HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » if those three intellectu...

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:40 AM

if those three intellectual fartbombs are the gun lobby's best defenders of the 2nd amendment,

you 'democratic gun lover' types are in SERIOUS TROUBLE!!!

whiney wayney being "creepy" is now OFFICIAL!

that 'lady' doesn't even deserve comment.

i, a farmer, know more about the 2nd amendment than that 'lawyer'. he said 100 round drums were a 'novelty'!

guess what, so are AR-15s and any mag over 10 rounds!

AND he just made up his own version of the 2nd. who's paying that moron?

Monsieurs Kelly and Johnson looked like responsible, sensible human beings who knew what they were saying, aside from being somewhat STUNNED at times by the ginormous steaming pile or crap being spewed by the other side.

wayne looked like a turd in an expensive suit, and we all know you can't polish a turd.

cruz's 'pie chart' was a pie made of shit. actually, its the GREEN part AND the 40+% PURPLE PART being bought at gun shows.
so shut up you frigging holier-than-thou freak.

did he ACTUALLY tell Kelly that it was 'our prayers that lifted your wife'?????

the ONLY reasonable conservative was (ironically) FLAKE from ARIZONA!!! (how odd!)

the Repukes were SO transparently lobbing puffball ??s to their 'spokesidiots', and it looked AWFUL.

NINE police orgs. are PRO new AWB.

LaPukeface ACTUALLY SAID 'we want to build more jails'. really?!?! who's 'we'?
did he just admit the nra is promoting a gun free for all, to keep crime numbers UP, so the prison-industrial complex can fill beds with people they are prejudiced against?

TO THE FUCKING SENATE?!?!?!?

can't one or more of those assholes get busted for perjury? like cruz?

THE ONLY THING THAT STOPS A BAD GUY FROM GETTING A GUN IN THE FIRST PLACE IS A GOOD BACKGROUND CHECK!!!!



30 replies, 1902 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 30 replies Author Time Post
Reply if those three intellectual fartbombs are the gun lobby's best defenders of the 2nd amendment, (Original post)
farminator3000 Jan 2013 OP
geckosfeet Jan 2013 #1
jberryhill Jan 2013 #2
geckosfeet Jan 2013 #3
jberryhill Jan 2013 #7
geckosfeet Jan 2013 #13
jberryhill Jan 2013 #16
Recursion Jan 2013 #21
Recursion Jan 2013 #20
jberryhill Jan 2013 #23
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #4
Robb Jan 2013 #6
jberryhill Jan 2013 #8
Robb Jan 2013 #10
geckosfeet Jan 2013 #14
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #15
jberryhill Jan 2013 #17
jmg257 Jan 2013 #11
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #5
jberryhill Jan 2013 #9
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #12
Recursion Feb 2013 #26
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #28
Recursion Feb 2013 #29
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #30
Recursion Jan 2013 #18
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #22
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #24
Recursion Feb 2013 #25
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #27
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #19

Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:45 AM

1. Bad guys don't submit to background checks.

They buy on the black market. Or steal.

Background checks should be mandatory for everyone else though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geckosfeet (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:50 AM

2. They get those guns from somewhere, though


Here's the deal. You buy a gun, you get a background check. If your gun is lost or stolen, you report it. If your gun is not lost or stolen, and turns up in the hands of someone who is ineligible to buy one, then the simple question is, how did he get it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 11:31 AM

3. As I said - black market or theft

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geckosfeet (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 12:02 PM

7. The entry point to the black market is the last legal purchase


...and that is where the inquiry starts.

I have no doubt there are people who legally purchase guns and sell them at a markup to persons who cannot legally purchase guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 12:42 PM

13. Theft as well

I do vehemently agree - the straw purchaser process and the dealers who enable it need to be taken to task.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geckosfeet (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 01:19 PM

16. Which is why...

...thefts and loss should be required to be reported.

And a guy who has X guns "stolen" from him every other month... umm... he might need a closer look.

I've seen objections to this along the lines of "what if you don't know your gun was lost or stolen?" On that question, I have to go back to this model "responsible gun owner" and why he doesn't seem to know where his guns are. I'm no expert, but I would assume that a responsible gun owner knows where his guns are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 02:19 PM

21. And there should be a difference between...

...somebody breaking into his house and stealing the gun from a safe, and breaking into his car and stealing it from his passenger seat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 02:14 PM

20. Not always -- lots of guns are stolen from LEOs and wholesalers

But, yes, in general I think there should be some civil or criminal liability for people who make their personal guns easy to steal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #20)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 02:29 PM

23. Hello, hello? Is this thing on?

I addressed thefts already. Hence, aside from thefts - which are generally not considered a "market" function - the entry point into the market is the last legal sale.

It's called a "thread"... one starts at the beginning of it...

Here's the deal. You buy a gun, you get a background check. If your gun is lost or stolen, you report it. If your gun is not lost or stolen, and turns up in the hands of someone who is ineligible to buy one, then the simple question is, how did he get it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geckosfeet (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 11:50 AM

4. why would they go INTO a gun show when they can avoid a background check in parking lot?

so, if you are the expert, where do these 'black market' guns all come from?

there are 500,000 or so stolen every year- nowhere NEAR the amount of those sold with no BG check (2-3 million?)

that means there are shady dealers and immoral 'private sellers' selling 1.5-2.5 MILLION guns a year.

so banning 'illegal sales' will remove 1-2 million guns from circulation (leaving the stolen ones)

is that a bad idea?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geckosfeet (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 11:59 AM

6. Except what you say isn't true.

"Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html


"At the time when they committed the gun crime leading to their incarceration, only 27 percent of these gun offenders were prohibited from possessing firearms."

http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/publications/WhitePaper102512_CGPR.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 12:05 PM

8. So let's not throttle down that 27%?


Is that the point?

Nothing is 100% effective. The objective is to make it more difficult for persons not qualified to purchase a gun to do so.

But if you can knock a couple of percent off of that 27%, that is what is called progress in any other context of endeavor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 12:10 PM

10. My point was merely that "geckosfeet" was misrepresenting the facts on stolen firearms.

Most criminals do not steal a gun to commit a crime.

I am personally in favor of nearly every restriction on firearms sales you could dream up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 12:47 PM

14. Yeah. That is not insignificant.

So background checks should be required on all purchases. I think I mentioned that.

Which leads one to ask, If someone wants to commit a crime with a legally purchased and owned firearm, how does a background check prevent it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geckosfeet (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 01:19 PM

15. a BG check doesn't do much good if its destroyed after 24 hours

if the nra would simply shut their fat greedy faces and let BGs stay in the system, the info could be used by cops.

if the nra would allow a law that had the gun's serial number on the BG check, i would suppose they could analyze a bullet that had shot someone and figure out the model, and look for the shooter that way.

if people knew the cops had the serial number of their gun, they'd probably not shoot so many people.

really!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geckosfeet (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 01:24 PM

17. It doesn't


But that's not even the point.

The point is to make the restrictions which have been in place since 1968 effective in a practical sense.

It will not prevent people from lawfully buying guns, nor will it take guns away from anyone. But it will make it a notch more difficult for criminals to purchase guns.

It will cut down on straw purchases. Right now, a legal purchaser can sell privately to anyone he wants, and be willfully ignorant that his buyer is not a qualified purchaser. That legal purchaser can make a pretty penny by being willfully ignorant.

However, if a legal purchaser is required to have a check done on a private sale, then how many of the current people in that lucrative hobby of capitalizing on their lack of a criminal record going to keep on doing it?

If that shaves a few percentage points off of gun violence, that is progress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geckosfeet (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 12:14 PM

11. You are right - we need mandatory background checks AND registration. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 11:54 AM

5. that sorry excuse for a lawyer actually gave me a good idea!

we should call them 'NOVELTY WEAPONS' instead of assault.

like something a clown would use...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 12:05 PM

9. Novelty weapons?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 12:24 PM

12. a gadget; dingus; thingumbob.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #5)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 10:23 AM

26. The idea behind "novelty" is that if you brought a 100-round drum to a range, people would laugh

They're stupid. They don't work (the guy in Aurora had one and it jammed after like 15 shots) and people don't use them. They're crappy, defective products that should be banned on consumer protection grounds alone. For that matter, I say ban magazines over 10 rounds in capacity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #26)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 11:32 AM

28. do people laugh in ACTUAL REALITY when the ARMY USES THEM???

Beta C-Mag - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_C-Mag
The Beta C-Mag is a 100-round capacity magazine manufactured by the ... One such magazine has been designed for the M16 rifle, in use by the US Military.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #28)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 11:34 AM

29. 7 years in the Marines I never once saw one

And, in fact, I probably would have laughed if I had.

There's a (50-round) drum for the SAW, and one for the M240G. Putting a drum on a carbine kind of defeats the whole purpose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #29)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:06 PM

30. you probably wouldn't have been laughing too much in, say, WORLD WAR 2, perhaps

Over 1.5 million military Thompson submachine guns were produced during World War II.
(remember i can look up stuff about guns that i don't already know in about 60 seconds)

all ^^ vv wiki

The most famous examples of firearms using a drum magazine are the iconic 1930s-era Thompson submachine gun and the presently sold semi-automatic copy which had and have both 50 and 100 round drum magazines available for it. The Thompson also has 20 and 30 round box magazines available, demonstrating the difference in carrying capacity between a box and a drum.

Although the drum magazine provided significant firepower, in military service it was found to be overly heavy and bulky, especially when slung on patrol or on the march. It was also rather fragile, and cartridges tended to rattle inside it, producing unwanted noise. For these reasons, the 20-round and later 30-round box magazines soon proved most popular with military users of the M1928A1, and drum compatibility was not included in the design of the wartime M1 and M1A1 models. The Thompson was one of the earliest submachine guns to incorporate a double-column, double-feed box magazine design, which undoubtedly contributed to the gun's reputation for reliability. In addition, the gun performed better than most after exposure to rain, dirt, and mud.

MY POINT- you are correct, the military thinks they're silly.
they also decided that 30 rounders are the perfect size for killing the most people as fast as possible without jams or other 'inconvenience'
therefore, obviously civilian criminals shouldn't have that advantage over cops. and you don't need them for sport, either.

YET THEY ARE AVAILABLE TODAY.

now, why you are talking about tank guns and machine guns, i have no idea. (more wiki)

The M249 light machine gun (LMG), previously designated the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW), and formally written as Light Machine Gun, 5.56 mm, M249, is an American version of the Belgian FN Minimi, a light machine gun manufactured by the Belgian company FN Herstal (FN). The M249 is manufactured in the United States and is widely used by the U.S. Armed Forces. The weapon was introduced in 1984

***

Manufactured by Fabrique Nationale, the FN MAG was chosen by the U.S. military for different roles after large world-wide searches and competitions. .......

It was first adopted by the U.S. Army in 1977, as a coaxial tank gun, and slowly adopted for more applications in the 1980s and 1990s. The M240 and M240E1 were adopted for use on vehicles. This led to further adoption in more uses, especially for the Army and Marine infantry. While possessing many of the same basic characteristics as its predecessor, the durability of the MAG system results in superior reliability when compared to the M60. The MAG actually has a more complex gas system than the M60, but gives better reliability combined with lower maintenance requirements, though this comes at greater manufacturing cost and weight.

Compared to other machine guns, its rating of 26,000 Mean Rounds Between Failure (MRBF) is quite high for its weight—in the 1970s when it was first adopted it achieved about 7,000 MRBF. It is not as reliable as some very heavy older designs, but it is quite reliable for its mass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 01:26 PM

18. What did you think about Prof. Koppel?

Or was that the lawyer you're talking about?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022288552

I thought he and Mark Kelly were the most sensible speakers I've heard on gun control in a long, long time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #18)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 02:20 PM

22. didn't really dig him so much.

Last edited Fri Feb 1, 2013, 10:05 AM - Edit history (1)

yes, that's the guy i mean.

i was hoping Kelly would barf in the guy's lap ala GW.

“Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” In other words, the amendment is really about protecting militias, notwithstanding the originalist arguments to the contrary.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/opinion/16freedman.html

all about the commas ^^^

koppel was all "i am a lawyer so my claptrap means more than the supreme court's words. let me give you my version of the 2nd."

he was saying stuff that hasn't been decided yet as if it was the truth.

i think his argument that ARs and crap are 'in common use' amounts to-
"see, everybody bought them so the 2nd amendment allows it".

i also don't like-
I warned during that testimony then that it was based, not on the function of guns, or how fast they fired, or how powerful they were, but on superficial, cosmetic characteristics and accessories.

like Kelly said, he and the cop were prob. the only 2 people who'd actually been shot at, so...

i'm going with Johnson (i was hoping you were watching that part?)

OF COURSE pistol grips (SPRAY FIRING EASIER LIKE I SAID BEFORE) and heat guards and big mags and all the other crap (maybe a couple are cosmetic. why would someone PUT a 'cosmetic' feature on a gun??) are MORE DANGEROUS. ruggedized, he said. for ATTACKING PEOPLE he said.

NOT 'a 19 round pistol is perfectly normal. why? because gun makers make them.' like your buddy.

my version of common use is- the military has one level of weapons, cops less, civilians NO WAY more than cops. maybe the same, but that is really up to the cops to decide, then.

Kelly was GREAT, Chief Johnson was the MVP i'd say. i'm gonna send him a thank you email, actually.

the Chief and wanky wayne didn't shake hands!

i'm kinda busy, but i'll take a closer look @ your thread later...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #18)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 10:05 AM

24. i don't think Clarence Darrow could help the NRA at this point

It certainly has an absolute core that can't be violated under any circumstances, but that doesn't prohibit all firearms controls.

true.

And, likewise, gun controls don't violate the Second Amendment if they are constructed so they don't violate the rights of law-abiding citizens, and they actually do something constructive, significant, and effective to protect law-abiding citizens


this is where my problem starts- the part in bold IS AN OPINION OF HIS. all he's doing there is setting up his later BS about 'boo hoo, the previous AWB was a failure, and NOT mentioning that it failed BECAUSE of the NRA and their lawyers, of whom he is the leader...

I warned during that testimony then that it was based, not on the function of guns, or how fast they fired, or how powerful they were, but on superficial, cosmetic characteristics and accessories.


stock NRA bullshit, refuted by the cop who ACTUALLY GETS SHOT AT.

And they concluded that the law had done nothing. It had not save lives. It had did not reduced the number of bullets that were fired in crimes.
And indeed, it was a dangerous bill in the sense that so much political attention was distracted -


1st sentence- total BS, how about a statictic or fact to back up such a broad statement.
2nd sentence- and again, fault of NRA+lawyers

to me, this is hypocrisy.

The definitions do not ban guns based on how fast they fire, or how powerful they are.

the whole 2nd section is more nra BS- 'AWB is bad bad bad blah blah"

if they are so upset about feinstein picking guns out of a catalog (how the fuck else is she supposed to know what is being sold?)
WHY DON'T THEY MAKE A LAW THEY LIKE????
oh, right, they DON'T WANT ANY LAWS AT ALL BECAUSE SELL MOR GUNZ!!!

really.

various legislative attempts to define an “assault weapon” have taken two approaches: banning guns by name, and banning guns by whether they have certain superficial features.

that is PREPOSTEROUS. more of the 'we don't want any laws at all'
HOW THE HELL can you describe something if you can't use the name or the appearance?
the weight? tap it with a tuning fork?

really.

This in itself demonstrates that “assault weapons” prohibitions are not about guns which are actually more dangerous than other guns].

AGAIN, total BS. obviously, an AR is more dangerous than a bolt action .22

if a named gun really has physical characteristics which make it more dangerous than other guns, then legislators ought to be able to describe those characteristics, and ban guns (regardless of name) which have the supposedly dangerous characteristics.

total lawyer speak. did he not, @ paragraphs earlier, say the characteristics were a no go?
so legislators name the things, and his answer would be 'i stated earlier those do not count'
BS.
fuck that, pistol grips and detachable stocks aren't dangerous? why, then, does the ACTUAL expert, the cop, disagree?

Banning guns by name violates the Constitution’s prohibition on Bills of Attainder.

LAWYERSPEAK!!! had to look up attainder- he is just plain wrong there-

A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without privilege of a judicial trial.


no crime, no punishment, just a ban. the only punisnment is they make less $$$ off of murder.

follow his logic, and its a crime to not sell people RPGs. get it?

These features have nothing to do with a gun’s rate of fire, its ammunition capacity, or its firepower.

more BS lawyerpuke. see how he just sneaks in '30 round mags have nothing to do with ammo capacity'

please!

next section-
This ignores the holding of District of Columbia v. Heller that self-defense is the core of the Second Amendment.
HELLER WAS ABOUT HANDGUNS. SAID NOTHING OF ASSAULT WEAPONS> NOT APPLICABLE HERE.

and the part about one shotgun named 16 times- of course it is- are they supposed to just name one and let peeps buy the other 15?


But it would allow Bushmaster (or any other company) to manufacture other semi-automatic rifles, using a different name, which fire just as fast, and which fire equally powerful bullets.

BUT NO 30 ROUNDS MAGS. ONLY 10 ROUND MAGS, WHICH IS AN IMPROVEMENT.

the guy just ignores things that don't back up his BS.

doesn't the maker need a LICENSE from like, ATF i'd guess, to introduce new models?

i think someone would have the option to say 'that's the same gun you made before, that is banned, you can't sell that one either'

that would be sensible...

the Sandy Hook murderer’s rate of fire (150 shots in 20 minutes)

more cherry picking- actual rate of fire= 30 rounds in 5 seconds or so. 150 could be fired in 25 SECONDS, in reality.

then he moves back to the name thing- more smoke and mirrors- the real issue being 40-50% of guns traded on the open/black market. duh.

Universal gun registration is impossible in practice, and would lead to massive resistance.

MORE OF THE SAME CHERRY PICKING BS
how many millions of cars are registered? the above should read "the nra makes people paranoid about perfectly reasonable shit"

THEN he goes on with canada's gun laws not working. BUT THEY DO.

then he says "VOLUNTARY" checks. as if you can trust people with guns.

in conclusion- i almost feel sorry for the guy, having to defend the nra's indefensible crap...BUT

i'm sure he's being paid handsomely.

i wonder why, if he believes in that 'cause', he can't come up with better arguments- he doesn't seem dumb.

perhaps the arguments just AREN'T there, and the NRAs propanganda blast is designed to cover up that fact with smoke and mirrors.

or...OF COURSE IT IS!!!

i'd like to see him go mano-a-mano with biden or leahy in a debate.

he'd lose.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #24)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 10:12 AM

25. Some thoughts

that is PREPOSTEROUS. more of the 'we don't want any laws at all'
HOW THE HELL can you describe something if you can't use the name or the appearance?
the weight? tap it with a tuning fork?


Well, you could say "semi-automatics with detachable magazines", for instance. Or "handguns". Or "weapons of caliber greater than .45". Those are all definitions that are impossible to work around.

fuck that, pistol grips and detachable stocks aren't dangerous? why, then, does the ACTUAL expert, the cop, disagree?

Because he has an agenda. Pistol grips SIMPLY ARE NOT DANGEROUS, and that cop lost all credibility with me when he said that. The notion that it helps you "spray bullets" is just stupid: semi-automatics do not "spray". They are designed to enforce proper shooting postures and reduce drops. Period.

Detachable magazines are dangerous, particularly when they are large. It would be a good idea to limit their size. Koppel even says so later, though he also says it would be kind of pointless given how many of them are already out there.

BUT NO 30 ROUNDS MAGS. ONLY 10 ROUND MAGS, WHICH IS AN IMPROVEMENT.

It is. You seem to think magazine size has something to do with the weapon itself; I don't think you quite "get" how this works. You buy a rifle like a Bushmaster. It can accept detachable magazines. Separately, you buy magazines for it. We should set a legal limit on the size of those magazines (Koppel even says he has no problem with that). But that has nothing to do with the gun.

doesn't the maker need a LICENSE from like, ATF i'd guess, to introduce new models?

i think someone would have the option to say 'that's the same gun you made before, that is banned, you can't sell that one either'


People hoped so in '94. But the ATF is stuck by the fact that because the Bushmaster is not in any objective way more dangerous than any other semi-automatic, they couldn't ban a re-branded Bushmaster without banning every other semi-automatic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #25)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 11:29 AM

27. farmer vs. law dude = godzilla vs. smog monster

Well, you could say "semi-automatics with detachable magazines", for instance. Or "handguns". Or "weapons of caliber greater than .45". Those are all definitions that are impossible to work around.

that sounds oddly like a combo of the new AWB and the NFA:
Any firearm with a bore over 0.50 except for shotguns or shotgun shells which have been found to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes. (Many firearms with bores over 0.50", such as 12-gauge shotguns, are exempted from the law because they have been determined to have a "legitimate sporting use".)

who was involved with the NFA ~75 years ago- one hint- change the middle letter there!

Because he has an agenda. Pistol grips SIMPLY ARE NOT DANGEROUS, and that cop lost all credibility with me when he said that. The notion that it helps you "spray bullets" is just stupid: semi-automatics do not "spray". They are designed to enforce proper shooting postures and reduce drops. Period.

i'd like to see you discuss that with him in person! you DON"T have an agenda. that's a cop-out. everyone has one, like assholes and opinions, ya know?

i'm not going to bother with links- i think i already told you this, but it might have been aiko or that hackster:
google: 'ar-15 without stock'

click images for such a thing, and tell me how the 2nd and 13th one are less dangerous?

why should any yahoo be able to put an AR under their trenchcoat like a gangster?

argue with those PICTURES please.

Koppel even says so later, though he also says it would be kind of pointless given how many of them are already out there.


there you AGAIN with the BS- 'they are legal because we sold millions'

that doesn't work logically or legally- they PASSED THE NFA BECAUSE TOO MANY MACHINE GUNS.

Detachable magazines are dangerous, particularly when they are large. It would be a good idea to limit their size.

thank you , there's a simple definition.

if you want to frig around with gun minutiae (all this lawyerspeak is contagious) then consider forthwith as i declare:

pistols other than revolvers have detachable mags. why? to hold more rounds than 6 and reload faster. (for attacking people, of course, like the nasty cop said)

these 'perfectly normal' pistols that hold 19 rounds, going by google image, have mags that stick out.
so do the 10 round, 8 round even some of the 6 round. (semi-autos, i mean)

revolvers are usually 6 shot, i see 10 and 12 round revolvers, that's approaching silly, yes?

what that fuck is this, for instance? (not lawyerspeak now)
http://hellinahandbasket.net/?p=5849

SO MY POINT IS: 10 round limit (i'd prefer 8, myself) for rifles AND pistols. why should an inherently more dangerous rifle be allowed more rounds?

think of a cop, who shouldn't really have to carry a rifle on the beat, or be outgunned by a criminal.
think of the LA bank robbers in full body armor that held off the LA police for hours...(AKs or ARs? i forget)

as far as the amount out there, the gov buys back all mags over 10 rounds, and gives them to the army (where they belong)

you get 3 shiny new 10 rounders for each 30. for free. sounds fair to me, australia bought back 600,000 actual GUNS, no prob.

It is. You seem to think magazine size has something to do with the weapon itself; I don't think you quite "get" how this works. You buy a rifle like a Bushmaster. It can accept detachable magazines. Separately, you buy magazines for it. We should set a legal limit on the size of those magazines (Koppel even says he has no problem with that). But that has nothing to do with the gun.


i'd cuss less if you'd realize that that sounds condescending.

OF COURSE I KNOW HOW GUNS WORK WHY THE FUCK ELSE WOULD I KEEP EXPLAINING IT TO YOU!??!!?

you are being disingenuous by saying the rifle or pistol will hold 30 or 100 or 19, therefore there's our limit.

But the ATF is stuck by the fact


there you go making me cuss again:
the atf is FUCKED by the fact that the nra exists, not to put to fine a point on it.

i guess i understand why you have to wiggle around that or flip it backwards or whatever, the 800 lb gorilla effect, ya know?











Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 01:30 PM

19. "But in the wrong psyche, this sentiment can carry deadly consequences."

For example, the mother of the Pittsburgh man who shot and killed the police officers said her son had been stockpiling guns and ammunition "because he believed that as a result of the economic collapse, the police were no longer able to protect society."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1889886,00.html

fuck you very much, lapierre.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread