127. Yeah, so we shouldn't ban them right?

How bout if you get caught with one you get arrested?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XRubicon (Reply #127)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:20 PM

144. It's feel good law and the rest will be grand fathered

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #107)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:30 PM

188. No way. The NRA will go hard line.

Their donations depend upon them having an image of no compromise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #107)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:42 PM

261. That would probably be an 'easy way out' for them.

Then, they'd provide their crazed enthusiasts with directions on how to "build your own" to increase the firepower!

I'm no expert on the topic, but I have been told that it's not all that hard to fashion a mag that holds a lot of bullets, if one knows what one is doing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:50 PM

118. AGREE 100%! The $$$ angle is the only way to include ALL firearms & discourage usage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #118)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:01 PM

133. yep

Hit the gun nutters in the wallet. How the hell are the damned things NOT registered?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:58 PM

130. I want all gun owners to buy insurance, just like auto insurance...

to cover the possible mayhem and medical costs. No insurance. No shooting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #130)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:45 PM

154. I am all over this one. Think of the shrinking of the medical system with another layer of

insurance. Insurance companies would be great for this...their actuarial tables are accurate. It could be included in current home or business insurance costs. Could also get uninsured insurance, so that if a problem is caused with an uninsured gun, yours pays, but they lose the gun. Use the Point System. Also will save on the health care general insurance fund, because its coming out of a different department.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #130)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:43 AM

250. 2nd post

I want people to have a license to have children.

And limits on dogs.

No insurance on their children or dogs; no children or dogs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:22 PM

146. Works for me. After reading the hateful paranoid fetishistic garbage here on DU...

... I am more than ready.

Your proposal has nothing at all wrong with it, btw. IMO it is very fair. License. Tax. Register.

Fetishists.

Hekate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #146)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:44 PM

153. so... instead of using a firearm on a home intruder, can I use a flame thrower? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #153)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:28 AM

232. You can use your registered taxed licensed firearm and not ignite your house

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #232)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 08:38 AM

235. Can I use my 5 amp stunstick?

 

5 amps will really crimp a tweaker's style...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #235)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:19 AM

246. Can I be on the regulatory commission?

I'd be glad to volunteer to help draw up the body of new laws, licenses, and taxes.

And to be sure, if a gang of 6-year olds tries to invade your home, I'm sure you'll be prepared.

Just one last note -- and then really we should cease this useless exchange -- I think the Sandy Hook massacre of the innocents strikes our hearts like the 1963 bombing of a Sunday school in Birmingham that killed 4 little girls. That marked a turning point in the Civil Rights movement -- Gods willing, this event will mark a turning point as well.

In case you're too young to remember: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_Street_Baptist_Church_bombing

Hekate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #246)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:39 AM

248. Not many 6 year olds break windows or locks to invade a house...

 

I'm really not sure if the emotionally background tone is the same for the 1963 deaths, and the situation now.

Mind you, I was -3, in 1963...

Sounds like building lasers and stunsticks is a good work-around for dealing with new laws...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:38 PM

149. Yes yes and yes. Every firearm is registered. Just like motor vehicles. That's not too hard and

I'm pretty sure there are more than 300,000,000 out there. It is not as hard as it would seem. Cities and Counties could be empowered to add a federal agency...they do it all the time...and then pass a law. Do the flat fee buyback. I believe that is already possible now in some cities or counties. What is there to lose? What's the beef...other than the "gummint gonna git 'em." Well, if registered, guess what, those criminals can't steal a gun ... it would be reported and you'd have to bring in the gun and show a license for the ammo sales...(tax,tax,tax,) it would be reported. And we're thankful for that

And anybody who resists this or feels put upon, there's something else going on there. And the survivalists, let them go buy up some land some where, register the arms, and live happily. They are yours as long as you abide by the law and pay registrations, inspections, and such

Heck, if every gun was registered along with responsibilities, taxes and fees, and re-registration, I'd be fine with open Carry. They'll probably find normal people will kind of ignore them or walk a lilttle farther behind...no problem.

Cause a crime...gun goes away. Cause a injury or death...consider it like a DUI, except manslaughter and your life will be seriously messed up for a long time. Long time before you'll get another gun...lots of classes, working as first responder assistants to murders, etc.

MADD...Mother's Against Drunk Driving did a massive thing in California. Maybe we could copy their methods for a Parents For Sandy Hook. We have the means and the way.

There have so many good ideas on this board...who knows, some of them may be part of a really big shift in our nation and in our day that will be remembered forever. and we have the Person of the Year on our side !!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:01 PM

158. "Papers, please". Where have I heard that?

Are you serious????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #158)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:05 PM

162. License and registration please... and proof of insurance. Sound familiar?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XRubicon (Reply #162)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:09 PM

165. Equally disturbing, really. It wasn't always this way.

Frog, pot, slowly raise the flame....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #165)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:16 PM

173. yup...yup...yup

 

There always seems to be a group of characters that simply knows more than us benighted souls. Out of the great goodness of their hearts, they are willing to take the time and energy away from their own schedules, to lead us to a better place.

Such nobility! It makes me weep with gratitude!

Do I really need to add the Sarcasm icon?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #173)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:19 PM

177. No need to follow, Bob. Really. I mean it. I'd prefer actually that you stay right there. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #177)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:21 PM

181. in what way?

 

you lost me there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #158)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:20 PM

178. For a gun range. Get over youself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #178)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:34 PM

192. Get over yourself?

Where I come from there are considerably fewer than one law enforcement officers per square mile.

How's your math, sport?

Wanna match these numbers with good wishes?

Why would you want to conclude that what works for your life must work for everyone?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #192)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:42 PM

196. Please. What does any of that have to do with your opposition

to requiring registration of your firearm to go to a gun range? You were clearly starting towards labeling it fascism, sport.

I am curious about the crime statistics of your tragically law enforcement deficit county.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #196)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:45 PM

200. I just don't know what a gun range has to do with having a gun.

It's like any number of other distractions about hunting and whatnot that come from people who clearly never lived in a rural situation but have these rich opinions about firearms.

It's just like talking about farming to someone who has never met a tomato.

You and I probably don't have enough in common to have this conversation, much less your having a right to regulate what I own and don't own, if you get my drift.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #200)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:54 PM

206. You have no idea about me, but assume as you like.

I don't know what your "rural situation" is. When I was a kid, we just called where we lived the sticks. I never thought of it as a "situation." I did notice you avoid my question on the crime statistics. When I was growing up, in my "rural situation," we had much lower crime than those in the city. I saw my granddad, who always had loaded guns around, shoot snakes, skunks, groundhogs, rabbits, targets and in the air. Yet, I fail to see why anyone in a "rural situation" would protest against having their guns registered. I would call that an extremist and paranoid positions. One you should let go of.

You are against registration entirely? How does registering your guns prevent you from playing local cop in your home?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #206)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:01 AM

212. When did I say I was against registration?

I made no assumptions about you, but rather wanted to ask you to be mindful.

I currently live in California.

There is an effective AWB, a two week wait period, and a background check.

I don't resist any of these measures.

The assumptions DU members have made of my life and my attitudes are laughable.

Included among these are the assertions that I made a post about a killing machine, a simple stainless steel pump action shotgun that was called a "killing machine" and a "gun porn post".

So, excuse me if you are or I am mistaken.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #212)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:06 AM

215. Then what the fuck did this mean?

Star Member NYC_SKP (45,106 posts)
158. "Papers, please". Where have I heard that?

View profile
Are you serious????


Seriously. The OP stated:
I want every gun owner in the US to have to register their firearms....ALL of them...if you go to a firing range, you WILL need your "papers."


Was I mistaken to read that your "'Papers, please'. Where have I heard that?" was not in response to the OP which mentioned papers only on the requirement to register and then extended it to the firing range?

And, if you did not mean fascism when you said, "'Papers, please'. Where have I heard that?" What the fuck did you mean?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #215)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:15 AM

218. "Papers, please" is universally understood to apply to a police state.

If you want that then you go ahead with yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #218)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:18 AM

219. So, you are against gun registration?

It is hard to get a straight answer from you. Just let me know where you stand. You say I shouldn't read into it that you are against registration, but seem to refer to it as a police state. I still don't even understand your rural situation, but let's leave that to the side.

Are you for gun registration or is that a police state (aka fascist)?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #219)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:20 AM

220. You REALLY need to read all of my replies.

Then I think you'll understand.

I work fucking all day long with people who don't read my emails and missives.

I'll be damned if I'll keep reiterating what I've already made clear to some perfect stranger who wants to pick a fight with me.

So, read up, it's all out there partner.

peace out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #220)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:25 AM

221. Partner, I read them all. Sport, you dodge my question.

Stranger, you have a hard time making sense. It seems you are staunchly against registration, yet took offense when I suggested such. When asked directly, you get defensive and lament on your rural situation.

Are you against registration of firearms?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #221)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:29 AM

222. I think all new sales should be recorded, I support wait periods and background checks.

what exactly are you trying to get at and why are you hounding me?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #222)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:32 AM

224. I was just looking for an answer. YOu still haven't given it.

Do you support mandatory gun registration? Or is it too much like a police state?

I understand if your line of work makes these issues tough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #224)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:34 AM

226. no. not for all guns, just new purchase. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #221)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:31 AM

223. And no, existing ownership of weapons will NOT be registered.

Fuck that fucking fascist authoritarian shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #223)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:33 AM

225. Ah, thank you for finally saying what you think.

An extremist position, I understand your reluctance to give it on a Democratic board.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #225)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:36 AM

228. No reluctance, very few call for registration of all arms.It's fascist to want to register all arms.

All arms, old and new?

That is an extremist point of view, very few want that.

It's a nutty idea.

Where do you get these ideas?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #228)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:40 AM

229. It's a great idea.

Then, adding criminal liability for those who don't keep the weapons secure if they are later used to kill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #229)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:48 AM

230. You do realize it's an impossiblilty to ever require registering all existing arms.

Or ever actually getting it done.

But I give you credit, some people want to require outright confiscation of all arms.

Thank you for not calling me an NRA shill or spouting RW talking points.

Peace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #230)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 08:40 AM

236. ummm...

 

I figure that you COULD use some big data techniques to figure out who's got the guns...

use chemical "sniffers" and metal detectors in unison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #236)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 09:42 AM

239. And drones! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #239)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:31 AM

242. well...

 

It WOULD be safer for our LEOs...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:13 PM

168. I want liability insurance

require that and "let the free market take care of it."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MurrayDelph (Reply #168)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:15 PM

170. Liability insurance excludes criminal acts.

You know how much such insurance costs? The NRA sells it- $28 per year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:29 PM

187. Me too, JanMichael. Me too.

I KNOW the 2nd Amendment does not grant the right of private gun ownership. That said, if there are confused, for lack of a better term, individuals who insist on guns as a Constitutional 'right,' then by all means we need to do exactly what you said. That and make bullets cost $10,000 each.

With you all the way!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue (Reply #187)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:57 PM

209. So You are the Person God

 

left in charge after he died. Will you humbly please let us practice some of the other Amendments to the Constitution.
I did not see the word abortion spelled out in the Constitution. Come to think of it, I bet there are a lot of things not in the Constitution and in the Constitution that you really like and others do not. I am pretty sure also that you do not like it at all when they try to define your ideas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:26 AM

231. a bit overboard

no one's .22 is going to be used in a mass shooting or even a one off shooting. same with ancient firearms. there is no reason to punish a large segment of the voting public that has not done anything wrong.

houses are real estate. no one actually owns real estate, we only possess it. you pay taxes for the right to possess it. if i am paying punitive taxes on guns I owned before new regulations, then I want that money to be used to maintain public shooting ranges, the same way auto excise taxes pay to keep the roads paved. the dog licenses, well, that's just a way for the town to gouge you.

Here's an alternative proposal. SBRs, short-barrel rifles, are shoulder-mounted guns with barrels less than 16" long. They are technically legal, but only after a federal fee and special permit. You need that stuff before you can take possession. No ordinary gun shops sell SBRs because they are a bureaucratic pain in the ass. I have never heard of a gun crime being committed with a legally registered (as opposed to a hack-sawed improvised) SBR despite the fact that they are actually ideal for many crimes including mass shootings. Silencers are the same way. The states that allow them only allow them after a significant registration procedure. Lawful silencers are never used in crimes (again, not including things like shooting through a pillow).

So, treat any "assault weapon," however we end up defining that, as an SBR. Only serious gun enthusiasts will bother with the red tape and they will never transfer them to a third person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:14 AM

234. Just curious if you believe ANY of this would have preventing the tragedy at Sandy Hook?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kennah (Reply #234)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:32 PM

258. Yes, I think strict regulations might have stopped the past several

cold. I didn't go any further into my ideas because this thread has become unweildy, and I am having trouble keeping up...

But, take it further....limited and regulated amount of ammo...would have sent a clear warning signal to the government about the Aurora, CO shooter, and the VA Tech guy. A realistic background check on Mrs. Lanza might have forced her to store her weapons at a repository instead of keeping them at home. Yes, there are numerous safeguards that could have been enforced to stop this before it happened.

The shooter in the mall in Oregon, I am not sure about. I didn't pay that much attention to him because of the immediate news of CT. Perhaps? I do not know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Reply #258)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:44 AM

262. Unless someone counts the rounds one buys and fires at the range, it's easy enough to stock up.

"Bought 100, fired 100" really only fired 50

Focus on Sandy Hook, since that was my question, and tell me what measures would have prevented it. You don't have to list numerous ones. Just three to start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kennah (Reply #262)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:14 AM

263. OK-

1. background checks of every member of a household that owns and keeps guns; if someone in the household has issues that could prevent them from making decent decisions to have a gun in the home, then the guns AND ammo are stored in an accessible repository either maintained privately, or with the state. This would be a massive inconvenience for some sportsman, I know.

2. Only a few rounds permitted in the household: not dependent on the number of guns. Say, 5-10. The rest of the ammo would need to be stored in facilities at the gun range, or again, state facility. I have never known a hunter to need more than that--- or home protection.

3 HUGE monetary fines for gun owners whose guns are used in a crime...if the guns are stolen, that's tough luck, frankly. IF the owner is killed in the crime, then their estate is liable.

and one more:

Trigger locks on every weapon in the household except the ones used for "home protection," which would be allowed to have either one full round chambered, or in the case of shotguns (such as a double barrel, etc) 5 or so rounds.

This is actually not that difficult; I am sorry the gun owners are so upset that they might have to follow laws that allow them to keep and enjoy their weapons, but allow the rest of us to feel safer.

We own three guns....IF number three were put in place, we would probably ditch the handgun...so yes, this would affect us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Reply #263)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:53 PM

264. A few thoughts

#1 - Seems very unclear and vague, and I suspect if passed it would be struck down as unconstitutionally vague. Seems we would first have to address the matter of a "person with issues" and what exactly that meant. Assuming we get by that, we do have a constitutional ban on bills of attainder.

#2 - Getting a magazine ban passed would be a serious uphill battle. Limiting the number of rounds one could keep at home seems rather pointless and given to contribute significantly to a widespread black market in ammo sales.

#3 - So a person's gun is stolen, they report it, and they remain responsible for it's use after it is stolen? I seriously doubt one could make that stick constitutionally.

It's not really an issue of difficult so much as it's an issue of what can practically be done and what will have a beneficial effect.

I see there are two paths we can go down that would have any serious effect.

A - Real bans on real things with confiscations/turn-ins. The assault weapon ban is not a real ban, since the item in question can still be owned, sold, and possessed. It is a declaration to manufacturers that they cease producing the item and selling it to the public after a certain date. Same with the high capacity magazine ban. As I recall from the 1994 assault weapon ban, replacements from the manufacturer could be obtained if the original became damaged or destroyed, and this applied to both the guns and the magazines. Estimates say there are 10s of millions of high capacity magazines and millions of "assault weapons" in private hands. Under the 1994 law, "assault weapons" are nothing more than semiautomatic firearms with extra bits of metal on them, like bayonet lugs. If one were going to do something real, then one would propose a real ban on real things, like semiautomatic firearms.

B - A seems like an absolutely impossible path, so I would not bother trying. B is that we pursue the Israeli model and start introducing restrictive licensing for owning handguns, owning semiautomatics, concealed carry, etc. These much more likely to garner support and is more likely to prove effective. We will also have to catch up with Israel on the issue of universal healthcare so that mental healthcare is available.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:09 AM

241. Im a gun owner, but i support the ban on the assault weapons.

IMHO one doesnt need them to defend oneself. Get rid of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:46 AM

252. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:54 AM

256. Better yet, conscript all Gun Owners into the Military and send them to Afghanistan.

This is more in line with the 2nd amendment, "militia being necessary for the security of a free state" and all.
We have a militia. If you have a gun you are de facto expressing your membership of that militia, Per the 2nd Amendment.
So let's just formalize it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread