HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Tomorrow's New York Daily...

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 10:39 PM

Tomorrow's New York Daily News cover, posted without comment:



PB

407 replies, 27592 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 407 replies Author Time Post
Reply Tomorrow's New York Daily News cover, posted without comment: (Original post)
Poll_Blind Mar 2013 OP
Tx4obama Mar 2013 #1
krispos42 Mar 2013 #12
BainsBane Mar 2013 #49
bossy22 Mar 2013 #51
Fawke Em Mar 2013 #53
bossy22 Mar 2013 #59
JoeBlowToo Mar 2013 #154
Gidney N Cloyd Mar 2013 #178
GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 #200
Ikonoklast Mar 2013 #211
FSogol Mar 2013 #216
GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 #256
FSogol Mar 2013 #266
GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 #372
FSogol Mar 2013 #377
GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 #380
FSogol Mar 2013 #381
GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 #397
FSogol Mar 2013 #399
GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 #402
GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 #249
Ikonoklast Mar 2013 #267
GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 #373
AtheistCrusader Mar 2013 #311
RVN VET Mar 2013 #354
jeff47 Mar 2013 #260
hack89 Mar 2013 #269
jeff47 Mar 2013 #285
hack89 Mar 2013 #291
jeff47 Mar 2013 #292
AtheistCrusader Mar 2013 #314
EOTE Mar 2013 #286
hack89 Mar 2013 #287
EOTE Mar 2013 #288
GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 #374
demwing Mar 2013 #328
BainsBane Mar 2013 #57
bossy22 Mar 2013 #62
BainsBane Mar 2013 #69
bossy22 Mar 2013 #76
Walk away Mar 2013 #159
shenmue Mar 2013 #173
AtheistCrusader Mar 2013 #344
hack89 Mar 2013 #163
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #174
hack89 Mar 2013 #184
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #190
hack89 Mar 2013 #195
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #201
hack89 Mar 2013 #205
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #221
hack89 Mar 2013 #225
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #231
hack89 Mar 2013 #236
LanternWaste Mar 2013 #247
hack89 Mar 2013 #248
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #259
hack89 Mar 2013 #262
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #300
hack89 Mar 2013 #301
Ikonoklast Mar 2013 #227
hack89 Mar 2013 #234
Ikonoklast Mar 2013 #240
hack89 Mar 2013 #245
JohnnyBoots Mar 2013 #261
hack89 Mar 2013 #263
SunSeeker Mar 2013 #338
hack89 Mar 2013 #342
SunSeeker Mar 2013 #360
hack89 Mar 2013 #365
SunSeeker Mar 2013 #371
hack89 Mar 2013 #375
SunSeeker Mar 2013 #339
Jenoch Mar 2013 #329
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #330
GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 #206
tblue Mar 2013 #239
BainsBane Mar 2013 #275
Jenoch Mar 2013 #312
ThoughtCriminal Mar 2013 #356
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2013 #99
bossy22 Mar 2013 #106
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2013 #124
GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 #218
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2013 #392
Warren DeMontague Mar 2013 #139
GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 #398
Warren DeMontague Mar 2013 #400
krispos42 Mar 2013 #70
BainsBane Mar 2013 #75
bossy22 Mar 2013 #78
krispos42 Mar 2013 #107
jmowreader Mar 2013 #141
BainsBane Mar 2013 #280
jmowreader Mar 2013 #355
DallasNE Mar 2013 #384
Demo_Chris Mar 2013 #64
bossy22 Mar 2013 #67
Demo_Chris Mar 2013 #73
DallasNE Mar 2013 #385
Demo_Chris Mar 2013 #390
DallasNE Mar 2013 #395
Demo_Chris Mar 2013 #396
DallasNE Mar 2013 #91
bossy22 Mar 2013 #97
krispos42 Mar 2013 #117
DallasNE Mar 2013 #140
hack89 Mar 2013 #169
hack89 Mar 2013 #165
DallasNE Mar 2013 #252
hack89 Mar 2013 #258
DallasNE Mar 2013 #343
hack89 Mar 2013 #345
DallasNE Mar 2013 #357
hack89 Mar 2013 #364
GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 #376
Progressive dog Mar 2013 #162
Peter cotton Mar 2013 #167
Progressive dog Mar 2013 #176
Peter cotton Mar 2013 #189
sir pball Mar 2013 #191
Progressive dog Mar 2013 #194
sir pball Mar 2013 #199
Progressive dog Mar 2013 #203
sir pball Mar 2013 #207
Progressive dog Mar 2013 #209
sir pball Mar 2013 #210
Progressive dog Mar 2013 #226
sir pball Mar 2013 #232
Progressive dog Mar 2013 #271
sir pball Mar 2013 #282
Progressive dog Mar 2013 #289
sir pball Mar 2013 #406
krispos42 Mar 2013 #237
Progressive dog Mar 2013 #253
krispos42 Mar 2013 #264
Progressive dog Mar 2013 #276
krispos42 Mar 2013 #361
Progressive dog Mar 2013 #362
krispos42 Mar 2013 #391
Progressive dog Mar 2013 #401
krispos42 Mar 2013 #403
Progressive dog Mar 2013 #405
krispos42 Mar 2013 #407
RC Mar 2013 #168
Peter cotton Mar 2013 #170
RC Mar 2013 #177
Peter cotton Mar 2013 #187
nikto Mar 2013 #367
RC Mar 2013 #368
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #181
Peter cotton Mar 2013 #183
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #198
Peter cotton Mar 2013 #208
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #215
Peter cotton Mar 2013 #224
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #228
Peter cotton Mar 2013 #244
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #255
Peter cotton Mar 2013 #273
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #274
Peter cotton Mar 2013 #283
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #284
Peter cotton Mar 2013 #294
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #305
Peter cotton Mar 2013 #309
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #315
AtheistCrusader Mar 2013 #318
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #324
AtheistCrusader Mar 2013 #325
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #327
Peter cotton Mar 2013 #331
Progressive dog Mar 2013 #297
Peter cotton Mar 2013 #298
Progressive dog Mar 2013 #304
Peter cotton Mar 2013 #307
Progressive dog Mar 2013 #317
Peter cotton Mar 2013 #333
Progressive dog Mar 2013 #335
hack89 Mar 2013 #186
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #212
hack89 Mar 2013 #214
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #219
hack89 Mar 2013 #222
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #223
hack89 Mar 2013 #229
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #235
hack89 Mar 2013 #241
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #246
hack89 Mar 2013 #251
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #257
SunSeeker Mar 2013 #299
SpartanDem Mar 2013 #265
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #268
GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 #378
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #379
baldguy Mar 2013 #213
hack89 Mar 2013 #217
baldguy Mar 2013 #230
SunSeeker Mar 2013 #197
Peter cotton Mar 2013 #220
SunSeeker Mar 2013 #254
Peter cotton Mar 2013 #270
SunSeeker Mar 2013 #272
mwrguy Mar 2013 #319
krispos42 Mar 2013 #243
delrem Mar 2013 #295
louis c Mar 2013 #341
SoCalMusicLover Mar 2013 #386
freshwest Mar 2013 #2
Warren DeMontague Mar 2013 #135
tblue Mar 2013 #242
JoeBlowToo Mar 2013 #155
mindwalker_i Mar 2013 #3
Skittles Mar 2013 #4
Arugula Latte Mar 2013 #5
KT2000 Mar 2013 #63
forestpath Mar 2013 #120
Brainstormy Mar 2013 #192
ellie Mar 2013 #233
valerief Mar 2013 #279
marions ghost Mar 2013 #6
sheshe2 Mar 2013 #7
TDale313 Mar 2013 #29
defacto7 Mar 2013 #54
valerief Mar 2013 #281
spanone Mar 2013 #8
jerseyjack Mar 2013 #10
defacto7 Mar 2013 #61
spanone Mar 2013 #160
spin Mar 2013 #55
HangOnKids Mar 2013 #74
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2013 #103
spin Mar 2013 #179
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2013 #393
spin Mar 2013 #394
HockeyMom Mar 2013 #250
spin Mar 2013 #332
HockeyMom Mar 2013 #340
spin Mar 2013 #349
HockeyMom Mar 2013 #350
spin Mar 2013 #358
HockeyMom Mar 2013 #388
spin Mar 2013 #389
BeyondGeography Mar 2013 #9
lunasun Mar 2013 #11
NightWatcher Mar 2013 #13
tiny elvis Mar 2013 #84
blkmusclmachine Mar 2013 #14
Skip Intro Mar 2013 #15
aquart Mar 2013 #17
Skip Intro Mar 2013 #20
aquart Mar 2013 #22
Skip Intro Mar 2013 #25
bossy22 Mar 2013 #31
HangOnKids Mar 2013 #77
bossy22 Mar 2013 #80
HangOnKids Mar 2013 #82
bossy22 Mar 2013 #83
HangOnKids Mar 2013 #86
bossy22 Mar 2013 #88
HangOnKids Mar 2013 #89
bossy22 Mar 2013 #95
IndyPragmatist123 Mar 2013 #144
aquart Mar 2013 #121
WillyT Mar 2013 #46
apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #85
bossy22 Mar 2013 #87
apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #94
bossy22 Mar 2013 #96
apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #100
SunSeeker Mar 2013 #296
Thor_MN Mar 2013 #150
baldguy Mar 2013 #18
mimi85 Mar 2013 #21
Skip Intro Mar 2013 #24
baldguy Mar 2013 #44
La Lioness Priyanka Mar 2013 #39
La Lioness Priyanka Mar 2013 #30
LAGC Mar 2013 #34
La Lioness Priyanka Mar 2013 #37
LAGC Mar 2013 #79
La Lioness Priyanka Mar 2013 #101
LAGC Mar 2013 #104
La Lioness Priyanka Mar 2013 #105
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2013 #110
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2013 #109
LAGC Mar 2013 #111
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2013 #114
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2013 #115
LAGC Mar 2013 #351
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2013 #359
Le Taz Hot Mar 2013 #132
morningfog Mar 2013 #147
Ganja Ninja Mar 2013 #152
WillyT Mar 2013 #16
ReRe Mar 2013 #19
bossy22 Mar 2013 #27
ReRe Mar 2013 #35
bossy22 Mar 2013 #38
ReRe Mar 2013 #42
bossy22 Mar 2013 #47
ReRe Mar 2013 #48
bossy22 Mar 2013 #50
tiny elvis Mar 2013 #93
bossy22 Mar 2013 #102
tiny elvis Mar 2013 #118
Warren DeMontague Mar 2013 #137
Warren DeMontague Mar 2013 #136
apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #65
ReRe Mar 2013 #90
apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #98
spin Mar 2013 #387
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2013 #112
baldguy Mar 2013 #92
Le Taz Hot Mar 2013 #133
Warren Stupidity Mar 2013 #146
SunSeeker Mar 2013 #306
RC Mar 2013 #175
Ganja Ninja Mar 2013 #158
sir pball Mar 2013 #193
bossy22 Mar 2013 #23
ReRe Mar 2013 #40
bossy22 Mar 2013 #45
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2013 #113
tiny elvis Mar 2013 #119
Hoyt Mar 2013 #122
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #26
hack89 Mar 2013 #166
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #171
hack89 Mar 2013 #180
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #182
hack89 Mar 2013 #185
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #238
Milliesmom Mar 2013 #28
awoke_in_2003 Mar 2013 #32
LittleBlue Mar 2013 #33
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2013 #116
BainsBane Mar 2013 #36
bossy22 Mar 2013 #41
laundry_queen Mar 2013 #56
BainsBane Mar 2013 #58
laundry_queen Mar 2013 #66
BainsBane Mar 2013 #71
laundry_queen Mar 2013 #81
BainsBane Mar 2013 #127
JBK Mar 2013 #123
BainsBane Mar 2013 #126
lpbk2713 Mar 2013 #43
apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #52
Milliesmom Mar 2013 #60
dsc Mar 2013 #68
reformist2 Mar 2013 #72
Yukari Yakumo Mar 2013 #353
BlancheSplanchnik Mar 2013 #108
Euphoria Mar 2013 #142
BlancheSplanchnik Mar 2013 #204
The Straight Story Mar 2013 #125
Scootaloo Mar 2013 #128
still_one Mar 2013 #129
DonCoquixote Mar 2013 #130
Warren DeMontague Mar 2013 #138
Le Taz Hot Mar 2013 #131
morningfog Mar 2013 #148
AtheistCrusader Mar 2013 #278
Le Taz Hot Mar 2013 #302
AtheistCrusader Mar 2013 #310
Le Taz Hot Mar 2013 #313
AtheistCrusader Mar 2013 #316
Le Taz Hot Mar 2013 #320
AtheistCrusader Mar 2013 #321
Le Taz Hot Mar 2013 #322
AtheistCrusader Mar 2013 #323
Le Taz Hot Mar 2013 #326
AtheistCrusader Mar 2013 #336
graham4anything Mar 2013 #134
riverbendviewgal Mar 2013 #143
RiffRandell Mar 2013 #145
CincyDem Mar 2013 #149
valerief Mar 2013 #151
demmiblue Mar 2013 #153
malaise Mar 2013 #156
Evergreen Emerald Mar 2013 #157
sir pball Mar 2013 #196
Paladin Mar 2013 #161
libdude Mar 2013 #164
sir pball Mar 2013 #202
slackmaster Mar 2013 #348
sir pball Mar 2013 #352
shenmue Mar 2013 #172
Berlum Mar 2013 #188
MotherPetrie Mar 2013 #277
KamaAina Mar 2013 #290
Jefferson23 Mar 2013 #293
slackmaster Mar 2013 #303
gcomeau Mar 2013 #308
liberal N proud Mar 2013 #334
wvufan1988 Mar 2013 #337
Fire Walk With Me Mar 2013 #346
lexw Mar 2013 #347
nikto Mar 2013 #369
lexw Mar 2013 #382
SCVDem Mar 2013 #363
nikto Mar 2013 #366
nikto Mar 2013 #370
Laelth Mar 2013 #383
backscatter712 Mar 2013 #404

Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 10:45 PM

1. There'll most likely be a vote on the ban via an amendment to the bill, see article on link below



Feinstein on assault weapons ban: 'I’m not going to lay down and play dead'

(CNN) – Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Tuesday she’s not going to stop fighting to get a vote on her proposed ban on semi-automatic firearms modeled after military assault weapons, hours after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that the measure has no chance of passing the chamber.

“This is very important to me. And I’m not going to lay down and play dead,” Feinstein, D-California, said on CNN’s “The Situation Room.”

Reid, D-Nevada, told reporters he won't keep the proposed ban in gun legislation heading to the full Senate for consideration because including it would guarantee the measure would be blocked by a Republican filibuster. But he said he wants to ensure a vote on the ban will still take place.

The ban has been fiercely opposed by the National Rifle Association, Republicans and some Democrats would get fewer than 40 votes, Reid said, far below the threshold needed to defeat a filibuster or pass the Senate.

Instead, Feinstein could propose the ban as an amendment to the gun legislation on the Senate floor in order to get a vote on it, Reid said.

-snip-

Full article here: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/19/feinstein-on-assault-weapons-ban-im-not-going-to-lay-down-and-play-dead/



It ain't over yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #1)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 11:01 PM

12. "modeled after military assault weapons"

So it's okay to have semi-automatic firearms, just as long as it's not "modeled" (styled) after military hardware.

Her proposal is and continues to be a dumb idea. Her basic contention is that protruding pistol grips, telescoping or folding buttstocks, and heat shields so dramatically increase the lethality of a gun that they have to be banned.

So I can own a semi-automatic rifle that feeds from a detachable magazine, as long as it doesn't have a protruding pistol grip. And if I take off the pistol grip, my rifle goes from "assault weapon" to "sporting rifle".

And, of course, the weapon used in Newtown was 100% compliant with her previous legislation, which has been in effect in Connecticut continuously since 1994.


The number of DUers, and the general public, that either don't know this, or don't care as long as she's "taking on the gun lobby", is astonishing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #12)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:29 AM

49. How else should the ban be defined?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #49)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:36 AM

51. how about not even banning them?

how about focusing on things like universal background checks that would truly help gun violence in this country.

I don't see how putting a pistol grip on a rifle makes it more lethal. The VT shooter used a 9mm handgun and managed to gun down 32 people. Is the air different in Virginia than it is in CT? Is an "assault weapon" the only thing effective to gain a large body count in CT, but in Virginia it isn't? Or could there be more at play here......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #51)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:39 AM

53. How would that have stopped Adam Lanza?

His MOTHER bought the weapons, not him.

And, we don't know if he would or would not have passed a background check.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #53)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:43 AM

59. it wouldn't have

but it would stop many more murders than lanza committed. A large source of weapons used in crimes are from illegal straw purchases

The only thing that would have prevented Lanza would be a complete gun ban (all rifles, shotguns, pistols illegal). Even then there is no guarantee since there is evidence he was planning this for a long time. The truth is it is almost impossible to stop someone who goes to such great lengths in planning something like this from actually carrying it out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #59)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 08:31 AM

154. Magazine limitation would have saved a lot of children...

 

If he had to reload more would have escaped.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeBlowToo (Reply #154)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 11:05 AM

178. Yes!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeBlowToo (Reply #154)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 11:42 AM

200. How long do you think it takes to swap out a magazine?

Check out this video:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #200)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 11:56 AM

211. How many times did you think Lanza practiced doing that exact thing?

And how many hours of practice does it take to be as proficient at it as the demonstrator in that video?

Why do you think that it is so many mass murderers are taken down when their weapon jams on them after a magazine exchange, or they run out of rounds in one weapon and are changing over to another?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #211)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 11:59 AM

216. +1. Crickets

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Reply #216)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:37 PM

256. Crickets? See below, post #249.

You were rather fast on the draw with the crickets. I stepped into the kitchen to get some BBQ beef from the fridge and micro-wave it.

And now, having eaten, I have to go to work (afternoon/evening shift) so I won't be back until tomorrow.

Do try to be somewhat realistic in the time you give folks to respond.

BTW - Notice that I fully answered his question about how much practice it takes. I you want to see real speed in a magazine change that comes from extreme practice, there is this video:



Most of the runs of his changes are in video slow motion so you can follow it. That is what can be done if you want to spend lots of time practicing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #256)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:48 PM

266. Which of the last few massacre killers were professionally trained shooters?

Go ahead an finish your burrito.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Reply #266)

Thu Mar 21, 2013, 11:38 AM

372. Ten minutes training is all it takes for fast reloads.

You won't be as fast as the guy in the video, but you can turn in times under two seconds. Semi-autos are designed to be easy to reload.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #372)

Thu Mar 21, 2013, 12:25 PM

377. I call bullshit. Any skill takes time to learn. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Reply #377)

Thu Mar 21, 2013, 01:09 PM

380. It doesn't take any skill to reload.

The skill in using a gun is to be able to shoot it accurately. That can take a lot of practice, although modern technology is making that easier.

Over a century ago handguns began to be designed to be fast and easy to reload. That design is still being manufactured as one of the best handgun designs ever. I am speaking of the M1911 pistol.

Reloading it is easy. Push button, insert mag, depress lever. Very easy to learn. In ten minutes you can have it down to where you can do it in the dark.

The AR-15 is also easy to reload. Push button, insert mag, push button.

Obviously you know very little about how guns work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #380)

Thu Mar 21, 2013, 01:16 PM

381. Then you would wrong. I am very proficient with firearms.

Go argue your NRA talking points with someone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Reply #381)

Fri Mar 22, 2013, 08:47 AM

397. I doubt that you have any proficiency with guns.

If you did, you would know how easy it is to reload a semi-auto pistol of American design. Especially the M1911 design. It is only 102 years old.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #397)

Fri Mar 22, 2013, 09:24 AM

399. Since I don't define everything as guns or gun-love, let me give you a non-gun (gasp!) example

of what I am talking about.

A knot commonly used in ice climbing is a figure 8. It is very simple to tie. It is harder to tie when it is -20 deg F and the cord and your fingers are stiff. It is harder to tie with mittens or mountain gloves on. It is harder to tie in the dark. It is harder to tie in the rain and wind and sleet. It is really hard to tie when you are on a manky 60 foot ice column in terrible conditions. At the Ouray Ice Fest, they have some drinking games. One involves tying knots blindfolded while standing barefooted in a bucket of ice while the audience throws snowballs at you. In those conditions, top climbers, ie. experts in tying knots in terrible conditions, have trouble tying simple knots.

Now, imagine some dope like Lanza. Maybe he spent hours fondling and playing with his guns in front of his bedroom mirror like my old college roommate. Maybe he practiced loading and unloading which I doubt. In the real world conditions, with everything going on around him in the chaos he created (with the help of his guns!) it will be much more difficult to load even the simplest gun. If you get my point, great. If you don't understand this point, there really isn't anything further to discuss. Your NRA talking point world-view seems to be little more than masturbatory gun fantasies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Reply #399)

Fri Mar 22, 2013, 04:06 PM

402. That's why guns are designed to be easy to reload.

In the stress of combat the soldier, or cop, or homeowner, will be hampered by unneeded complexity. That's why semi-autos are designed to be ultra-simple. Push button, insert new mag. Easier than tying a knot.

In fact, all weapons are designed to be as simple as possible because they don't want a scared, rattled, soldier not being able to use the weapon.

I served in Vietnam. While the M-16 of that time had its problems, I don't remember anybody complaining about it being complex to reload.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #211)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:29 PM

249. About ten minutes of practice is all it takes.

Rifles with button release magazines are easy to quickly swap magazines with. All the guy in the video did was push a button and put the new mag in. Not complicated at all. The guns are designed to be fast and easy to change mags.

Even American designed semi-auto pistols have a button release under the thumb to allow for a quick release of the magazine. One hand holds the pistol and presses the button with the thumb while the other hand brings the new magazine up to the gun. Fast and easy mag change, designed in 1911. Many European designs require two hands to release the old magazine which does slow things down a bit.

Very few rampage killer have been taken down in the manner you describe. The Gifford's killer's gun jammed before the magazine was empty. It was a 33 round magazine and he fired 31 rounds. Large capacity magazines often tend to jam toward the end of the magazine. When I was in Vietnam we usually loaded our magazines with two rounds less than the rated capacity to avoid that type of jam. IOW, a 20 round mag was loaded with 18 rounds.

A jam is really bad news for a shooter, especially in a fire fight in which someone is shooting back. Those can't be clear quickly. There are drills that some shooters practice for such an event, but even then it can take from several seconds to clear. Some jams require that the gun be disassembled.

The Batman killer's gun jammed early in his string of fire. He had a 100 round magazines and it jammed after only a few rounds.

Swapping gun is a different matter entirely. How long does it take to put something down with one hand and pick something else up with the other hand? Can you walk and chew gum and dial your phone at the same time?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #249)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:50 PM

267. "Can you walk and chew gum and dial your phone at the same time?"

I can, thank you.

You have just put forward an excellent argument to limit magazine capacities.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #267)

Thu Mar 21, 2013, 11:44 AM

373. How will limiting magazine capacity slow down the reload time?

With only a modest amount of practice you can reload in less than a second. All you will end up with is that a rampage killer will have to carry some more extra magazines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #211)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 03:33 PM

311. coroner said he reloaded freely many times. didn't even fully empty the mags.

Seems irrelevant to THIS massacre, though perhaps not others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #211)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 08:54 PM

354. I absolutely agree with you but

isn't it a frakkin shame that we can speak so easily of the way "so many mass murderers are taken down?" (No, I'm not sorry they get taken down; I find it disturbing that there are so many of them, so many that we can so effortlessly speak of their being taken down in great numbers.)

10th anniversary of Cheney's Slaughterhouse and it turns out that the worst of our enemies, as Pogo once said, "is us."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #200)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:41 PM

260. How many magazines do you think someone can easily carry?

And before you get too excited, you should realize we don't give our own soldiers a giant number of magazines because they become unwieldy.

Plus, each swap is an opportunity for the shooter to screw up. See: Giffords, Gabby.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #260)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:55 PM

269. At least 8 or 10 in a commercially available tactical vest

that is what Lanza had.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #269)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:46 PM

285. And if they were so effective

How come we don't give those to our soldiers? Their gear can't hold that many.

But what does the military know about firearms, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #285)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 02:03 PM

291. ILBE and MOLLE gear can certainly carry that many mags

they are modular system that allow the soldier or marine to customize as needed. With dual stack magazine pouches, they can carry 10 -12 mags easy. The standard ammo load is 210 rounds - that is seven mags right there. And the smart soldier will always carry as much ammo as he can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #291)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 02:07 PM

292. That's why I was careful to not say it never can carry that much.

It normally can't, but can be expanded if necessary.

The people against limiting magazine size insist that it will do nothing to stop mass shootings. Yet the people with experience in the subject realize that 20 magazines is extremely unwieldy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #285)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 03:39 PM

314. The military is concerned with additional issues such as

Supply chain management, and gear weight so the average soldier that meets x fitness bar per the apft can hoof it so many miles under y conditions, etc.

Things Joe lunatic bent on a killing spree isn't interested in. A battle pack of .223 contains 200 rounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #269)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:48 PM

286. So much better that Lanza would have been able to get off 80 bullets instead of 200 some, right? NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #286)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:50 PM

287. I support limits on magazine size

I was just answering a question about how many mags someone can carry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #287)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:52 PM

288. Just making sure your words aren't misconstrued. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #260)

Thu Mar 21, 2013, 11:52 AM

374. The VT killer had at least 18 magazines.

The Giffords shooter didn't screw up the mag change. His pistol jammed on the 31st round. He had a 33 round mag. Giant mags are notorious for causing a failure-to-feed jam toward the end of the mag. The follower spring isn't able to maintain a constant tension on the round for the entire string. Unjamming a jammed gun can be a time consuming process.

If he had been using standard magazines it is extremely unlikely that his gun would have jammed. He would have been able to reload quickly and keep on shooting, as several rampage shooters have done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #200)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 04:19 PM

328. About as long as it takes a child to die /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #51)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:41 AM

57. what makes it lethal

is the capacity to shoot 100 rounds in a minute and kill all those children you see pictured above. The reason they have defined it as they have is to allow hunting and sporting rifles to be exempted. But you know that. You pretend it's cosmetic, but your real goal is unfettered gun proliferation, and the hell with how many children are slaughtered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #57)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:45 AM

62. he probably would have been able to kill as many

with a 9mm pistol and multiple 10 round magazines. That is my point. if the AR-15 wasn't there and he used a pistol the body count probably wouldn't be much different. Why waste so much political capital on something that probably wouldn't have changed the outcome?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #62)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:52 AM

69. He "probably would have been able to"

is not evidence. There is a reason the AR-15 is the weapon of choice for rampage killers. Why spend time on the bill? The answer is in the faces of those children in the OP. Respect for human life, trying to turn this nation into a civilized country, human decency. Human life is infinitely more important than gun fetishes. No one needs any of those barbaric weapons to defend themselves. That is an evil we can do something about, especially since the majority of the country supports an AWB. The only reason the AWB has difficulty being passed is because of the financial power of the gun lobby who have bought at paid for the Republican politicians who carry out your wishes on this particular issue.

The people have a right to have their voices heard. Politicians must pay for putting profits above human life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #69)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:59 AM

76. but the essential question is why is the AR-15 the weapon of choice?

is it because it is the most lethal available? Hardly, there are plenty of more powerful weapons out there than an AR-15. If we did a study and found out that Red cars are more likely to be involved in accidents- would banning red cars lower accident rates? No it wouldn't. Correlation does not equal causation.

and even if it was banned- that doesnt mean there isn't a replacement that is just as good. Again, we come back to the VT massacre as an example. a 9mm pistol did that. No AR-15 involved. are the laws of physics different in the south?

Here is a very valid reason to why AR-15s are chosen- because they look familiar. Works just like advertising. People go to movies, they play video games, they see the M16 as this "big bad gun". So when they are "looking" for a gun to commit such a horrible act, the first thing they think of is the M16 and what looks like an m16? An AR-15. It works on the same principal as advertising and marketing, if no one knows your product- even if it is the best thing out there- no one will buy it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #76)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 09:04 AM

159. Here in NJ you pay more to insure a red car.

Types of cars that are involved in more accidents come with large surcharges on insurance premiums in a state with some of the highest rates in the country. You might even say that the money constitutes a deterrent towards purchasing a deadlier car and certainly an incentive towards driving one more safely.

Maybe we should just charge these gun owners a huge surcharge for owning these guns! Maybe every gun should have to be insured and the law against suing gun manufacturers should be struck down. Maybe instead of banning a type of gun, all guns should be registered and required to be inspected every year to make sure the same person that bought it still owns it.

I think treating guns like cars might be a very good idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #159)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 10:52 AM

173. Yes!

Good idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #76)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 06:56 PM

344. Begs the question, AR's arent the weapon of choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #69)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 10:02 AM

163. Handguns are the weapon of choice for mass shootings by a large margin.

The Va Tech shooter choose a handgun - he killed 32 people. The most deadly school shooting was done with a pistol.

More shotguns were used in mass shootings than assault weapons


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #163)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 10:55 AM

174. I'm old enough to remember when banning hand guns was a goal...

These days, I wouldn't be surprised if they lifted the ban on hand grenades.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #174)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 11:15 AM

184. Gun control advocates made a huge mistake in 1994

they thought that an AWB would be good way to get America use to gun control and would pave the way for more comprehensive gun control laws. They definitely had plans to strictly regulate hand guns.

The AWB turned out to be a massive self inflicted wound - all it did was galvanize gun rights organizations at the state and local level. Right now gun control groups are fighting desperately to get back to where they were before the AWB.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #184)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 11:26 AM

190. They're failing on the public opinion battle....

People are starting to see the "gun enthusiasts" as a bunch mentally ill threats to national security.

How many more "isolated incidents" is it going to take?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #190)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 11:33 AM

195. Balanced against that is the understanding that gun violence is at historic lows

so why incidents like Sandy Hook horrify all of us, most people understand that they are truly rare events.

Both sides of the issue have their extremists - the vast majority of gun owners are not "mentally ill threats to national security". Facts are fact - only a tiny percentage of gun owners ever use their guns in an irresponsible manner. Responsible use of guns is the norm. That is why gun deaths have declined while gun ownership has increased. There is no indication that there is a sea change in public sentiment on guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #195)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 11:44 AM

201. No, most people see these events are not "rare"....

THAT is the problem.

And despite your denials the polls show that public opinion is NOT in favor of a bunch of guys running around in the woods playing army.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #201)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 11:47 AM

205. So why is gun control failing in such a spectacular fashion?

you supposedly have overwhelming public support yet nothing seems to be happening? Nor does there appear to be widespread disapproval that nothing seems to be happening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #205)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:01 PM

221. Next thing you will say is Congress has a high approval rating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #221)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:05 PM

225. No - they deserve their lowly status

I was talking about the gun control movement. It seem pretty weak and ineffective - why isn't there a liberal counterpart to the NRA for example? Surely there is enough support for gun control to match them in fund raising and grass roots activism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #225)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:11 PM

231. The NRA doesn't NEED to raise funds. It's got the gun makers behind it....

It's like comparing the Sierra Club to Big Oil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #231)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:14 PM

236. So just how much cash are we talking about?

it is not like the gun industry is a huge business - certainly not compared to oil companies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #236)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:27 PM

247. $11.7 billion in sales and $993 million in profits.

$11.7 billion in sales and $993 million in profits. Although some not see that as a huge numbers as contrasted against the oil industry, I'd imagine that same figure is considered rather large relative to any counter-PACs involved.

Additionally, I'd think that it's not that number taken on its own that we look at, but the percentage of that number given to lobbyists; e.g., according to a report in 2011 from the Violence Policy Center, between $14 million and $39 million came into NRA coffers in that year alone. That's only one right-wing PAC, in only one year. I'd imagine that's a lot of congressmen and senators in the NRA pockets.

If the gun industry can prevent the CDC from focusing on its agenda-- studying health care, disease and prevention, it can do quite a bit more, too.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/19/seven-facts-about-the-u-s-gun-industry/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #247)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:28 PM

248. And how much to the NRA? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #236)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:39 PM

259. LOL!!! Guns and ammo are one of our major exports!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #259)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:44 PM

262. So give me a number. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #262)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 02:48 PM

300. 42.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #300)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 02:49 PM

301. Thanks. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #205)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:06 PM

227. Because you have bought-and-paid for by the NRA legislators ignoring overwhelming public opinion.

MONEY trumps all for theose people; they vote whichever way the donations tell them to.

Did you ever convince your congressman or senator to vote the way you want them to on an issue backed by public opinion, if they took massive donations from the opposing side?

Probably never.


Public opinion means nothing to them.

Dead kids, even less...as long as it isn't one of their own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #227)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:13 PM

234. So where is the progressive counterpart to the NRA?

Surely there is enough support for gun control to match them in fund raising and grass roots activism.

Until the gun control movement can mobilize voters like the NRA, it will continue to fail. Voters are all that politicians care about.

Progressives have a long history of organizing and activism. Civil rights, woman rights, abortion rights, marriage equality - all good examples of strong, well organized and funded movements that changed America. Gun control seems to be the exception. Why do you think that is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #234)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:17 PM

240. Tens of millions of dollars from arms manufacturers to fund their political arm make the difference.

Money. Money. Money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #240)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:25 PM

245. Emily's List alone has raised nearly 100 million dollars since 1985

George Soros gave $24 million to political groups in 2004 alone

So don't tell me that progressive organizations can't raise money for important causes.

Stop blaming the NRA for your failures.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #245)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:42 PM

261. Gun Control

 

enthusiasts have Bloomberg on their side. He is a multi-billionaire. If anything, I'd say they have more money than the NRA. What they lack is true public support and money can't really make up for that, it can buy a lot of polls to say what they want or a finance a School of Public Health (Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins) to give them data that dovetails nicely with their 'polls', but it can't make up for iron willed grass root support. This is why the AWB is a non starter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnnyBoots (Reply #261)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:45 PM

263. It kills me how gun controllers embrace Bloomberg. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #245)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 05:42 PM

338. What crap. Sheldon Adelson gave $100M in 2012 alone.

You have to reach back over almost 30 years to get a similar amount for Emily's List. Tell me, how much did Emily's List donate in 2012 to all left causes, let alone gun control?

And how much did Fox News' favorite bogeyman Soros donate in 2012? How much did the Koch brothers?

The only billionaire I am aware of that donates any significant amount to gun control is Bloomberg. That hardly makes up for the wave of money on the right to block any gun control measures, like universal background checks that are supported by 91% of Americans. But it's not supported by the NRA, so we don't have it. The NRA IS to blame.

To suggest that the billionaire gun mfrs via the NRA have the same money as the left is a ridiculous lie.

Stop defending the NRA. They, and anyone who supports the NRA, has blood on their hands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #338)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 06:45 PM

342. So after the first billion dollar campaign where the Dems out spent the repukes

you are going to tell me that progressives can't match the $50 or so million the NRA got over the past years from gun manufacturers? Really?

Stop using the NRA as your excuse. Because that is all it is - an excuse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #342)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 11:15 PM

360. Way to deflect my points by just raising new bullshit. No, Repukes outspent Dems in 2012.

Here's my link: http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance Where's yours?

An estimated $577 million, or 69 percent, of outside super-PAC and nonprofit spending supported conservative causes, and $237 million went to liberal candidates and causes.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/12561-big-money-breakdown-why-2012-is-the-most-expensive-election-ever

Yes, Obama, not being a 47%-hating, tax-return-hiding oligarch, got a lot more small donations than Romney. But Romney still outspent him. The Dems' money was spent getting Obama and key Dems in office, not fighting the NRA. The NRA, as usual, spent freely, as did the gun manufacturer lobbyists. But the real tell was how little lobbying the NRA actually had to do in order to get its way. As noted in the Huffington Post, "The group's power in the halls of Congress is so evident that it is rarely challenged."

"If word gets spread around the floor that this is an NRA-scored bill, in the past anyway, that has been that," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), referring to the group's practice of counting certain votes to rate lawmakers' loyalty. "It is palpable on the floor when the message that is spread around is that the NRA is scoring this. It's like a wave."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/gun-lobby-nra_n_2317885.html

And no, Dems in vulnerable districts can't match or fight the NRA. Sad, but true. Feinstein is brave, but she is in a safe district. The NRA gets involved in a race and scares the crap out of the other side. They also come in on local propositions, killing gun reform, where just a few million dollars can overwhelm the progressives.

I'll never forget the shit the NRA pulled in my very blue California in 1982, when it poured in over $5 million against a grassroots proposition to require gun registration and to ban gun purchases by mail (Prop 15), blowing it out of the water. Even though Prop 15 started out ahead, the NRA's negative, misleading TV ad blitz doomed it. On Election Day 1982, California voters rejected Proposition 15, aided in large part by the NRA having registered more than three hundred thousand new voters at California gun stores. I had a friend who ran one of those NRA voter registration tables--paid by the NRA. My friend was the perfect NRA tool, sweet kid, but awkward man-child with severe insecurities; only his massive gun collection made him feel cool. And the NRA convinced him that Prop. 15 would lead to the loss of his guns. You might as well have told him he was going to be castrated. The NRA gave him the table, the No on 15 signs, money and the voter registration cards. He would set it up in the redder areas around L.A. and enticed people over like he was gathering a petition and then got the No on 15 people registered. Of course, the yes on 15 people would never get near him and would never get registered. Brilliant, eh?

Not only did the NRA bring down Prop 15, but it brought down Tom Bradley's Governor bid; before the ad blitz he was ahead in the polls and would have been our first black Governor. It's detailed in a book called Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist by Richard Feldman.

The NRA is evil. Pure evil. I hope their glory days are over. Sandy Hook really has changed the country. But you will continue to be its apologist. And for God knows what reason, the mods will continue to let you and your fellow gungeoneers pollute this board with right wing NRA propaganda, like your line about George Soros--straight outa Glenbeckibeckistanstan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #360)

Thu Mar 21, 2013, 07:39 AM

365. A perfect world

you have the perfect bogy man to explain away your failures.

Have you ever considered that gun control does not have the passionate and widespread support you think it has? Of course not - it's always NRA NRA NRA. Reminds me of TERRA TERRA TERRA - the ultimate excuse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #365)

Thu Mar 21, 2013, 11:22 AM

371. Sigh. You don't deny anything I said, you just repeat talking points.

There is no other thing that 91% of Americans agree on like they do on the need for universal background checks. You may have the "passion" of the loons and billionaires on your side, but we have the American people.

This is getting boring, like every time I engage a gungeoneer. All they can spount is the same inane, unsubstantiated talking points.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #371)

Thu Mar 21, 2013, 11:59 AM

375. And universal background checks will now most likely pass the Congress

That was the entire point of stripping the AWB from the bill - to allow things like that to pass.

I support universal background checks. I live in a state that has them and I know what good they can do.

I just don't support the AWB.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #245)


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #201)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 04:24 PM

329. "...running around the woods playing army."

Is a stereotype. As a percentage of gun owners, those that engage in that sort of activity is quite small. You brought it up, so I'll let you do the research.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #329)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 04:30 PM

330. I'm a gun owner, but I'm sane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #69)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 11:50 AM

206. Numerous rampage killers have used pistols only.

The Luby's killer, the VT killer, and the Ft. Hood killer all used pistols only and they all racked up a high body count. Both the Luby's killer and the VT killer used standard magazines and reloaded.

ARs & AKs are not the weapon of choice for rampage killers, although they have recently been used in some.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #69)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:15 PM

239. Dear BainsBane,

Thank you. I will never understand anyone defending the ownership of (fill in the correct terminology for the weapons used in mass murders). Those who argue for it no longer deserve to be heard. Not now. Not after what we've just gone through.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue (Reply #239)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:06 PM

275. Have you seen this

New group? http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1262
You might be interested.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #69)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 03:37 PM

312. "There is a reason the AR-15 is the weapon of choice for rampage killers."

Are you sure? While they have been used recently, (Newtown, Aurora) I am fairly certain that handguns have been more often used in such crimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #62)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 10:21 PM

356. There is a connection between magazine capacity and number of deaths in mass shootings

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

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/high-capacity-magazines-mass-shootings

The gun worshipers somehow believe that they must have high capacity magazines to defend themselves (From Obama lead UN troops, space aliens, or North Korean Paratroopers), but at the same time think they can kill more people with three 10-round clips than one 30-round clip. But in case after case, we have found that higher capacity clips are correlated with a higher number of deaths.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #51)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:26 AM

99. Then why put a pistol grip on a sawwed off shotgun?

and don't get caught with one!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #99)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:34 AM

106. because it makes it more comfortable to hold in certain positions.

doesn't change how fast it fires or how lethal it is

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #106)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 02:47 AM

124. oh really

then why did they cut off the stock? BECAUSE it does make it more lethal...therefore...don't worry about whether it is more comfortable ....we want to worry about how lethal the weapon is? Okay NOW we have a starting point! If you want to have a weapon that shoots more than say 10 rounds...GET insurance!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #124)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:00 PM

218. They cut the stock off for concealment.

Only criminals saw off the barrel and the stock to make an illegal gun. It turns a 12 gauge shotgun into a huge single shot pistol. The lethality of the gun is reduced some because the shot is expelled at a lower velocity. It makes the gun very handy for holding up convenience stores. Law-abiding gun owners don't do that to shotguns and don't rob C-stores.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #218)

Thu Mar 21, 2013, 09:46 PM

392. Until we make them criminals for owning illegal guns!

since SOME guns are already illegal to own...it only proves that more guns can be JUST as illegal to possess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #106)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 04:21 AM

139. heaven forfend anything should interfere with one's shootin' comfort.

Although, technically, wouldn't a less comfortable weapon be tougher to use to fight off dangerous 6 year old elementary school students deer, "home invaders", and totalitarian gerbmint new world order black herlipoopters...

and, as such, be "less lethal"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #139)

Fri Mar 22, 2013, 08:52 AM

398. Guns that are more comfortable to shoot are also more accurate.

I assume that you want bullets to hit their targets and not go somewhere else.

Before you get all snarky, remember that it is a human the chooses the target. Of the billions of round fired annually in the U.S. only a very few are fired at people. The rest need to be on target so as not to be a danger to others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #398)

Fri Mar 22, 2013, 11:09 AM

400. Oh, no, no one ever gets snarky in a gun thread. But I'm glad safety is a concern.

Since we want to talk about what is 'safe' to be shooting, maybe people should try one of these:



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #49)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:53 AM

70. Like this

"All semiautomatic long guns, as a class of weapons, are banned." Manual-action only; no self-loading guns.

Throw in the relevant parts of the ATF's regulations that define "semi-automatic", and you've got a loophole-free ban.


This is very clean and clear. Feinstein is trying to draw a line that can't be drawn, one that divides semiautomatic long guns that feed from detachable magazines into two classes: legitimate sporting guns, and "assault weapons".



I suppose one could try to ban the "fed from a detachable magazine" part, and only allow semiauto rifles and shotguns that feed from a fixed magazine, but California tried that, and the definition of "fixed" is pretty loose. They haven't been able to address the work-arounds, such as "fixed" magazines that require a tool to remove, then make the tool out of a strong magnet so it sticks in position to the catch.



I don't think this will fix the problem of homicidal maniacs picking crowds of trapped, helpless people to slaughter until the cops show up. But if one believes that the problem is fast-shooting self-loading long guns that can take quickly-changeable magazines, and thus discharge many shots in a short amount of time, then the steps that logically follow is to either ban semi-auto long guns, or long guns that take detachable magazines, or both.

The process of banning certain semi-auto long guns based on whether or not they have heat shields (Democrats advocating for NOT putting protective heat shields over parts that get hot enough to burn flesh???), or ergonomic comfort features like pistol grips and quick-adjustable stocks, is silly and useless.

I can see banning folding stocks, as they can make a rifle shorter than is legally permissible. But telescoping stocks? Heat shields? Protruding pistol grips?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #70)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:55 AM

75. How about some of the hand guns?

Covered in Feinstein's bill?

I appreciate your giving an answer to my question. I will save your response to investigate it further.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #75)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:02 AM

78. there is no lethality difference between

A glock 19 (not banned) and a Tec-9 (banned). Both are semi-automatic, both take a detachable magazine, both are 9mm. the main difference is that the magazine in the Tec-9 is inserted in front of the pistol grip while the Glock magazine inserts into the pistol grip.

Both have the same rate of fire, both can accept "large capacity magazines".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #75)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:38 AM

107. Hand guns can also be "assault weapons";

The term can be applied to shotguns, rifles, or handguns.

Her 2013 proposal for handguns looks like this:

A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of
the following:
(i) A threaded barrel.
(ii) A second pistol grip.
(iii) A barrel shroud.
(iv) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
(v) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.


(i) is useful only if you own a silencer, which is a $200 tax plus the cost of the silencer, so you're looking at spending about $400-$500 above the cost of the pistol. Of course if you're doing it for illegal purposes, you would just use a pillow or something. I don't see this as an issue worth banning, but if you want to ban threaded barrels for pistols, go ahead.

(ii) It seems to me that a pistol with two pistol grips is actually a good thing to prevent crime; the second pistol grip would make it much harder to conceal and draw, and I don't think aiming is enhanced any. A second pistol grip can work on a long gun that is braced against your shoulder, but when both hands are free-floating in space it seems to me that the wobble would increase, not decrease.

(iii) I'm not sure why this is an issue. Semiautomatic pistols have had their barrels completely enveloped by the slide forever. Pretty much every single semiauto pistol sold has the barrel inside of the slide. So... why is a slide okay but a heat shield not okay? I think this is a leftover from the era of the TEC-9 pistol.

(iv) Same thing as (ii) with respect to concealment and drawing.

(v) There are very few machine-pistols made; the recoil is too much to make them a practical weapon, even for the cops or the military. This will not affect anybody, really, so go ahead and ban it.


The characteristics she seeks to ban (regarding pistols) are ideas that have been rejected by the evolution of the handgun. You have to look long and hard to find a handgun that has a magazine that's NOT in the pistol grip, or one that has a second pistol grip. There is simply no advantage to these features, and several major drawbacks. Evolution puts the magazine in the pistol grip because it cleans up the gun for use in a holster, it lowers the overall length of the gun, make the gun handle better, and speeds reloading because "hand finds hand" in the dark.

If anything, maybe we should outlaw handguns that DO have magazines in the grip!

It is probably in reaction to the sales of "AR-15" pistols, which use regular AR-15 magazines and shoot regular AR-15 ammunition (.223 Remington or 5.56mm NATO), but are pistols.

At 20 inches long and with a magazine sticking out, I find it hard to believe this will be the choice weapon of the armed robber. Especially considering the price. It's really a short rifle with no buttstock, and I can't see how firing rifle ammo out of it would be particularly fun.


And thank you for the civil conversation. I hope you find this helpful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #49)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 05:46 AM

141. Three characteristics

Semiautomatic action

Detachable ammunition magazine

Is a rifle

Those three terms will have to be defined in the law...but that's what an assault rifle is.

During Clinton's ban, which was an appearance ban, the gun companies had sporter models of assault rifles. This can be stopped with a function ban.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #141)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:09 PM

280. that includes a lot of hunting and/or sporting rifles

which is why Feinstein hasn't defined it so broadly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #280)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 09:59 PM

355. Hunting and/or sporting rifles can be redesigned to not have detachable magazines

An assault rifle loses its reason for existing without detachable magazines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #141)

Thu Mar 21, 2013, 02:23 PM

384. Don't Most Weapons Today Have Semiautomatic Action?

To me both the magazine and the ammunition should be the target. The other two are non-starters.

The magazine must be limited to 10 rounds and not be easily modified, i.e., designed in a manner where magazines can be stacked to create a high capacity magazine. A buyback program needs to be part of the deal to remove existing high capacity magazines. The military type ammunition used at Sandy Hook needs to be made illegal -- cop killer bullets, etc. It should also be illegal to modify the ammunition once purchased in ways that would give it these properties. And these would apply regardless of the design of the weapon they are used in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #12)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:47 AM

64. Exactly, she proposed feel-good nonsense designed to pander to the uninformed

She did so knowing that it would no nothing to curb gun violence and that, while her own seat is secure, it would put enormous political pressure on Democrats who cannot vote for the thing regardless. It was politics at it's worst.

But this topic does allow me to bring up something I have said (and been criticized for) many times before. Simply: meaningful gun control will not be accomplished until both sides put aside their dislike and come together on a solution. Anti-gun people, you NEED the second amendment people's help. You need their advice, their input, and their support, and until you win this you will have nothing. Further, you need to start listening and actually thinking about the questions they raise and the objections they offer.

I say this as someone who really doesn't care about this issue, so take it for what it's worth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #64)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:49 AM

67. bravo sir!!

couldn't have said it better myself

There are plenty of things we can do that are more effective then an assault weapons ban, that would still allow Americans to exercise their rights

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #67)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:55 AM

73. Thanks nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #64)

Thu Mar 21, 2013, 02:43 PM

385. I Understand The Sentiment

But don't see how capitulation solves anything. Apply that here and you would be expected to apply it to Ryan's budget and a whole host of other issues. Giving in to these bullies is a non-starter. They too need to start listening and actually thinking about other points of view as well. Without both pieces being in place no compromise can exist. One sided capitulation cannot be the answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #385)

Thu Mar 21, 2013, 08:26 PM

390. Capitulation is a huge word my friend

Right now we have nothing. That's important to remember. What the more restrained among us would like is some kind of meaningful legislation that would help curb at least some of these attacks. Others, less restrained, want nothing less than the abolition of these weapons from society. Since that's easy to address, let me do so now and quickly: it will not happen in our lifetimes, if ever, and the only mechanism which would make this possible politically, practically, and "legally," would be precisely the kind of government tyranny that the defenders of the second amendment claim the provision is designed to guard against. So let us move on to something more practical.

The more reasoned, as I said, simply want legislation that would prevent some of these crimes from taking place. The devil, as always, is in the details. The proponents of these legislation are quick to propose restrictions, but decidedly sketchy when it comes to describing how their proposals would accomplish much of anything. Few mass murdering maniacs have a record that would prohibit them (or the people around them) from owning these weapons legally. The same applies to high capacity magazines. There are a hundred million of these already in existence and more coming every day. Banning them does little to curb access, and it is debatable how much good it would do even if it did.

What we are talking about here is essentially terrorism, except instead of the motivation being political or religious, the motive is insanity. The goal is to inflict the maximum pain and suffering, to take as many as possible with you when you go. Whether the target is a kindergarten or a college or a mall or a theater, there is no way to stop a lunatic once he his madness has driven him to this point. Magazine capacity or the shape of the weapon matter little in terms of the damage inflicted. What matters is his intellect and imagination -- two attributes which are fortunately often lacking. They tend to copy rather than innovate.

And this is a very good thing, because these maniacs at present seem to be limiting themselves to gun toting avenger fantasies rather than the far more horrific alternatives (which I will not outline here). Our goal should not be to push them from this, but to stop them all together if we can. And that, I suspect, requires and entirely different approach.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #390)

Fri Mar 22, 2013, 12:12 AM

395. We Actually Agree On Most Things

The major exception is magazine capacity. That is the single most important change necessary, in my view. In Tucson the shooter was taken down when a woman grabbed at the magazine the shooter was attempting to load when a man came over and actually subdued the shooter. Just think if that action would have happened after 10 rounds instead of 30 rounds. Here is my earlier proposal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2547457

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #395)

Fri Mar 22, 2013, 01:14 AM

396. I don't have a problem with this....

It certainly cannot hurt -- and it's a provision that even many second amendment folks wouldn't have a huge problem with as they can still get their magazines if they really want them.

But again, what does this really solve, and how often. While I hate to even type a semi-NRA style talking point, this one happens to be true: we are addressing the tool, and that poorly, while avoiding the real problem. My own theory is this...

Every day, and in a thousand ways, we tell people that we are not in this together. We are a society that all but worships individual success -- particularly success won on at a human cost -- while actually villifying and even criminalizing those who do not make the cut. For them we have nothing but scorn. It is a sociopathic society and it breeds sociopaths. Particularly among the young. And why not? We outsourced their jobs, ran up 15 trillion in debt, trashed the economy, priced them out of an education, we're gonna destroy their social security, they already know they'll never have healthcare, and the people who did it, the generation that burned it to the ground, the people with all the money, they're patting themselves on the back and planning to spend spend spend and leave nothing in their wake.

We tell these young people every day that they are on their own, that they are losers, that we seriously do not give a damn about them, then we when they blow away a schoolroom full of children we wail, "How could they do this... don't they care?!"

The answer is no.

No. They do not care -- any more than we cared about them. We only STARTED to care about them the minute they pulled the trigger.

There was a line in a recent Batman movie that kinda sums this mindset up...Some men just want to watch the world burn.

If it was intended to shock it missed the mark. The audience didn't cringe, they nodded along. Fuck yeah, burn it. For most it was just an idea they can identify with, but for others it was more. It's how they really feel. Some people really do just want to watch the world burn. They are full of hate and fury and despair, and they want you to taste it as well. They don't give a fuck about you or your family, they don't even care about their own lives.

We can ban guns, but when we do all it will take is ONE who's a bit more creative. One maniac going into a theatre with chain, padlocks, and a napsack full of molotov cocktails -- and we will have our next epidemic. Or it could as easily be something else. You cannot ban sociopathy, but I think we better start working on it.

In my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #12)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:16 AM

91. Both The AR-15 And High Capacity Magazine

Used at Newtown were banned until Bush allowed the ban to expire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #91)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:24 AM

97. no they weren't

AR-15's were fully legal under the 1994 law, they just had to have their bayonet lugs and collapsible stocks removed. The magazines were also fully legal, you just had to spend a few more bucks to get them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #91)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:51 AM

117. AR-15s were not banned

Semiautomatic rifles with certain combinations of secondary features were banned. If an AR-15 did not have a restricted combination, it was not banned. The Wikipedia article on the definitions of "assault weapon" explains it very well.

Two; Connecticut adopted into state law the federal 1994 ban pretty much word-for-word, only it didn't have a sunset provision. I live in Connecticut; as I type this the 1994 AWB is still in effect for me. I cannot buy an AR-15 with a pistol grip AND a bayonet lug, but I can buy one with a pistol grip OR a bayonet lug.

Three; 11-plus magazines were not banned, but sales of NEW 11-plus magazines made after the law took effect were. In other words, you could still buy a brand-new or used 11+ magazines after the ban took effect, as long as they were made BEFORE the ban.

Four: the Newtown shooter had either 5 or 11 minutes of time between shooting open the door and killing himself. He reloaded frequently, leaving partially-used magazines scattered about. He shot one poor kid 11 times, turning him into hamburger. Ammunition and reloading was apparently not an issue for him, the sick fuck that he was.

Five: Congress failed to get a bill to Bush's desk. Gah, now you're making me defend Bush. Ewww....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #117)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 04:49 AM

140. You're Splitting Hairs Here

I was aware that weapons were grandfathered then as well as any new legislation would grandfather them now. Even fully automatic weapons are legal under that definition -- they just have a different grandfather date. I even went back to Wikipedia to make sure it listed the AR-15 and it did. Lastly, we know that a very high percent of all AR-15's were manufactured after the ban was allowed to expire, including everything used in the Newtown massacre, so you are really splitting hairs in the context of this discussion.

Oh, Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate when the ban was allowed to expire so it is moot that no bill got to Bush's desk for him to veto.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #140)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 10:28 AM

169. AR-15 style rifles were perfectly legal under the AWB

once the manufacturers modified them to remove the cosmetic features that made them "assault weapons".

Weapons exactly like the one used at Sandy Hook were perfectly legal. CT's AWB was modeled after the 1994 AWB - the rifle used at Sandy Hook was not legally an assault weapon according to the state of Connecticut.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #91)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 10:10 AM

165. The Newtown shooter's gun would have been legal under the AWB

CT has an AWB modeled after the 1994 AWB and his rifle was legal in CT.

BTW - Bush did not allow the AWB to expire. Congress did not send him a bill that would have renewed it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #165)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:33 PM

252. That Is A Stupid Argument

Bush did not ask Congress to send him a bill to extend the law so he most certainly allowed it to expire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #252)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:38 PM

258. "I did think we ought to extend the assault weapons ban..." GW Bush 2004

In 2004, President George W. Bush said, “I did think we ought to extend the assault weapons ban, and was told the fact that the bill was never going to move, because Republicans and Democrats were against the assault weapon ban, people of both parties. I believe law-abiding citizens ought to be able to own a gun. I believe in background checks at gun shows or anywhere to make sure that guns don’t get in the hands of people that shouldn’t have them.


http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/23/a-look-back-at-gun-control-history/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #258)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 06:48 PM

343. The Full Context, Including The "But The Best Way"

Why didn't Bush try to extend the assault weapons ban?

SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, new question, two minutes.

You said that if Congress would vote to extend the ban on assault weapons, that you'd sign the legislation, but you did nothing to encourage the Congress to extend it. Why not?

BUSH: Actually, I made my intentions -- made my views clear. I did think we ought to extend the assault weapons ban, and was told the fact that the bill was never going to move, because Republicans and Democrats were against the assault weapon ban, people of both parties.

I believe law-abiding citizens ought to be able to own a gun. I believe in background checks at gun shows or anywhere to make sure that guns don't get in the hands of people that shouldn't have them.

But the best way to protect our citizens from guns is to prosecute those who commit crimes with guns.

And that's why early in my administration I called the attorney general and the U.S. attorneys and said: Put together a task force all around the country to prosecute those who commit crimes with guns.


And the prosecutions are up by about 68 percent -- I believe -- is the number.

Neighborhoods are safer when we crack down on people who commit crimes with guns.

To me, that's the best way to secure America.


This is from the last debate with Kerry in October 2004 -- a full year after the ban was allowed to expire. What did he say prior to October 2003 when the rubber hit the road. As this shows clearly, Bush did and said nothing to extend the assault weapons ban. Nothing. And Bush is not supporting an assault weapon ban today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #343)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 07:23 PM

345. Congress did not give him a bill to sign.

do you really understand how government works?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #345)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 10:23 PM

357. Quite Well; You Obviously Don't Though

The President proposes and Congress disposes. While it doesn't always happen that way that is the way it is supposed to happen. The President submits a budget and Congress acts upon it (though most are dead on arrival) - most of the time. Bush admitted he didn't ask for an extension because there weren't the votes in Congress to pass it. That right there says Bush allowed the ban to expire so I don't know why you are being such a Bush apologist. For the onus to be on Congress they would have had to vote down an extension bill Bush submitted.

All authorization bills are supposed to originate in the House but because of the arbitrary Hastert Rule that says a majority of the majority must declare for a measure that originates in the House so we have recently seen Boehner ask the Senate to pass a bill and send it to them where he then allows an up or down vote on the Senate bill (Sandy aide and extending all of the Bush tax cuts except for those making over $400,000/$450,000 are two such examples).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #357)

Thu Mar 21, 2013, 07:36 AM

364. Congress could have originated the bill.

They didn't need Bush to ask for it. Why didn't they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #91)

Thu Mar 21, 2013, 12:18 PM

376. A renewed AWB never reached Bush's desk.

He said that he would sign it if congress passed it. The renewal of the AWB died a bipartisan death. Both Democrats and Republicans in congress ran away from it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #12)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 09:50 AM

162. Yeah, let's not ban anything unless the single ban makes

the weapon not useful for killing. You are right, the bans would have to go farther to stop the killing. But us so-called gun grabbers are willing to compromise, even to the extent of giving the gun worshipers most of what they want.
The gun worshipers still have enough bought and intimidated Congressmen to keep getting their way.

The AWB is supported by a majority of Americans.
The AWB is a small step in the right direction.
The gun lobby opposes the AWB.
The gun lobby spends lots of single issue money on elections.
The gun lobby turns out rude, unpleasant, threatening gun worshipers to intimidate even the families of gun massacre victims.

Yes, I will support any Congressperson with the guts to take on these nuts. A journey starts with a step.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #162)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 10:21 AM

167. If the AWB is a "small" step in the right direction, what would you recommend as a final goal?

 

Were it up to you, what else would be banned?

Semiautomatics?
Handguns?
Manual repeaters such as bolt-actions and lever-actions?
Any firearm that holds more than 1 cartridge?
All firearms?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Reply #167)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 11:04 AM

176. One step at a time

An AWB is a minimal step.
What weapons or weapon features would the gun worshipers need to hunt and target practice?
Guns are not toys. Just take away the features that are only necessary for playing war or cops and robbers.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #176)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 11:25 AM

189. So you don't recommend any restrictions beyond an AWB?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #176)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 11:26 AM

191. Well, "playing war" and hunting are by and large the same

Hunters need accurate, reliable, powerful weapons (much more "high-powered" than current war weapons but I digress) - seems to me to be the same checklist I'd want for going to battle. For that matter, target shooters and military snipers have even closer requirements; so close in fact that I own not one but two genuine military issue rifles, not just "military-style", one of which is virtually indistinguishable from the current US sniper rifle - yet nobody wants to take those, hmm..

Just for the record, I support magazine limits, universal background checks through an FFL on a 4473, and licensing of handgun owners (I have a CCW wherever I'm allowed. I cannot make a case against licensing.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #191)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 11:33 AM

194. No they're not, you are confusing wants and needs

How many deer have shot back at you? I've yet to see an armed squirrel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #194)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 11:39 AM

199. What? That makes no sense.

Are you saying I don't need a rifle that will put a bullet that will humanely kill the deer (powerful) exactly where I aim it (accurate) in any and all weather conditions (reliable)?

My rifle of choice for deer hunting isn't a "military-style" weapon. It's a genuine military-issue weapon. And I guarantee you don't want to ban it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #199)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 11:47 AM

203. Humanely kill the deer makes no sense

Humanely kill. This isn't a mercy killing, the deer didn't ask you to shoot it.
So with a less accurate or powerful rifle, the gun worshipers can't be bothered to get closer to the prey and have to inhumanely kill.
And gee they can't humanely kill if the gun isn't reliable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #203)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 11:51 AM

207. Umm...you're babbling, dude. Are you anti-hunting?

The deer didn't ask me to kill it, no. So I *always*, and I take great pride in this point, shoot it in such a way that it drops to the ground without even hearing the gun go off. Would you rather I blow a hole in it's gut and let it bleed to death, slowly, in excruciating pain? Makes it taste like crap anyway; I hunt for food.

And no, I can't kill humanely with an unreliable gun...assuming I'm going to kill the animal anyway, why do you want me to NOT do it in the least painful way possible?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #207)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 11:53 AM

209. Why don't you look up the definition of humane? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #209)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 11:55 AM

210. Yeah yeah, "humane" would be to not hunt

So then you're really saying that hunters don't need guns either, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #210)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:06 PM

226. How do your title and text connect?

And, no, I'm not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #226)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:12 PM

232. Oy vey..

I was assuming you were going to take the "no such thing as humane hunting" tack; I've had that from many an anti-hunter. Anyway, I'll humor you.

"Humane
Adjective
1. Having or showing compassion or benevolence.
2. Inflicting the minimum of pain."

Assuming we're working with #2 as a means to effect #1 (I am going to kill a deer. I want to do it in the most compassionate way possible, which means inflicting the minimum amount of pain) why would I not need the most accurate, reliable, and powerful firearm available to me?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #232)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:58 PM

271. Asked and answered

Because the most accurate reliable and powerful firearm makes it easier for you, not for the deer. It is a want, not a need.

(sarcasm starts)
Let me see, a more powerful and accurate gun will let me shoot from a greater distance, it will not make it more likely to kill the deer quickly, because I will be shooting at a greater distance.
A more reliable gun will allow me a greater chance of shooting a deer, in any weather condition.
See, I want to make sure that if I miss, my bullets can carry far enough to hit something behind and I want to shoot from a far enough distance that I can't see what's behind. And then I want to do it in a snowstorm or other bad weather, it's more fun to shoot blind.

Then I can be a humane, compassionate, or whatever hunter, which is why I need my more powerful, more accurate, more reliable gun toy to hunt.
(sarcasm ends)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #271)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:28 PM

282. I suppose if you call hunting as a whole a "want"

But your post that started this whole thread was talking about what one "needs to hunt", which I parse as "needs to hunt in the most responsible fashion," not "what will make it fairest for the deer". Don't play the whole "hunting guns are ok" line when you're clearly opposed to both hunting and guns - your cutesy sarcasm makes it pretty obvious you think all hunters are irresponsible idiots who buy ultra mags to go blasting at deer a half mile away in a housing development, and who consider guns "toys"; any hunter with the most basic safety education would be damned offended if you told them that's what they REALLY think when they buy something twice as powerful as a piddling little AR.

Possibly the most popular and inoffensive bolt-action hunting rifle, legal to own the world over, is also by far the most popular military and police sniper rifle in the world...should it be banned because it has the ideal features for "playing war"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #282)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:52 PM

289. You can suppose whatever you want

Why would you have to suppose anything, why not just read my posts. If it ain't there, I didn't say it, if it is, I did.
If you read it into them, you are almost certainly wrong, based on past performance.
I have said nothing that would tell you I am opposed to hunting with guns. Maybe you need to look up what sarcasm means.

But let's analyze the part about the piddling little AR. Logic does say if I would be OK to ban an AR, then I would be eager to ban an even more powerful rifle except that a bolt action weapon is not semi-automatic (hey see even I know that and I really don't care if you are a gun expert). So no, the bolt action rifle doesn't bother me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #289)

Sun Mar 24, 2013, 01:37 PM

406. You did pretty clearly say

And what I took offense at - giving a hunter a more capable weapon (than an AR, I should have made that clear) isn't going to improve our practices but rather encourage us to just be reckless yahoos blasting away and endangering everything within three-quarters of a mile. I'm not particularly confrontational by nature, although this whole debate tends to get that way awfully fast, but some things just grind my gears..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #162)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:14 PM

237. Look

Your side complains constantly about "loopholes". I'm pointing out a BIG FUCKING LOOPHOLE in your proposed legislation so you can fix it before it passes and then you spend a decade complaining about it.

The fact that you admit that the proposed AWB is just a thing to pass to appease people is telling.

What it really is does it what Wall Street did during the financial crisis: you set up something fail, label it "AAA rated", dump it on off on some poor suckers at a profit, then when it fails spectacularly collect even more profit.


This will not work, but your side wants it out there so WHEN it doesn't work, you can expand the definition of "assault weapon" (again) to include even more guns.



And I'll note that you're the one being rude and unpleasant here, not me, and it's because I'm factually correct on your cherished idea. It's not my fault the idea is fundamentally flawed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #237)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:36 PM

253. My side is not a lockstep organization

like the gun worshipers. And yeah, I am being rude to people who defend against all restrictions on guns. I am sick of seeing them on the news, disrupting hearings on possible gun regulations, and not even allowing the families of gun violence victims time to grieve. And that head gun worshiper, the NRA VP, is sure so polite and pleasant.
If you find the truth to be unpleasant, I can't help it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #253)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:46 PM

264. Then why are you being rude to me?

You think that because I'm pointing out a factual, objective problem (an ongoing problem for 20 years now) with a law, I'm against any change? I've actually posted some things on this issue that you would probably like, such as as universal background checks and quantity limits on both buying and selling guns.


And let's face it, the bodies in Newtown were still warm and the facts in the case still unknown when the politicians began tripping over themselves to rush to a microphone and call for a new AWB.


Don't you with they had gone after Wall Street as hard as they did protruding pistol grips?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #264)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:07 PM

276. As I said, I believe that the AWB is a minimal step

I would find it hard to believe that anyone who actually could support meaningful gun control could object to the AWB. I have seen multiple posters in the rkba (notice I didn't call it the gungeon, I'm being polite) claim to support gun regulations and object to every one proposed and refuse to propose any themselves. It appears to be merely lip service. Some might call them liars, but I am actually trying to be polite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #276)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 11:30 PM

361. A minimal step towards...what?

This is what confuses me, although I appreciate your politeness on the issue..

If your objective is to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons, domestic abusers, foreign nationals, illegal drug users, and the dangerously mentally ill, then an AWB does not address this issue; a tight and universal mandatory background check does.

If your objective is to somehow reduce the firepower of the spree shooter, then this doesn't do it either, and it fact it would take draconian measures to make any kind of noticeable dent in the lethality of a mass shooting when a suicidal shooter has complete dominance over helpless, trapped victims for minutes at a time. Outlawing protruding pistol grips is not a solution.

If your objective is to lower the per-capita gun ownership rate, then this also does not affect that, as guns will still be bought as sold, including tactically-orientated guns.




There are a lot of things we can do to reduce all violence (and by extension, gun violence) that have nothing to do with gun regulation. Ending the War on Drugs, making our prison system public again, and there's a hole raft of economic stuff that would broadly empower the poor, working-glass, and lower-middle-class.

But putting aside the lecture on why USP health insurance is something we need to do, let's look at direct gun-control regulation that I think would work.

1) Mandatory universal background checks.

2) Withholding federal highway funds from states that don't have their NICS databases up to speed.

3) Create a type federal firearms license that would allow people to act as transfer agents with access to the NICS system. The transfer agent would not be a stocking dealer, but would run the background checks between two private individuals for a modest fee. It would be a kitchen-table side business for people. It would prevent straw purchases, as well as "hey, he looked honest to me!" sales.

4) Create limits on annual purchases and sales that a private citizen can perform per year. 12, perhaps, or maybe 10. Call it "X". The NICS would keep a count, and reject a transfer if more than X number of guns was bought or sold by a person. If you're buying or selling more than X guns a year, get a license. It would prevent significant gun-running or fencing, but not inconvenience anybody.

5) Have the NICS system keep track of the make, model, and serial number of all guns sold, the transfer agent who oversees the sale, and person who sells them. Not the buyer, but the seller. The buyer would keep the physical record in his possession but would stay outside of a central database. This affords police a quick way to track down the owner of a recovered crime gun (get a warrant, go to seller, get his record on who the gun was sold to) but prevents the police from trolling through a registry.


This seems to be a pretty ironclad system to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #361)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 11:57 PM

362. this background check thing doesn't address the full problem

While purchasers should have background checks, this cures only part of the problem. The AWB and magazine restrictions are at least as necessary.
I don't think that your 3rd point, which allows private use of the NICS is a good idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #362)

Thu Mar 21, 2013, 08:28 PM

391. And.... we've hit the wall.

My 3rd point is that the ATF should create a license for people (who are screened just like a gun dealer license) who want to facilitate transfers between private parties by running the exact same background check as a conventional gun dealer would.


The only reason, as far as I could see, why a person would want an assault-weapon ban would be to later be able to expand the definition of "assault weapon" to include more types of guns. It's happened already; the 2013 proposed definition is already stricter than the 1993 definition.

Illustration:


This is a Ruger Mini-14, a semi-automatic rifle that feeds from a detachable magazine (not shown). Equipped as shown, it would be legal to sell new under both the 1993 and 2013 definition of "assault weapon".






This is also a Mini-14. Equipped as shown, it would be legal to sell new under the 1993 definition, but illegal under the 2013 definition. The defining factor is the protruding pistol grip.





This, too, is a Mini-14. Equipped as shown, it would not be legal under either the 1993 or 2013 definition. The defining factors are the presence of both the protruding pistol grip AND the folding buttstock. Removal of either makes it legal again under the 1993 law.







Here's the kicker: they are all the same rifle with the same unique serial number.






Discussing magazine limits is a different story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #391)

Fri Mar 22, 2013, 01:07 PM

401. That is a pretty poor argument

If the gun laws banned a particular type of weapon and made it unlawful to continue to possess them, the gun worshipers would at least have to keep them hidden. The ones you use to illustrate your point would be instantly recognizable.
How many of your guns, or the guns of friends has the government taken to date?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #401)

Fri Mar 22, 2013, 11:19 PM

403. That's not the point I was trying to make

The point is, the mechanicals and the operation are identical regardless of which stock is bolted to the gun. If it's unlawful to have a Mini-14 with a pistol-grip, I can still have the Mini-14 as long as the pistol grip is replaced.

Do you think forcing people to buy new stocks for their AR-15s and Mini-14s and AK-47s is going to stop or lessen the impact of a spree shooter?

I'm not arguing the constitutionality of such a law, I'm arguing the effectiveness.

Behold the AWB-compliant AR-15:





Do you really think the problem with the Newtown shooter was that his rifle had a pistol grip?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #403)

Sat Mar 23, 2013, 05:31 PM

405. Yes it was, or maybe you just like pictures of guns

Seat belts wouldn't have saved all lives, air bags wouldn't either, neither do crumple zones.
And no one has claimed that limits on magazine capacity or an AWB will save all lives. So stop pretending that saving some is not worthwhile.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #405)

Mon Mar 25, 2013, 07:31 AM

407. Like I said, we've hit a wall.

The 'holy grail' of the gun-control movement is an assault-weapons ban, which is a pretty shitty holy grail. To extend your automotive analogy, what if Ralph Nader's car-safety legislative objective was to ban spoilers and giant rims and front-air dams on cars?

"No one is saying that banning spoilers will save all lives, but..."





I'm pretty sure that the gun-control movement simply wants the idea and a definition, any definition, no matter how useless or arbitrary, of "assault weapon" on the books. This way, once the term becomes a legal standard, they can simply and quietly expand the definition of "assault weapon", which would be much easier than starting with fresh legislation.

This has happened before; California has expanded the definition of "assault weapon" in the past couple of decades to include more guns, and Feinstein's 2013 definition covers more guns than her 1993 definition.

This is an objective fact, not subject to dispute. I'm pretty sure that New York's new SAFE law does the same thing, but I'm not certain.

I'm sorry we've come to an impasse on this, but I thank you for the civility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #12)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 10:22 AM

168. You choose to not get it.

 

It is the mind set of the people that want the macho look of the assault weapon that are the biggest problem. It is not the operation of the weapon, it IS the look and feel that gets their hormones flowing. Their fantasies of killing off the well-armed, advancing hoards, single handedly.
Think of it as going from from just putting food on the table with the standard hunting rifle, to "Hey, watch this..." Rambo wanta-be's, full of unrealistic fantasies of saving the day. The look and feel is most definitely the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #168)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 10:34 AM

170. I freely admit I don't "get" your argument.

 

Last edited Wed Mar 20, 2013, 11:53 AM - Edit history (1)

As far as I can tell, you're arguing that this firearm should be banned:



And that this one should not be:



In spite of the fact that they are functionally identical. They shoot the same cartridge at the same rate of fire using the same magazines.

While I disagree with banning semiautomatics, I can at least see the reasoning behind it...but banning firearms based on how they look makes no sense whatsoever.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Reply #170)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 11:05 AM

177. You do not see the testosterone dripping from the top picture?

 

Normal people can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #177)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 11:21 AM

187. Nope. I see the following features:

 

1. A telescoping stock that allow the shooter to adjust the length of pull, making it more comfortable to use.
2. A pistol grip, allowing a more ergonomic hold on the rifle.
3. A plastic stock instead of a wooden one, making the rifle somewhat lighter.
4. Picatinny rails on the stock, allowing the attachment of accessories such as scopes, lasers, and flashlights.

Really, that's the only difference. No testosterone involved, although such features do seem to cause irrational fear in some.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #177)

Thu Mar 21, 2013, 09:01 AM

367. I see lots of testosterone...

...In the 2nd gun.

I see none at all in the first one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Reply #367)

Thu Mar 21, 2013, 09:26 AM

368. Do you really expect anyone to believe that?

 

All most people will see is the immaturity behind that post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Reply #170)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 11:10 AM

181. They aren't "functionally identical"....

The first one holds more rounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #181)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 11:14 AM

183. Incorrect. They both accept identical magazines.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Reply #183)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 11:39 AM

198. Your pictures don't show that....

Besides, it gets tiresome to hear the same argument.

"Oh! They're the SAME!!!"

They're NOT and you know it. It's just a talking point designed to try to muddy the debate so you can count it as a "win".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #198)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 11:51 AM

208. I'll edit the post to make it clearer, if that helps.

 

They're NOT and you know it.

Do they shoot the same cartridge?
Do they have the same rate of fire?
Do they use identical magazines?

One is slightly lighter and more comfortable to shoot, as well as easier to attach an accessory.

So what?


It's just a talking point designed to try to muddy the debate so you can count it as a "win".

One tends to win when the facts are on one's side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Reply #208)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 11:58 AM

215. LOL!!! Because you declared victory does that mean it's over?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #215)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:04 PM

224. Hm... I notice you didn't actually answer my questions or address the points in my last post.

 

Care to try again?

Do they shoot the same cartridge?
Do they have the same rate of fire?
Do they use identical magazines?

One is slightly lighter and more comfortable to shoot, as well as easier to attach an accessory.

So what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Reply #224)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:07 PM

228. If they're so much the same, why get into a lather over the loss of one of them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #228)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:24 PM

244. You *still* haven't answered the questions. Let's try again, shall we?

 

Do they shoot the same cartridge?
Do they have the same rate of fire?
Do they use identical magazines?

One is slightly lighter and more comfortable to shoot, as well as easier to attach an accessory.

So what?

If they're so much the same, why get into a lather over the loss of one of them?

Because it's pointless feel-good legislation that will accomplish nothing but the inconvenience of gun owners. It would prevent citizens from acquiring firearms with modern features.

Can hunting, self-defense, and target shooting be accomplished with guns that feature none of the innovations of the last 50 years? Sure, although not quite as well...but what would be the point?

Why not allow rifles that are slightly lighter and more comfortable to shoot, as well as easier to attach an accessory?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Reply #244)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:37 PM

255. I have a question for you...

Who do you think WANTS this country to become a war zone?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #255)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:03 PM

273. Why are you trying so hard to avoid answering my questions?

 

Could it be that answering them would undermine your argument?

Let's try (yet ) again:

Do they shoot the same cartridge?
Do they have the same rate of fire?
Do they use identical magazines?

One is slightly lighter and more comfortable to shoot, as well as easier to attach an accessory.

So what?

Who do you think WANTS this country to become a war zone?

A few nut-cases on the far left and the far right.

Isn't conversation more interesting when questions posed are answered?

Care to try it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #274)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:29 PM

283. I wasn't part of that sub-thread.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Reply #283)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:40 PM

284. As far as I'm concerned the whole issue is washed down....

When they banned machine guns it became illegal to possess one. There wasn't even a "buyback".

People wanted them off the streets. The government did it.

In this case they are letting people keep them if the sale takes place prior to a "ban".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #284)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 02:09 PM

294. Machine guns aren't banned, it's legal to possess them.

 

The 1934 law in question requires that you purchase a $200 tax stamp, and the 1986 law prohibited future manufacture for civilian use...but if you jump through all the hoops it's perfectly legal to own a pre-1986 machine gun. In fact, there are roughly half a million legally owned machine guns in private hands.

The same restrictions apply to suppressors (silencers), except that unlike machine guns their manufacture for private use is still allowed. I myself have a .22 silencer; I had to pay for the $200 tax stamp and wait about 8 months for the paperwork to go through.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Reply #294)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 03:02 PM

305. How about putting the same restrictions on assault weapons?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #305)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 03:20 PM

309. It's been proposed. There were rumors that the 2013 AWB was going to do just that.

 

It wouldn't be practical, though...right now it takes the ATF 8 months to process the paperwork for a machine gun sale. If they suddenly had to deal with the registry of tens of millions of assault weapons, it would take them decades...at least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Reply #309)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 03:41 PM

315. There aren't "tens of millions" of assault weapons out there....

To top it off, it was recently revealed that overall gun ownership is DOWN.

People don't feel the NEED for them like some people want you to think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #315)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 03:51 PM

318. You're right, there are MANY tens of millions.

In 2012 alone, there were 980k AR15's sold. That's one year, one model. There are hundreds of models currently and proposed to be classified as assault weapons. Hundreds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #318)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 04:03 PM

324. This may shock you but a LOT of those purchases,...

....are from people buying them up HOPING for a ban so they can resell them at a HUGE profit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #324)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 04:07 PM

325. still guns in circulation that could be, at any time

Sold to someone who will use it
Sold to someone who will use it malevolently
Lost
Stolen

Even if the purchaser bought it as a form of 'investment'.

There's 300+ million guns in the US, lots are bolt, lever, revolver... but the vast majority of semi autos are or are proposed to be classified as AW's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #325)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 04:16 PM

327. It's not a hopeless cause to get them off the streets....

The PUBLIC wants it but the politicians are lagging behind.

It's a fringe that are the "Gun Huggers".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #315)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 04:33 PM

331. Almost a million ARs a year are sold.

 

Add in 800,000 Mini-14s, who knows how many M1 Carbines (there were 6.5 million produced), H&Ks, Steyrs, Kel-Tecs, SIGs, and who knows how many millions of AK-47 and AK-74 knockoffs...Americans are currently buying as many AKs from Russia as the Russian military and police combined. Then there's all the .22 LR rifles that mimic the looks of full-size military rifles...they've gotten extremely popular in the last 5 years, and are also classified as "assault weapons".

So is it tens of millions? Sure looks like it.

My point about the ATF stands.










Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Reply #244)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 02:21 PM

297. So they're better but some features are the same

That is what you are saying, so why not argue from the truth, rather than contradict yourself within a few sentences?

"What would be the point" tells it all.
Truth doesn't matter might be a more truthful phrasing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #297)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 02:38 PM

298. The two rifles shown are, in practical terms, identical.

 

One looks scary (well, to some). One does not.
One is slightly lighter than the other.
One is slightly more ergonomic than the other.
One has attachment points for accessories, the other does not.

They both shoot the same cartridge, at the same rate of fire, using the magazines of the same capacity, and can both be reloaded equally quickly. Banning one but not the other is absurd.

There's no contradiction whatsoever.

Really, this isn't that hard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Reply #298)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 02:53 PM

304. But you like one better, I see

Ergonomics, now what would that be for?
Slightly lighter, huh?
And attachment points for accessories. You could expound on the available accessories.
Didn't you forget the pistol grip. Or maybe your example didn't have one? Or, I think I got it that's the ergonomic part.

The claim that are identical, in practical terms is absurd. What in he-- does" in practical terms mean." In this case it seems to mean "in spite of the obvious differences, only because I say so." And even though they're the same, I like one better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #304)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 03:07 PM

307. Actually, I like them both.

 

I collect both modern and vintage firearms, ranging from 140 year old revolvers to brand new AR-15s.

Ergonomics, now what would that be for?

To make the rifle easier to handle and more comfortable to shoot. This is bad...why?

Slightly lighter, huh?

Yes, plastic stocks are somewhat lighter than wooden ones. This is bad...why?

And attachment points for accessories. You could expound on the available accessories.

I did so in an earlier post, but I'm happy to do so again. Typical accessories that are attached to picatanny rails are scopes, sights, lasers, and flashlights. While all of these can be put on the more "old-fashioned" rifle, it's easier to do so with rails. This is bad...why?

Didn't you forget the pistol grip. Or maybe your example didn't have one? Or, I think I got it that's the ergonomic part.

Ergonomics includes the pistol grip, yes.

The claim that are identical, in practical terms is absurd. What in he-- does" in practical terms mean."

It means that they both shoot the same cartridge, at the same rate of fire, using the magazines of the same capacity, and can both be reloaded equally quickly. Why is this so hard to understand?

In this case it seems to mean "in spite of the obvious differences, only because I say so." And even though they're the same, I like one better.

Well, now you know better.

Or maybe not. For some reason I have to keep explaining things that are glaringly obvious...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Reply #307)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 03:50 PM

317. so now you get to redefine identical

I didn't realize you wrote dictionaries. I would agree that the rifles are similar, maybe you could defend very similar but arguing that ergonomics is no intended to make a rifle easier to use does not make it easier to use is more than absurd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #317)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 04:38 PM

333. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

 

I said they were identical in practical terms, they both shoot the same cartridge, at the same rate of fire, using the magazines of the same capacity, and can both be reloaded equally quickly. Why is this so hard to understand?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Reply #333)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 04:54 PM

335. Are you being deliberately deceptive

You have admitted that there are practical differences and continue to claim that there aren't.
You might want to actually look up the definition of practical. It is obvious that two devices with different ergonomics cannot be identical in practical terms. Not within the dictionary. "Of or concerned with the actual doing or use of something."
Do you also need a definition for identical or can you look it up? What about ergonomics?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #181)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 11:21 AM

186. They are identical rifles underneath the furnishings. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #186)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 11:56 AM

212. Uh huh,...like that's an argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #212)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 11:58 AM

214. Same bullet, same rate of fire, same magazine size

one is legal, one would be illegal.

Are you really going to tell me that there is a significant difference in lethality between the two?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #214)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:00 PM

219. Fine, ban both...

Problem solved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #219)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:02 PM

222. Better tell Feinstein before it is too late. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #222)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:04 PM

223. You just can't accept that the two are NOT "the same".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #223)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:07 PM

229. They are just as lethal

The Sandy Hook shooter could have killed all those kids with that "legal" Mini-14. It has the same rate of fire, shoots the same bullet, and use the same size magazine as the AR-15.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #229)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:14 PM

235. That's because the assault weapon is the choice of crazy people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #235)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:18 PM

241. Actually hand guns are the weapon of choice of mass shooters

assault weapons are the last choice - even shotguns were used in more mass shootings than assault weapons.


The Va Tech shooter choose a handgun - he killed 32 people. The most deadly school shooting was done with a pistol.

More shotguns were used in mass shootings than assault weapons



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #241)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:27 PM

246. So we should do nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #246)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:30 PM

251. You could face reality and at least propose laws that solve the problem

as opposed to passing ineffective law "just to do something.".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #251)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:38 PM

257. Yeah, ban handguns too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #235)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 02:40 PM

299. Exactly. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #219)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:47 PM

265. At least that would make sense

as opposed to what Feinstein proposed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SpartanDem (Reply #265)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:54 PM

268. A massive buyback would be cool too....

Did they seize machine guns when they were banned or did they just wait for them to wear out?

BTW: Ever see the movie "Public Enemy"?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #268)

Thu Mar 21, 2013, 12:57 PM

378. Machine guns aren't banned, but they are taxed at purchase.

In 1986 the full-auto registery was closed, so manufacture of new civilian machine guns was stopped.

Not that many people want full-auto guns. Full-auto is a way to turn lots of ammo into noise with no guarantee of hitting anything. They are expensive to shoot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #378)

Thu Mar 21, 2013, 01:05 PM

379. "Not that many people want full-auto guns."

Yer kidding,....right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #186)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 11:57 AM

213. The "cosmetic" argument always looses me.

If your problem with the assault weapons ban just comes down to what you say are merely surface features which don't effect the functionality of the weapon - then where are the proposals from gun-knowledgeable people which do target the functional features of the weapon?

OTOH if your argument relies only on features you characterize as cosmetic, doesn't that take these weapons out of the "tool designed to do a job" category and place them into the "fashion accessory designed for doofus gun-nuts so they can pretend to be Rambo" category? The first is equivalent to a hammer, the second is equivalent to a pair of lavender pumps and a matching handbag.

The difference is, of course, if a manufacturer purposely designed shoes to killed people, they'd be shut down and the products would be destroyed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #213)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 11:59 AM

217. Banning all semiautomatic weapons, rifles and handguns, would be the only workable solution nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #217)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:10 PM

230. OK then. What would your steps be to get there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #168)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 11:38 AM

197. Exactly. None of these dudes would buy one if it was pink.

Maybe we should require all Assault Weapons be pink.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #197)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:01 PM

220. Not my cup of tea, but to each their own, I say.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Reply #220)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:36 PM

254. Not pink enough. And thanks for proving my point. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #254)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:56 PM

270. How about this one?

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Reply #270)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:00 PM

272. Perfect. Except instead of Hello Kitty, each stock should bear the picture of a Newtown victim.

The other side of the stock should say "The user of this weapon is a fucking idiot." You know, kinda like cigarette package warnings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #272)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 03:51 PM

319. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #168)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:23 PM

243. And you think taking away protruding pistol grips will take away this "biggest problem"?

Which, lets face it, ISN'T the biggest problem. You seem to want to have the government wage war on a mentality or a personality type you don't approve of.

The idiots running around in the woods with AR-15s and MREs and dog-eared copies of "The Turner Diaries" are not the problem. There is never going to be a revolution, or a 2nd-Amendment remedy, or a protracted insurgency, or a race war, or whatever they talk about around the campfire.

So let them. They don't actually do anything but talk and prepare, as opposed to the thousands of bodies racked up annually by our War on Drugs and War on Health Coverage, and related supporting industries. And the more money and time they spend on rifles and "training", the less they have to support Republicans and other regressive people.


Man, I wish Congress had gone after Wall Street as hard as they're going after protruding pistol grips.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #1)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 02:16 PM

295. What can you call Reid's move?

Preemptive filibustering?
Or preemptive faux filibustering? (because the R's never have to actually filibuster)

Is a new vocabulary needed?
Didn't someone promise to fix this crap?
How come only the R's are willing to play hardball?
so many questions...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #1)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 06:26 PM

341. I'm sending this to my dear cousin Diego in FLA.

We were discussing this just this morning.

Diego could have produced this cover himself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #1)

Thu Mar 21, 2013, 03:38 PM

386. It's Over

Even John Belushi would agree.

But the media needs a story to cover, and politicians need money to beg for, so the dog and pony show will go on a few more days, until we await the next big mass killing that starts the useless debate anew.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 10:47 PM

2. Oh those precious babies! Tears!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #2)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 04:06 AM

135. Exactly.

That's the first thing I see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #135)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:20 PM

242. What the hell else matters?

What could matter more than a little child's life?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #2)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 08:36 AM

155. Yes, those kids were expendable, no tears needed...

 

Nothing trumps the 2nd Amendment which is the source of all our freedoms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 10:47 PM

3. How do you ask a child to be the last casualty

of our stupidity?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 10:49 PM

4. all so that paranoid cowards can feel secure

DISGUSTING

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 10:50 PM

5. I'll say it. I fucking hate the gun nuts in this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arugula Latte (Reply #5)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:45 AM

63. +1,000 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KT2000 (Reply #63)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 02:25 AM

120. +1001

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arugula Latte (Reply #5)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 11:31 AM

192. I'll say it, too.

and all their stupid rationalizations for wanting to be ready to kill people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arugula Latte (Reply #5)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:12 PM

233. Thank you

So do I.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arugula Latte (Reply #5)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:09 PM

279. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 10:52 PM

6. Effective



They R Us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 10:52 PM

7. The Shame is on us,

It makes me cry for all those sweet babies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #7)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:00 AM

29. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #7)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:40 AM

54. I don't think I have been reminded of the atrocity so abruptly...

I just began to weep out loud. sh....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #7)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:10 PM

281. Not me. I'm no gungeoneer. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 10:54 PM

8. the wants and needs of the NRA trumps the american people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #8)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 10:59 PM

10. Its actually the needs of the gun manufacturers...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jerseyjack (Reply #10)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:45 AM

61. who promote the sick minded,

sociopathic, unthinking, apathetic, complacent, arrogant, ruthless, self aggrandizing, gun addicts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jerseyjack (Reply #10)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 09:07 AM

160. NRA = gun manufacturers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #8)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:41 AM

55. The big bad NRA has only 5 million members. Your problem is not the NRA ...

it's the estimated 80,000,000 to 100,000,000 gun owners in our nation and the voting age members of their families.

Admittedly some of these gun owners see no problem with banning weapons similar to the AR-15. Unfortunately for those who favor strong gun control a high percentage of gun owners believe that if an assault weapons ban passes, the next step is to ban all semi-automatic firearms followed by all handguns. This may or may not be true, which is largely irrelevant as gun control advocates will find it impossible to convince gun owners that they will be satisfied with merely a new assault weapons ban.

Gun owners also wish to see gun violence decrease and have many logical ideas that if passed into legislation would do far more good than any assault weapons ban. It might also help if our nation strongly enforced existing laws. For example, all too often a person with a violent criminal record is caught carrying a gun illegally and gets off with only a light penalty. A year or so later he uses an illegal firearm to murder another person.

I feel it is quite possible to improve our gun laws. The fact that the assault weapons ban is unlikely to pass in this Congress is not the end of the world. If you wish you can always work on passing one in your state.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #55)


Response to spin (Reply #55)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:31 AM

103. they want to be able to protect themselves if they are assaulted or home broken into

You don't need 100 round magazines to do that. You have a right to protect life and property...not to endanger every one else's!

It is for that reason you don't have a right to a dirty bomb! Its really simple if you are not trying to make it complex.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #103)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 11:08 AM

179. I currently live in an urban environment. ...

I don't hunt and I don't target shoot rifles.

Therefore I don't own an AR-15 or similar rifle. For home defense, I feel a revolver and a double barreled 12 gauge coach gun are sufficient.

It is possible that I will move to a move rural area. If I do, I may grow interested in target shooting rifles on my property or hunting feral hog. If so, I may reconsider my selection of firearms and add a "black rifle." If so, a standard magazine will be adequate as the hi-cap magazines such as the 100 rounds versions are unreliable and heavy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #179)

Thu Mar 21, 2013, 09:48 PM

393. Thank you for your reasonable response!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #393)

Thu Mar 21, 2013, 11:37 PM

394. Thank you back! (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #55)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:29 PM

250. You make too many assumptions

I am a non-gun owner living in a gun household. Is that an oxymoron? I will vote, and have written to my Senator, urging passage of more gun control measures if that means taking away "my" guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HockeyMom (Reply #250)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 04:35 PM

332. You personally dislike some firearms but not all women married to gun owners do. ...

Often the shooting sports is a family hobby, so you may have a prime gun owner and voting age members of his family that enjoy shooting.

My ex-wife and I used to target shoot handguns on a weekly basis. She liked a Ruger revolver that I owned more than my other handguns. Once the sights were adjusted for her, it effectively became her handgun although I was technically the owner. She was NOT a supporter of gun control and neither was I although we both were Democrats as we believed in many of the other goals of the Democratic Party. My daughter also used my handguns at the range and also was a pro-gun rights Democrat.

Not all gun owners and members of their families oppose another AWB, but a significant percentage do. Sadly many gun owners refuse to vote for any Democrat as they are one issue voters and they see our party as the gun control party.

I can cast my votes for Obama and Bill Nelson, a Senator from my state, as while they may support another AWB there is little chance that one will pass. Of course, I didn't want to see Mitt Romney or Connie Mack in office as I largely disagree with their views. I am not a one issue voter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #332)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 06:26 PM

340. Well, I am a gun violence survivor

from when I was 6 years old in 1954. I have had to defend my life, without a gun, almost 50 years ago. I have lived through 2 school lock downs in Florida (not in NY) where I had to HIDE in a bathroom with 16 Pre-K kids, almost one year to the day before Sandy Hook. My husband, and I am sure most of the supporting "gun wives", never experienced ANY of this. My husband is a Nam Vet who never fired a gun in combat, or ever in his life saw anyone shot to death.

Come back and talk to me when you have experience ANY of the things I have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HockeyMom (Reply #340)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 07:39 PM

349. I have watched a person die from a gun shot. ...

It's an experience I will never forget.

My mother and my daughter successfully stopped an attack because they had a handgun. The reason I am here to post this might be due to the fact that my mother stopped a man who rushed her while she was walking home by firing two shots over his head. She was fortunate that she had a small S&W LadySmith revolver in her purse as she was a tiny woman who weighed less than 100 pounds.

I have never seen combat or had to use a gun for self defense but I did chase four guys off who were robbing my next door neighbor. When my wife told me they were stealing stuff from my neighbors house, I told her to call the police. I then pulled a "Geronimo" and ran across the street yelling at the top of my voice. Two guys ran one way and two the other.

It wasn't the brightest thing I ever did as I was lucky not to get shot. One of the items they were stealing was my neighbor's guns and one guy tried to chamber a round into a .45 pistol when he heard me coming but had a misfeed. I could have grabbed my handgun on my way out the door but I had enough commonsense to realize that I might be in a lot of trouble if I shot someone merely because he was robbing my neighbor's house.

The cops eventually caught the thieves. Three were juveniles but one was sentenced to a year in prison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #349)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 08:23 PM

350. My husband's guns are all in a combination safe

I do not know how to use those guns, or the combination to that safe. So if a burglar comes into my home when he isn't here, they will just have to kill me. They won't get me to open that safe to steal those guns because I couldn't open it even if I wanted to. I choose to do this. My husband is not happy about any of this, but this is how I choose to live my own life as a "gun grabber" living in one those "gun households".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HockeyMom (Reply #350)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 10:27 PM

358. That is and should your decision to make.

If you choose you can harden your home to make it far more difficult for an intruder to enter which may give the police time to arrive after you call them from your cell phone.

You might also consider having some pepper spray available although in a confined space it may incapacitate you as well as your attacker. Foaming pepper spray might be a good choice as it doesn't spray a large mist.

If I was a bad guy I wouldn't want to mess with a feisty woman with a child's baseball bat or a police baton.

And of course you could do nothing and simply take your chances. Violent crime in the United States has returned to levels last seen in the late 1060s according to DOJ and FBI stats.

I should mention that you should only consider a firearm for self defense if you have mastered how to use one and are willing to shoot another person knowing that you may kill or seriously injure them. Pointing a firearm at someone in hopes of scaring him off might work but he may realize that you are unfamiliar with the weapon and unwilling to use it. If he does, he will likely simply take it away from you and possibly use it against you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #358)

Thu Mar 21, 2013, 05:06 PM

388. I will take my chances with whatever is around me,

and have done that with a steam iron, and a metal window fan. I am very "creative" with "quick reflexes" as the NYPD have told me, twice.

While this worked in NY where it is very difficult to get a gun, maybe not so much living in Florida where anybody can get a gun. Well, I am OLD. Gonna die from SOMETHING, sooner rather than later. Whatever. I will not live the rest of my life in fear from some "boogie man with a gun".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HockeyMom (Reply #388)

Thu Mar 21, 2013, 05:20 PM

389. I hope you never have to face an intruder in your home or are attacked on the street ...

but if it does happen, I feel you will prevail and survive despite the fact that you are not armed with a firearm.

You sound like a self reliant individual to me who would fight like a cornered cat. A stray cat that used to wander by my house once faced the neighbor's Rottweiler and won.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 10:58 PM

9. Our national politics, always getting in the way

Backwards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 11:00 PM

11. I have never seen all their faces - hope the cover has impact

sad and sick
shame on U.S.(us)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 11:04 PM

13. But on the upside think of the thousands of guns sold fearing a gun grab.

I said early on that they better act fast, and the bans should have teeth or else the gun makers will make a ton off the fear and the 5th Annual Obama Gun Grabber Sale.

Now in many parts of the country you can't find a gun because the shops are sold out and on back order. How many more guns will be used that were hastily snatched up because They were coming for the guns?

Like it or not, the talk of gun control sold a shit ton of guns and ammo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightWatcher (Reply #13)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:07 AM

84. what does this tell us?

maybe manufacturers do not keep large stocks
maybe 5-6 guys bought all the good guns at your store (can't find a gun? zat so?)
more surely it tells us that armory builders are not rational
and are the very people who need their guns taken

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 11:07 PM

14. The NRA is "Too Big To Topple."

So says our bought-off hacks in DC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 11:10 PM

15. I'm sorry, but using those kids as stage props for an agenda...

it's just sickening.

Slam me all you want, it's as effin bad as the years-long tying of everything to 9*11.

It ain't right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skip Intro (Reply #15)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 11:20 PM

17. Wow. Can't stand the sight of smiling children.

That's sensitive.

Me, I think they should have published the autopsy photos with the multiple wounds making identification difficult.

But I'm the insensitive type.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #17)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 11:37 PM

20. It's the last hurrah for a sick ploy that failed.

I am glad to see it go.

They are innocent victims of a senseless tragedy, not political marketing material.

To use them to push a political agenda, to try to measure and manipulate outrage and turn it into support using these innocent victims as tools - it's sick and disrespectful and I am shocked so many are ok with it.

It's wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skip Intro (Reply #20)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 11:45 PM

22. Got no problem with it.

Just as I had no problem seeing the dead soldiers killed in ONE WEEK of fighting in Viet Nam.

http://life.time.com/history/faces-of-the-american-dead-in-vietnam-one-weeks-toll/

But keep pushing that feeble talking point. What you don't like is that it works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #22)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 11:56 PM

25. Why do you call my views a talking point?

What do you mean by that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skip Intro (Reply #25)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:06 AM

31. when it comes to guns

Many DUers leave their thinking cap at home. Any opposition to any proposed gun control law is seen as an "NRA talking point" irregardless of what is actually said. It's kind of funny because many times they will attack you using talking points such as "we don't want weapons of war on american streets" or "there is no magazine limit on hunting humans".

We should discuss gun control in this country, but people have to realize that just because something has a flashy name, doesn't mean its worth supporting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #31)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:01 AM

77. Flashy name?

Really? Leave their thinking cap at home? Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HangOnKids (Reply #77)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:04 AM

80. yes, really

you don't need an assault weapon to be able to commit mass murder. just look at Cho in the VT massacre. He used a 9mm pistol.

If Lanza was armed only with a 9mm pistol do you really think the body count would significantly change in light of what happened at VT?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #80)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:05 AM

82. Blah blah blah

More blah. Thanks for playing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HangOnKids (Reply #82)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:07 AM

83. so sticking your fingers in your ears?

can't handle a bit of logic? You prove my point

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #83)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:08 AM

86. Please logic?

Your point? PLAAAHHHBWAAHHHAWWAAAA. REALLY?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HangOnKids (Reply #86)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:11 AM

88. my point is an AWB would do nothing

why waste the time? If you proposed a total gun ban that would atleast be logical. How can you say that banning AWBs will prevent another Newton when you don't need an Assault weapon to commit newton? Answer me that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #88)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:13 AM

89. Did I Mention An AWB Ban?

Why are you putting words in my mouth?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HangOnKids (Reply #89)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:23 AM

95. my apologies, you didn't

But my comment is in reference to the AWB.

There is gun control out there that makes sense. The AWB just isnt it for obvious reasons but it is still treated as "holy gun control scripture" around DU. There are better things out there

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #31)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 06:59 AM

144. Great post. The gun control argument is incredibly emotional and irrational for many

Putting a scope and extended grip on a musket doesn't make it any more dangerous, but it does make it an assault rifle, and it would be banned. I don't think this issue is completely dead. There will be a bill titled something like "Compassion for Children Act" or "Anti-murder act" where people will try to use emotion to dictate the conversation.

We need gun control that works, not some silly assault rifle ban that does absolutely nothing to fix the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skip Intro (Reply #25)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 02:28 AM

121. No idea, but I thank you for your concern.

It's important that we never look on the pre-multiple bullet wound faces of these NRA-threatening children again. Out of respect. For the gun manufacturers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skip Intro (Reply #20)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:25 AM

46. Like That Sick And Shameless Ploy Civil Rights Workers Pulled At The Edmund Pettis Bridge In 1965

Sick, disrespectful, and wrong. Playing on peoples emothions...

Do you even hear yourself ???














Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #46)


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #85)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:09 AM

87. do you support "stop and frisk" policies?

I'm just curious

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #87)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:23 AM

94. That's nice. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #94)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:23 AM

96. so you are saying you support such policies?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #96)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:26 AM

100. That's nice. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #94)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 02:19 PM

296. I can't believe your above post was hidden.

There are so many gungeoneers on DU now that they are now the majority on juries, and get to block unfavorable statements about themselves.

They get on by posting one non RKBA post--if that--then they launch into the threads that mention anything involving gun control, like this thread, which they have swarmed like pirhana. It took forever for the thread to even open. And it's all NRA talking points, following by the paternalistic, condescending, "you don't know what you're talking about," "it's emotion talking" crap. And none of THAT gets hidden.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skip Intro (Reply #20)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 08:16 AM

150. Seems to me, both Adam Lanza and now you are using them as props...

The 'political agenda' you decry is an attempt to prevent more children from being likewise used. Sick and disrespectful is using them as tools to try to scuttle anything to prevent it from happening again.

I have yet to see a gun cultist admit that they own the Adam Lanzas of the world. He was on your side, you own him. You do not get to dismiss him, every past and future mass murderer is part of your team. You are working to support them. You are probably thinking how you are different and that you are always safe with guns. Truth is, I probably agree with you and wouldn't mind you living next door, or next to the Elementary school 6 blocks from here. But that doesn't really matter as you are supporting people who are not safe with guns. The reason there needs to be regulations is that the industry has proven incapable of regulating itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skip Intro (Reply #15)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 11:27 PM

18. It's sickening to allow them to be murdered, and do nothing.

It's sickening to allow a RW terrorist organization like the NRA to dictate our national gun control policy.

It's sickening & twisted that there's anyone left alive in America that is so ignorant, stupid, or soulless to value the lives of our children less than the contemptible machine that kills them.

And gun violence is very, very different from 9/11. We can do something about gun violence. But - because of people like you - we don't. THAT'S what ain't right

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #18)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 11:44 PM

21. +1000% nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #18)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 11:55 PM

24. You make a lot of assumptions. I think mine are more realistic:


The NRA only wields as much power over lawmakers as the lawmakers allow. DF's AWB didn't get squashed because of the NRA, it got squashed because politicians want to get re-elected and they know the voters don't want this. It isn't the NRA, it's the people they have to face during re-election that got this scuttled.

I don't know of anyone who values children's lives less than a murderer's life.

I'll direct you to post 20 if you still don't understand what I'm saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skip Intro (Reply #24)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:24 AM

44. I know what you're saying: "Out of sight, out of mind."

You and the RW pro-criminal NRA hopes that if the politicians believe if the public can't remember the tragic victims, then there's no reason to pass the assault weapons ban. Unfortunately Harry Reid has succumbed to the RW bullshit, Diane Feinstein hasn't.

But the public DOES remember. And the public overwhelmingly supports having it reinstated - even in gun-happy places like Texas. Polls show this time & time again. And the public will certainly remember who put the guns over the lives of our children come next election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #18)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:18 AM

39. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skip Intro (Reply #15)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:01 AM

30. 9/11 wasn't related to most it was used for (war in iraq for instance)

guns did kill those kids and other kids and more kids in the future.

when there is truth in advertisement, it may not be pleasant but it is right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #30)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:10 AM

34. Do you feel the same way about anti-abortion wackos...

...who wave around pictures of dead fetuses in everyone's face?

Do you think such crass appeals to emotion are effective or right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #34)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:15 AM

37. the abortions they do show (the partial births or DNX) are also a form of false advertising.

if they had shown all these kids shot and bloody, i would have said they'd gone too far, but as it currently stands, i support this

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #37)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:02 AM

79. Oh okay.

I thought you were wanting them to show the full crime scene photos like some of the others upthread.

That just seems disturbing to me, to say the least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #79)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:27 AM

101. nope, what they have now is powerful enough. blood and gore makes us feel disgust

hence they are generally not particularly efficient advertising tools

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #101)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:32 AM

104. I agree.

And it really does tug at my heart looking at all those innocent little faces in the photos.

I wish the solution were really as simple as passing a couple gun control laws and preventing all future violence.

But when someone is as deranged as these spree-killers all were, they will always find a way to inflict mass harm, no matter what road-blocks the rest of us try to put in place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #104)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:33 AM

105. that's no reason to not have any roadblocks at all.

crime will always happen but we need police and laws and so and so forth. just because senseless killings will always happen, doesn't mean we should make them easy to happen

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #104)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:42 AM

110. oh you mean like that guy in China who stabbed and killed all those kids right?

Only he didn't....

But you know....whatever makes a good narrative work for you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #79)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:39 AM

109. Funny though

the mother of one of those babies got his face shot off....and you know what...his OWN MOTHER had an open casket so the Governor could see what our ridiculous lack of gun control caused.

Are you condemning her for the same reason?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #109)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:42 AM

111. A mother's got to do what a mother's got to do.

I just don't like the idea of dead children being bandied about for political purposes, especially by folks who weren't even there.

I mean, it might be one thing if ALL the parents agreed to it, but I can't imagine most of them really want the whole world to see their kids in such a state. Would you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #111)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:46 AM

114. As a matter of fact....yeah they do!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #111)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:49 AM

115. You probably wouldn't have liked the image of that screaming

naked pubescent child running from the carnage in Viet Nam either...

But this iconic image....changed everything

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #115)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 08:30 PM

351. I think this photo was much more effective at changing minds:



But point taken.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #351)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 11:02 PM

359. the point was a child....

as horrific as that image is...I don't KNOW that is a child being executed....I do know that child in the image I provided was a catalyst for political change...as the pictures of the sweet but now dead children in the image this thread was about SHOULD be the catalyst for change. One young girl changed the minds of many. I saw that image of that young girl (the same age as I was at the time) on the TV news that night....and I never ever forgot it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skip Intro (Reply #15)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 03:50 AM

132. We have a different interpretation.

I'm seeing the gun lobby using them as canon fodder so all the ignorant little dickless jerk-offs out there can keep their precious and the MIC can continue to fund both sides of any war on the planet. It ain't right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skip Intro (Reply #15)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 08:00 AM

147. Shame on you. You and your NRA pals have blood on your hands and are the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skip Intro (Reply #15)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 08:29 AM

152. You think that's sickening? Maybe it's because you're looking at the "before" photos.

Try looking at the crime scene photos if you want to see sickening. Some of those kids were dismembered by the shooter and his Bushmaster. They weren't "stage props" then. They were the victims of a horrendous crime. Quite frankly I think everyone should be forced to look at what happened to each and every one of these kids. I think the crime scene photos should be published for all to see so they can judge for themselves what's sickening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 11:16 PM

16. HUGE K & R !!!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink