HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Expired Assault Weapons B...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 04:21 PM

Expired Assault Weapons Ban Would Have Covered Rifle Used In Colorado Shooting

Expired Assault Weapons Ban Would Have Covered Rifle Used In Colorado Shooting

By Zack Beauchamp

One of the principal weapons used by James Eagan Holmes in the horrific Dark Knight Rises shooting would have been subject to a series of sharp restrictions under the now-expired federal Assault Weapons ban. The AR-15 rife carried by Holmes, a civilian semi-automatic version of the military M-16, would have been defined as a “semiautomatic assault weapon” under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. If the law was still in force, semiautomatic assault weapons would have been outright banned:

<...>

UPDATE
Holmes’ guns, including his AR-15, were all legally purchased since May from two national chains, Bass Pro Shops and Gander Mountain Guns.

UPDATE
Purportedly, the AR-15 used by Holmes had a high-capacity clip, which were banned as “large capacity ammunition feeding devices” in the 1994 legislation.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/07/20/557811/expired-assault-weapons-ban-would-have-covered-rifle-used-in-colorado-shooting/



216 replies, 33632 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 216 replies Author Time Post
Reply Expired Assault Weapons Ban Would Have Covered Rifle Used In Colorado Shooting (Original post)
ProSense Jul 2012 OP
PoliticAverse Jul 2012 #1
ProSense Jul 2012 #2
belcffub Jul 2012 #4
ProSense Jul 2012 #11
AtheistCrusader Jul 2012 #201
PoliticAverse Jul 2012 #7
HankyDub Jul 2012 #59
aikoaiko Jul 2012 #108
Hoyt Jul 2012 #138
aikoaiko Jul 2012 #158
sofa king Jul 2012 #117
michreject Jul 2012 #191
Johnny Rico Jul 2012 #193
michreject Jul 2012 #196
Johnny Rico Jul 2012 #197
michreject Jul 2012 #203
Johnny Rico Jul 2012 #207
michreject Jul 2012 #208
naaman fletcher Jul 2012 #194
sofa king Jul 2012 #195
rks306 Jul 2012 #186
Johnny Rico Jul 2012 #187
permatex Jul 2012 #210
bluestateguy Jul 2012 #3
ljm2002 Jul 2012 #35
PavePusher Jul 2012 #56
ljm2002 Jul 2012 #84
DBoon Jul 2012 #161
Trunk Monkey Jul 2012 #202
DBoon Jul 2012 #150
sofa king Jul 2012 #216
TNLib Jul 2012 #164
obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #172
Nostradammit Jul 2012 #185
Tejas Jul 2012 #5
apocalypsehow Jul 2012 #8
Tejas Jul 2012 #14
apocalypsehow Jul 2012 #16
Tejas Jul 2012 #26
apocalypsehow Jul 2012 #30
Tejas Jul 2012 #37
apocalypsehow Jul 2012 #39
Tejas Jul 2012 #50
apocalypsehow Jul 2012 #52
gejohnston Jul 2012 #136
apocalypsehow Jul 2012 #139
AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #44
apocalypsehow Jul 2012 #48
AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #62
apocalypsehow Jul 2012 #65
AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #66
apocalypsehow Jul 2012 #68
AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #78
apocalypsehow Jul 2012 #81
sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #96
Tejas Jul 2012 #209
Edweird Jul 2012 #47
nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #31
Tejas Jul 2012 #87
nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #95
Tejas Jul 2012 #100
nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #103
Trunk Monkey Jul 2012 #206
nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #215
Tejas Jul 2012 #212
apocalypsehow Jul 2012 #127
DBoon Jul 2012 #153
Tejas Jul 2012 #174
HankyDub Jul 2012 #85
Tejas Jul 2012 #89
HankyDub Jul 2012 #90
Tejas Jul 2012 #91
sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #98
rl6214 Jul 2012 #113
Hippo_Tron Jul 2012 #99
Tejas Jul 2012 #102
apocalypsehow Jul 2012 #126
Tejas Jul 2012 #163
Demit Jul 2012 #144
CynicalOtto Jul 2012 #119
brentspeak Jul 2012 #205
Egalitarian Thug Jul 2012 #6
ProSense Jul 2012 #9
Egalitarian Thug Jul 2012 #17
ProSense Jul 2012 #20
Egalitarian Thug Jul 2012 #34
ProSense Jul 2012 #40
Egalitarian Thug Jul 2012 #49
ProSense Jul 2012 #54
Egalitarian Thug Jul 2012 #70
Tejas Jul 2012 #104
rl6214 Jul 2012 #114
Egalitarian Thug Jul 2012 #115
AtheistCrusader Jul 2012 #183
apocalypsehow Jul 2012 #12
Egalitarian Thug Jul 2012 #15
apocalypsehow Jul 2012 #22
Egalitarian Thug Jul 2012 #41
apocalypsehow Jul 2012 #46
Egalitarian Thug Jul 2012 #58
apocalypsehow Jul 2012 #63
Egalitarian Thug Jul 2012 #73
apocalypsehow Jul 2012 #74
Egalitarian Thug Jul 2012 #79
apocalypsehow Jul 2012 #82
Egalitarian Thug Jul 2012 #101
apocalypsehow Jul 2012 #105
Egalitarian Thug Jul 2012 #116
apocalypsehow Jul 2012 #124
johnnytoobad Jul 2012 #181
Tejas Jul 2012 #18
apocalypsehow Jul 2012 #19
Tejas Jul 2012 #28
apocalypsehow Jul 2012 #42
Tejas Jul 2012 #51
apocalypsehow Jul 2012 #57
beevul Jul 2012 #121
apocalypsehow Jul 2012 #131
beevul Jul 2012 #179
Tejas Jul 2012 #55
Tejas Jul 2012 #60
Johnny Rico Jul 2012 #10
AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #13
GarroHorus Jul 2012 #23
AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #29
GarroHorus Jul 2012 #33
AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #38
AtheistCrusader Jul 2012 #75
GarroHorus Jul 2012 #88
Johnny Rico Jul 2012 #25
AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #36
Johnny Rico Jul 2012 #45
AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #53
Johnny Rico Jul 2012 #67
AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #77
Major Hogwash Jul 2012 #21
NickB79 Jul 2012 #64
Kaleva Jul 2012 #204
Spider Jerusalem Jul 2012 #24
RegieRocker Jul 2012 #32
WillowTree Jul 2012 #27
Rex Jul 2012 #43
NickB79 Jul 2012 #61
Ruby the Liberal Jul 2012 #69
AtheistCrusader Jul 2012 #80
obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #159
AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #83
WilliamDawes Jul 2012 #71
ileus Jul 2012 #72
AtheistCrusader Jul 2012 #76
Daemonaquila Jul 2012 #86
sendero Jul 2012 #92
ProSense Jul 2012 #93
sendero Jul 2012 #94
ProSense Jul 2012 #97
clint55 Jul 2012 #106
arcane1 Jul 2012 #107
indepat Jul 2012 #109
Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #110
krispos42 Jul 2012 #111
rl6214 Jul 2012 #112
CynicalOtto Jul 2012 #118
freshwest Jul 2012 #120
DBoon Jul 2012 #155
freshwest Jul 2012 #169
JonLP24 Jul 2012 #122
AtheistCrusader Jul 2012 #182
DallasNE Jul 2012 #123
slackmaster Jul 2012 #125
Logical Jul 2012 #128
slackmaster Jul 2012 #130
apocalypsehow Jul 2012 #134
slackmaster Jul 2012 #142
Logical Jul 2012 #137
DallasNE Jul 2012 #133
slackmaster Jul 2012 #140
DallasNE Jul 2012 #152
slackmaster Jul 2012 #156
permatex Jul 2012 #162
Johnny Rico Jul 2012 #165
permatex Jul 2012 #168
obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #167
Johnny Rico Jul 2012 #176
Logical Jul 2012 #141
DallasNE Jul 2012 #154
gejohnston Jul 2012 #143
permatex Jul 2012 #145
DallasNE Jul 2012 #160
permatex Jul 2012 #166
obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #171
atreides1 Jul 2012 #148
permatex Jul 2012 #151
obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #170
permatex Jul 2012 #173
obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #178
JeepJK556 Jul 2012 #129
GarroHorus Jul 2012 #135
doc03 Jul 2012 #132
Tejas Jul 2012 #147
doc03 Jul 2012 #149
Tejas Jul 2012 #157
elbloggoZY27 Jul 2012 #146
obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #175
permatex Jul 2012 #177
chapel hill dem Jul 2012 #180
AtheistCrusader Jul 2012 #184
rudycantfail Jul 2012 #188
Johnny Rico Jul 2012 #189
rudycantfail Jul 2012 #190
Johnny Rico Jul 2012 #192
rudycantfail Jul 2012 #198
Johnny Rico Jul 2012 #199
rudycantfail Jul 2012 #213
Johnny Rico Jul 2012 #214
AtheistCrusader Jul 2012 #200
Kaleva Jul 2012 #211

Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 04:30 PM

1. high-capacity 'clips' (magazines) were not 'banned', you could always buy them...

and the 'sharp restrictions' on AR-15s were basically cosmetic.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #1)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 04:35 PM

2. From the

"high-capacity 'clips' (magazines) were not 'banned', you could always buy them..."

...link:

The act separately defined and banned "large capacity ammunition feeding devices", which generally applied to magazines or other ammunition feeding devices with capacities of greater than an arbitrary number of rounds and which up to the time of the act had been considered normal or factory magazines. These ammunition feeding devices were referred to in the media and popular culture as "high capacity magazines or feeding devices". Depending on the locality and type of firearm, the cutoff between a "normal" capacity and "high" capacity magazine was 3, 7, 10, 12, 15, or 20 rounds. The now defunct federal ban set the limit at 10 rounds.


Are you saying they were sold illegally?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #2)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 04:41 PM

4. they weren't sold illegally

selling magazines made before the ban was legal... there are millions and millions of pre-1994 magazines still out there... Living in NY I still use them... there is no shortage and never has been...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to belcffub (Reply #4)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 04:51 PM

11. Thanks for pointing that out. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #11)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 07:05 PM

201. In fact, that wasn't even the extent of the truth.

It banned the MANUFACTURE of new magazines under certain criteria. The warehouses full of new ones minted before this legislation took effect were still sold brand new, right through the sunset of the legislation.

10 years in, you could still buy brand new high-cap mags. It just cost more, because they had adopted a 'collectors item' quality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #2)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 04:49 PM

7. It was perfectly legal to sell high-capacity magazines that were manufactured before the 'ban'...

but the law did not ban the possession or sale of pre-existing "assault weapons" or previously factory standard magazines which had been legally redefined as "large capacity ammunition feeding devices". This provision for "pre-ban" firearms created a higher price point in the market for such items, which still exist due to several states adoption of their own assault weapons ban.

Manufacturers increased production/inventory of high-capacity magazines right before the ban took effect so they had plenty to sell
after the manufacturing/import ban date (the price went up a bit post-ban)


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #7)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:45 PM

59. and that is a key point

 

and a key failure of the AWB. Manufacturers deliberately used this oversight in the law to flood the market.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #7)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 08:14 PM

108. Rachel Madow made the same mistakes when reporting on the AWB...

....after a different mass shooting.

AR15s could still be purchased without bayonet lugs and with flash suppresses during the AWB. I bought 2 during the so-called ban.

I also bought so dozens of so-called hi- cap mags for it that were manufactured before the AWB.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #108)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:08 PM

138. Yep, gun manufacturers and those coveting such guns took advantage of the "loopholes". Sounds like

the same thing greedy corporatists, banks, Romney, etc., do to get around the spirit of the law. Then they run around calling themselves "law-abiding" when they are just immoral when you get right down to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #138)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:40 PM

158. It was a stupid law and manufacturers complied with the stupidity.


Even President Obama has distanced himself from the AWB having campaigned on supporting it re-authorization.

Its too bad fellow DUers can't follow his lead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #1)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 10:47 PM

117. It's also worth pointing out that the AR-15 was never banned.

Only the AR-15s with the features that made it "scary looking" were banned. Plain-Jane AR-15s were never illegal to sell under any federal or state laws.

My only point in saying this is that those of you who think you can do something about it had better remember that you're taking facts to a gunfight. If your facts misfire, you're helping the other side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sofa king (Reply #117)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 06:56 AM

191. The legal/illegal versions

This one was legal under the 94 AWB.



This one was illegal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michreject (Reply #191)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 10:01 AM

193. Thus illustrating just how idiotic the AWB really was.

 

It would be more accurate to call it "The Law Against Cosmetic Features".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Johnny Rico (Reply #193)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 06:36 PM

196. The mag on the illegal one would be illegal

Mag-Pul never made a pre ban mag.

I have about 40 of those things. They're great mags.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michreject (Reply #196)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 06:44 PM

197. Do they make them in 6.8 SPC?

 

That's the only caliber I have for my AR.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Johnny Rico (Reply #197)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 07:07 PM

203. No

I couldn't find one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michreject (Reply #203)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 07:17 PM

207. Aw.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Johnny Rico (Reply #207)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 07:21 PM

208. Good reason to buy one in 5.56

Never know when you'll find a bunch of unclaimed ammo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sofa king (Reply #117)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 10:02 AM

194. Right. This entire original post is simply incorrect. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naaman fletcher (Reply #194)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 10:53 AM

195. The headline, at least, is simply incorrect.

The AWB would have covered components of the rifle, not the rifle itself as implied by the article headline and not very clearly spelled out in the article, either. If I can point that out in two sentences, you know gungeoneers will, too.

As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the one component that clearly facilitated the shooter was the high-capacity magazine, untold numbers of which were grandfathered into the AWB law and comparatively easy to get even when it was in effect.

Other components covered under the AWB might actually have inhibited the shooter's ability to kill. A collapsible stock would have made the gun less accurate and he may have sent more bullets out of the killing zone. Using a bayonet would have kept the weapon focused on only one person for a few seconds, instead of on hundreds, and might have given someone the chance to jump him. And so on, the point being that the AWB would have scarcely inhibited this shooter's ability to kill with virtually the same gun.

Like I said, go around spitting the disinformation (in the headline, if we must split hairs) and you will be instantly discredited by the people who know better.

And again, for the people in the back, I am not arguing in favor of guns, dammit! I am pointing out that if you take this bullshit article to a gun control debate, you are going to lose and reverse the progress of your cause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 02:55 AM

186. new

If they were not covered they should be. People don't need assault weapons or multi-clips. They are used to kill people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rks306 (Reply #186)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 04:37 AM

187. What in the world is a "multi-clip"?

 

Just curious...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Johnny Rico (Reply #187)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 07:23 PM

210. It's the new gun control buzz word.

 

you know, like barrel shroud, heat seeking bullets, shoulder thing that goes up, high capacity clips.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 04:38 PM

3. If you want to assume that a mass killer would have respected the gun laws, then perhaps

so there you have it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestateguy (Reply #3)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:21 PM

35. Without getting into the specifics of gun control legislation...

...I'll just say this: the logical extension of your position is: "Let's not bother with laws at all, since criminals aren't going to obey them anyway".

You do see that, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ljm2002 (Reply #35)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:42 PM

56. Not at all. Most people simply don't understand the purpose of laws.

 

The purpose of laws is not to inherently prevent anyone from doing something. No ink on paper can do that.

The purpose of laws is to deliniate things we consider harmful, and lay out a range of punishments for people who are caught performing those acts anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #56)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 06:25 PM

84. Again, I was not discussing gun control laws per se...

...only pointing out that logically, if one is making the argument. that "Well, criminals won't obey the law anyway" -- then by that token, it is futile to make any laws at all. Note: that is the argument being made by the poster I responded to

Now addressing your point: one could certainly argue that assault weapons (however they are defined -- I am not an expert in this area, but bear with me) are harmful; therefore, they should be outlawed outside of military uses; therefore, it is appropriate to make laws concerning them and lay out appropriate punishments for those who violate said laws.

BTW, I never made the argument that any law can inherently prevent someone from doing something. So I'm not seeing where your disagreement is with what I said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #56)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:41 PM

161. the *effect* of laws is to reduce access to the items made illegal

You opinion of the *purpose* of laws is just that - your opinion

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DBoon (Reply #161)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 07:06 PM

202. the *effect* of laws is to reduce access to the items made illegal

 

How's that reduced access to marijuana working out for you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestateguy (Reply #3)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:32 PM

150. Illegal items are more difficult to procure and more expensive

and often have quality issues.

Individuals attempting to buy illegal items are also often caught by police sting operations.

Would a socially isolated individual such as this alleged killer have been able to feasibly obtain these items if they were illegal?

Any crime deterrent can be bypassed by a sufficiently intelligent criminal with enough time and resources.

This does not make the deterrent valueless.

The purpose of a legal prohibition is to reduce the harm resulting from the widespread availability of the item - not to eliminate the risk entirely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DBoon (Reply #150)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 01:46 AM

216. Want to buy a Rolex?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestateguy (Reply #3)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:46 PM

164. Just because someone is a mass killer doesn't mean we should allow them to legally buy weapons

As a society we should at least try to make it a little difficult for whacko menatlly ill nutbags to purchase Assault Riffles and 6000 rounds of Ammo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TNLib (Reply #164)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:59 PM

172. There was and is no proof he is mentally ill

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #172)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:42 AM

185. Yes there is.

He walked into a crowded movie theater and began murdering complete strangers.

FFS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 04:45 PM

5. YAY, let's promote Republican ideals!

 

Jim and Sarah Brady, former Reagan staff would love for private firearm sales to be registered nationwide, NO EXCEPTIONS.

If you would like to assist these Republicans, feel free to contact www.bradycampaign.org (formerly HANDGUN CONTROL) or the Violence Policy Center at www.vpc.org

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tejas (Reply #5)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 04:49 PM

8. Simply false. The AWB was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law

by a Democratic president, Bill Clinton. It was hardly an "Republican ideal," and the fact that Jim and Sarah Brady were Republicans who supported it has zero bearing on the fact that the Assault Weapon Ban was actually a progressive "ideal," and a pretty good law to boot.

It was a GOP controlled Congress that allowed the law to expire, and you well know it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #8)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 04:59 PM

14. Oh, in that case, YAY, let's lose everything this November!

 

My bad, I'll get out of the way and let the hard headed fucks have their gun ban (nose/face/etc).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tejas (Reply #14)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:02 PM

16. Your concession that you posted false information in the reply above is noted,

and accepted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #16)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:12 PM

26. That an AWB is a Republican ideal is not false, I posted links to their website.

 

Is your computer working properly?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tejas (Reply #26)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:16 PM

30. It is false: the AWB was a progressive ideal, passed by a Democratic Congress

and signed into law by a Democratic President, Bill Clinton. The fact that a couple of people who happened to be Republicans were the public mouthpieces for one organization among the dozens of organizations that supported the Assault Weapons Ban no more makes it an "Republican ideal" than the fact that Condeleeza Rice is pro-choice makes a belief in a woman's reproductive freedom a "Republican ideal."

But your retraction of your concession, and reversion to peddling the original falsehood that was called out by me, is noted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #30)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:23 PM

37. I'm speaking of the current call for an AWB.

 

The OP is mis-guided wishful thinking, I disagree with the premise that we need another AWB as do others in this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tejas (Reply #37)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:25 PM

39. No, you weren't, but even if you had been that assertion is false, also.

Those calling for the renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban are almost exclusively progressive members of Congress and liberal activist groups, not Republicans. But nice try - again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #39)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:36 PM

50. "renewal" - thank you for admitting this is current affairs.

 

Drop by the Gungeon and see how long it takes to band together antis that would love to see another AWB. Might take you all of 5 minutes to assemble a small army of haters of the RKBA.

"liberal activist groups" - I'm not sure who you might be speaking of here, maybe a subset of Brady or ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tejas (Reply #50)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:40 PM

52. As no one ever denied it, your reply is once again non-responsive & irrelevant.

Here's what is relevant:

The Assault Weapons Ban was proposed by liberal Democrats in Congress; passed by a Democratic Congress; signed into law by one of the most progressive Democratic presidents in American history; and the current efforts to renew it are led by progressive members of Congress and liberal activist groups.

Your efforts to pretend that the AWB was some kind of "Republican ideal" was called out as the falsehood it was and is, and now you're just changing the subject, arguing about irrelevancies you bring up for the sake of arguing; trying desperately to get that precious "last word."

Laughable stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #52)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:05 PM

136. so why did Republicans vote for it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #136)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:10 PM

139. Once again: the AWB was passed by a Democratic Congress, and signed into law

by a Democratic president, Bill Clinton.

The fact that some members of the Republican minority voted for it is beside the point, and is nothing more than an attempt to pretend that the AWB was an "Republican ideal."

You do know how the process works in Congress, right? That the MAJORITY party in both houses determines what comes up for a vote, and the side with the most votes in both houses gets to pass a law. You do get that, right? Well, we'll get real basic for you: at the time the AWB was passed, the Democrats had firm majorities in BOTH houses of Congress, and a Democratic president was in office.

Next I'll have to break out the crayons, and draw pretty pictures for our "pro-gun progressives."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #30)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:29 PM

44. It was a "progressive ideal." Because it was signed by Clinton? It was a progressive as NAFTA.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #44)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:34 PM

48. Proposed by liberal Democrats in Congress; passed by a Democratic Congress; signed

into law by one of the most progressive Democratic presidents in American history.

Sorry you don't seem to like progressives or liberals much, or the laws they pass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #48)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:50 PM

62. If you want to feel sorry, you can feel sorry for not being able to distinguish liberals and

 

progressives from Clinton.

You think that the guy who signed that law and who signed NAFTA to begin the process of transferring American jobs to foreign countries was as much as a liberal or progressive as Carter, LBJ, JFK, Truman, or FDR?

Even Clinton's wife was behind a deal to transfer American jobs to India.

If the transfer-of-American-jobs-to-foreign-countries Bill Clinton is your ideal as to what a liberal or progressive is, you must be very young. If this is the best that you will ever get, then I feel sorry for you and your future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #62)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:52 PM

65. Like I said above, sorry you don't seem to like progressives or liberals much,

or the laws they pass.

By the way: this is Democratic Underground, in case you got confused on the way here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #65)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:55 PM

66. Do you have a comprehension problem? You are repeating yourself, unnecessarily so.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #66)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:57 PM

68. Ahhh, now the "comprehension" card emerges, in lieu of saying anything on point.

Fun stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #68)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 06:15 PM

78. My words mean exactly what they said. They were exactly on point. If you don't understand,

 

then you should re-read them.

And do that more than once if you still don't understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #78)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 06:22 PM

81. They were not on point and, hence, there is no need to "re-read" them.

Get back with me when you actually got something; thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tejas (Reply #26)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 07:06 PM

96. The NRA supports an AWB?

That's good news, I never heard that until now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #96)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 07:22 PM

209. Who told you that? I hope they don't really think you're that stupid.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #8)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:32 PM

47. The 'Individual Mandate' is RW policy passed by'dems'. It happens. DLC=GOP

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tejas (Reply #5)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:17 PM

31. Well let's finish the thought here

shall we. It could have nothing at all with the fact that he was shot in the head.

Remind me, exactly, who is the ally of the NRA? Last time I checked it wasn't the DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

For the record, having seen the effects of firearms, first hand... we do need some RATIONAL controls. Problem is that you have been convinced of the NRA talking point that controls equal confiscation.

So having background checks at gun shows and making sure that people who should not have them is gun confiscation?

For a second there, this looks like NRA central.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #31)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 06:38 PM

87. Let's also get a clue, you ever heard of Harry Reid?

 

Yeah, THAT Harry Reid. Did you know the NRA backs him and other Dem candidates? Stop drinking the koolaid and come by the Gungeon for some facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tejas (Reply #87)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 07:05 PM

95. Yup, and your point

We have a few conservadems too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #95)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 07:18 PM

100. My point is to give you a clue that all Dems do not look at NRA as the plague.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tejas (Reply #100)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 07:22 PM

103. We know that, and again your point?

By the way, once again, let me ask you... perhaps the POV of the Brady's has a tad to do with a slug in his head? Perhaps that's the reason? BEFORE he was shot his POV was a tad different.

Something to chew on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #103)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 07:16 PM

206. So, the Bradyes support the AWB

 

Because Jim Brady was shot in the head by a .22 caliber revolver?

Is that your contention?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #206)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 01:20 AM

215. Actually that is his contention

and you got it wrong. They want some kind of limits... that are rational. You have a problem too with a 100% background check? I mean it could not be what the founders wanted, since they wrote the second amendment and limited who could own firearms.

And yes, that is HIS contention... but hey, if you want to say that is mine, go for it. I ain't gonna stop you.

Just gonna do this.

:eye:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #103)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 07:25 PM

212. The $1,000,000 free money they get MIGHT be a clue?

 

Joyce Foundation gives Brady Campaign free money, that's the incentive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tejas (Reply #100)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 11:57 AM

127. The NRA *overwhelmingly* contributes money and resources to defeat Democrats

in general and progressive Democrats in particular.

And yet here you are, confessing you're a fan of such an organization. Pretty much says it all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #127)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:35 PM

153. Some Democrats have actually rated very high on the NRA's scale

I never saw the NRA provide support for Howard Dean despite his rating.

The NRA is an extreme right-wing front masquerading as an organization of hunters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #127)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 01:02 PM

174. Yes, and water is wet (you DO know who Harry Reid is don't you???)

 

My point concerned Harry Reid, yours is moot. Your point about "overwhelmingly* is overwhelmingly useless here, obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with the NRA supporting Harry Reid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tejas (Reply #5)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 06:29 PM

85. Remind me who runs the NRA again?

 

Fail!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HankyDub (Reply #85)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 06:40 PM

89. Remind me of why I should care?

 

Fail? Because i don't give a rats ass about the OHMYFGBBQ BIGBADSCARY NRA?
Well I guess that's just my loss then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tejas (Reply #89)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 06:47 PM

90. Because when you're pushing bullshit

 

about gun control being a republiklan ideal by pointing out that James Brady was a republiklan, then it's also good to remember that the NRA runs the gun nut movement and the NRA is run by right wing republiklans.

You failed. It is your loss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HankyDub (Reply #90)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 06:53 PM

91. No need to deceive, Jim Brady IS (not "was") an R.

 

Sarah is also an R, and Paul Helmke is an R (Republican Mayor as a matter of fact) and on and on but don't let a few pesky facts get in your way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tejas (Reply #91)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 07:11 PM

98. Sarah Palin is for an AWB too?

I'm learning new things all the time here!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #98)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 09:45 PM

113. Sarah Brady, Jims wife

 

Not all Sarahs are Palins.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tejas (Reply #5)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 07:16 PM

99. The campaign is named after a Republican who spent the better part of his life in a wheelchair...

Because of a gunshot wound.

Certainly that's a little different than the campaign itself promoting Republican ideals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hippo_Tron (Reply #99)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 07:20 PM

102. as to the rest of the Repubs on the company roster?

 

I'm sure you have an excuse for them too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tejas (Reply #102)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 11:55 AM

126. False, again. Per usual. The vast majority of board members are progressive Democrats. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #126)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:44 PM

163. Oh, like Helmke the Republican Mayor?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tejas (Reply #102)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:16 PM

144. Your point was obliterated by the logical fact that Brady has a reason to be for gun control

so you switch to baiting the poster on something else? That's argumentative. Stupid argument in the first place—to identify an idea as bad per se soley because of the party of the person who advocates for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tejas (Reply #5)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:33 AM

119. Republican wimpy do-gooders

Anything or any post that is anti crime with punishment for criminals causes the Republican crying do-gooders to hide and to whimper, whine and snivel,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tejas (Reply #5)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 07:09 PM

205. You sure don't seem like a Democrat

Here is Tejas defending gun-nut site USAammo.com's accompanying video to an advertisement which lumps Obama in with Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and Mao.

On that same thread, here is Tejas calling AJC columnist Jay Brookman a "fascist" because Brookman simply defended Obama from this ridiculous attack.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 04:45 PM

6. And a Ruger Mini-14 wasn't. A superior weapon that fires the same round. No points for you. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #6)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 04:50 PM

9. Right

"And a Ruger Mini-14 wasn't. A superior weapon that fires the same round. No points for you."

...because those are "points for you"? I mean, yay!

I mean, clearly you know a lot more than I do about the weapons and their capacity to kill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #9)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:03 PM

17. Clearly I do. You're the one trying to score political points from this. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #17)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:06 PM

20. Oh, bullshit

This is my first direct post about the incident other than the one about the teabagger Congressman.

You jumped in with your bullshit snide comment about "points."

Look in the mirror for the person doing the "poo-flinging."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #20)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:20 PM

34. Right back atcha. Re-read your title and tell me again that you didn't write this to score points

 

in the ongoing game of gotcha that defines DU.

The assault weapons ban, in addition to being just plain stupid with holes that herd of elephants could stroll through, cost the Democratic Party the election. I'm sure the republicans will be much more receptive to your agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #34)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:26 PM

40. Wait

"Right back atcha. Re-read your title and tell me again that you didn't write this to score points"

...WTF?

Think Progress wrote the title.

The assault weapons ban, in addition to being just plain stupid with holes that herd of elephants could stroll through, cost the Democratic Party the election. I'm sure the republicans will be much more receptive to your agenda.

Well, your fucking agenda is pretty clear.

I think I'll go back to the Romney threads and leave the instant psychologists and clown-ass gun nuts to this debate.

Ludicrous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #40)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:35 PM

49. But you put it up here. Are you now saying that you disagree with it?

 

The article is just nonsense. Had the ban remained and the AR-15 remained illegal, the crazy guy could have bought another rifle with exactly the same capabilities (for considerably less $, BTW) and done exactly the same thing.

Prohibition does not work. How many time do we have to go through this before it finally gets through?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #49)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:41 PM

54. Yes,

"But you put it up here. Are you now saying that you disagree with it?"

...I did "put it up here," and your first response about "points" was absolutely silly. Your subsequent response attributing the title to me and going off about how this will cause Democrats the election was utterly defensive and sounded like someone scared of Republicans.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #54)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:58 PM

70. It was intended to be silly. The point remains that the ban would have had no effect

 

whatsoever and writing this article now is nothing but political gamesmanship and unconscionably perverse.

BTW, I didn't (and still don't) know about the gungeon points thing, I originally wrote "no soup for you" but changed it because the reference was possibly too obscure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #70)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 07:22 PM

104. "superior weapon" went right over his head

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #49)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 09:48 PM

114. The AR15 could not have "remained" illegal because it was NOT illegal

 

You could still get them all day long any day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #114)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 10:23 PM

115. I took the OP's word that the Colt was on the list. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #9)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 09:46 PM

183. Yes, we do know more.

We also know the AR-15 was still manufactured and sold during that ban, without certain features like a bayonet lug.

Pretty sure the shooter didn't injure all those people with a bayonet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #6)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 04:53 PM

12. So, the death and maiming by gunfire of scores of people is a game to you, is it?

One where "points" are assigned based on how well one happens to have technical data on the weapons employed?

Unbelievable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #12)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:01 PM

15. I'm not the one trying to score political poo-flinging points from another tragedy. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #15)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:09 PM

22. Commenting on the insanity that is America's lack of effective gun control laws

is only "political poo-flinging" to the kind of mentality that refuses to acknowledge that there is any kind of problem in the first place; that thousands of people killed by handguns every year is price that just has to be borne by society so a bunch of Walter Mitty-types can continue to strut around Wal Mart with a pistol perched in their pants, fantasizing about playing the part of the dude in the white Stetson in a real-life Dodge City-type showdown.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #22)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:27 PM

41. Your prejudice is showing. What America lacks is a sane social structure and explicit contract.

 

Our fascination with anything that goes bang is merely a symptom of the much larger and messier problem. There are many ways to kill people, but we don't ask why so many people here want to kill people. No, it's so much easier to build a cartoon image of "the bad guys" in your personal fantasy world and assign any motivation you like to them.

That way you never have to look at the world or your part in it. Yes, you are a real American.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #41)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:32 PM

46. My "prejudice" against tens of thousands of needless deaths every year

is actually called by the twin names of simple human decency and progressive ideology.

What America actually lacks when it comes to guns are effective laws and regulations to deter their illicit use. All the rest of your reply is simply meaningless jazz, not worth addressing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #46)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:45 PM

58. Yes, this guy was clearly concerned with obeying the law. Again, you cling to a fantasy

 

that somehow, despite every scrap of evidence that shows the opposite, the problem is the guns and the people are just doing this because they can.

Show me a way to disarm America and I'm right there with you. Take guns away from everybody, including the 1%'s enforcers, and we all might be better off, but you and I both know that will never happen. Firearms are the only thing that stands between their ill-gotten gains and their victims. As long as their thugs have guns, we should have guns.

And by all means please continue to ignore the underlying problem. Who knows, maybe it will go away, or maybe you'll be the big winner and you can get yourself some enforcers to protect you from your victims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #58)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:50 PM

63. You "cling" to the fantasy that more effective gun control laws don't work.

Most of the rest of the civilized world, from Australia to Western Europe to Japan shows otherwise.

Continuing to type longish paragraphs that talk a lot but don't say very much does not obscure those irrefutable facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #63)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 06:06 PM

73. You should go see Bowling for Columbine again. Michael Moore does a good job of addressing the

 

deficiency in your fantasy. It's all about the fear, and we live on fear here as evidenced by your writing. It is also worth noting that you make no proposal on how to implement this panacea of goodwill to all.

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #73)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 06:08 PM

74. Yada-yada-yada. Whatever: when you decide to post something on point, get back with me. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #74)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 06:17 PM

79. So you have nothing, as usual. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #79)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 06:23 PM

82. Nope: you just haven't bothered to reply to it with anything substantive. As usual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #82)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 07:19 PM

101. You're the one that jumped in with your dissembling and assignation of motivations

 

with no bearing in reality. So now you say it is incumbent upon me to refute your fantastic ruminations, while you continue to avoid the actual discussion.

Just keep throwing it, I'm sure something will stick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #101)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 07:28 PM

105. Nope: sorry you missed my original reply. I'll re-post it here for your perusal:

Commenting on the insanity that is America's lack of effective gun control laws

is only "political poo-flinging" to the kind of mentality that refuses to acknowledge that there is any kind of problem in the first place; that thousands of people killed by handguns every year is price that just has to be borne by society so a bunch of Walter Mitty-types can continue to strut around Wal Mart with a pistol perched in their pants, fantasizing about playing the part of the dude in the white Stetson in a real-life Dodge City-type showdown.


That's precisely on point, and substantive to boot. Everything your rambling, discursive replies are not.

Do you need a link to the original? Or can you manage to scroll up? Hey, just trying to help...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #105)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 10:30 PM

116. Shall we repeat the entire sub-thread. The expressed opinion still misses

 

the mark as it did a few hours ago. You assign motive to others and then try to put the defense of your fantastic opinions on them.

There is indeed a problem, a huge problem. You are simply unable to identify it and so you diminish it to a proportion that you can conceptualize.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #116)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 11:52 AM

124. Keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better.

In point of fact, this "sub-thread" stands as a testament to your inability to do much more than ramble and obfuscate, in lieu of offering anything substantive. Your ongoing defensiveness and determination to get the precious "last word" tells the tale, and it's laughable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #22)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 09:08 PM

181. I am curious about your ideas on effective gun controls. Please be specific and detailed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #12)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:04 PM

18. The "points" meme comes from a certain jackass that posts in the Gungeon.

 

No matter how dismal or sad the event he would still dance in the blood and award "points" for whether or not/how many guns were involved in an incident. Sick yes, but no different than any of the other POS's that try to capitalize on a tragedy.

That said, there are some really hateful and uncaring trolls in the Gungeon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tejas (Reply #18)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:06 PM

19. Oh, so it's a Gungeon "game." Haven't been down there in a while.

And you've just reminded me why I generally steer clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #19)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:14 PM

28. The troll that invented the system is proud.

 

Well, was proud, he is no longer with us.
(edit: well, not under his former nick )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tejas (Reply #28)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:27 PM

42. Uh-huh. Riiiiiiggghht...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #42)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:37 PM

51. Stop by the Gungeon, it's there for all to see.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tejas (Reply #51)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:43 PM

57. Nope, it's not. But it's cute to pretend, I guess. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to beevul (Reply #121)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:00 PM

131. Nope: it doesn't clear anything up, except your ability to post pointless links.

But thanks for dropping by.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #131)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 07:05 PM

179. Thats ok, its there for those with an open mind...

Thats ok, its there for those with an open mind - those not blinded by anti-gun ideology, that is - to read, and draw their own conclusions.



I'm sure they'll reach the same conclusion you did.


Not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #6)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:42 PM

55. This TEC-9 trumps your Mini-14

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #6)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:46 PM

60. But an AK-47 trumps everything

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 04:51 PM

10. Manufacture of normal capacity magazines was banned under the late (unlamented) AWB,

 

but the millions of pre-ban normal capacity magazines were still perfectly legal to sell, if somewhat more expensive.

Similarly, the millions of pre-ban "assault weapons" were still legal to sell. They just went up in value. In any case, there were plenty of post-ban rifles that functioned identically with minor cosmetic changes.

In other words, the assault weapons ban was a complete and utter joke and failure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 04:53 PM

13. "He had a high-capacity clip, which were banned as 'large capacity ammunition feeding devices' "?

 

According to the ATF's web site:
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/saws-and-lcafds.html#lcafd-ban
Q: What was the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device (LCAFD) ban?
The LCAFD ban was enacted along with the SAW ban on September 13, 1994. The ban made it unlawful to transfer or possess LCAFDs. The law generally defined a LCAFD as a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after September 13, 1994, that has the capacity of, or can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The ban was codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(w). As with SAWs, there were certain exceptions to the ban, such as possession by law enforcement.


Has any company ever manufactured a clip for the M-15 to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition, either before or after September 13, 1994?

Haven't all feeder clips for the M-15 been limited, as a practical matter, to 10 rounds?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #13)


Response to GarroHorus (Reply #23)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:14 PM

29. A search through the Brownells online catalog shows that it doesn't sell any clips. Only magazines.

 

Limiting feeder clips to 10 rounds wouldn't change a thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #29)


Response to GarroHorus (Reply #33)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:24 PM

38. That's what I say.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GarroHorus (Reply #33)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 06:11 PM

75. That's a 100 round Beta-C magazine.

Source? I see one anonymous 'law enforcement' comment in a single AP article that claims that, and nothing else. All official police sources I have found said standard 30 round mags.

And no, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference anyway, as Cho proved at Virginia Tech with standard sized pistol magazines. He simply reloaded more than 10 times. Killed almost 3x as many people doing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #75)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #13)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:11 PM

25. The ban expired in 2004. Millions of normal capacity magazines have been manufactured since.

 

Has any company ever manufactured a clip for the M-15 to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition, either before or after September 13, 1994?

Assuming you mean M-16 or AR-15 (the magazines are interchangeable) the answer to before Sept. 13, 1994 is "yes, millions of them".

The ban expired in 2004 and millions such magazines have been manufactured since then.

Haven't all feeder clips for the M-15 been limited, as a practical matter, to 10 rounds?

No. When the M-16 was first fielded, it had a 20 round magazine. This was changed to a 30 round magazine by the late '60s. The same applies to civilian AR-15s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Johnny Rico (Reply #25)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:23 PM

36. Some people seem to think that there is a difference between clips and magazines.

 

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_RYwUPr35rLw/SMSzcYalaPI/AAAAAAAAAM4/pgTUU7jUlFo/s200/Magazine+-+vs+-+Clip.jpg

In the case of "stripper clips", you simply "strip" the rounds off of the clip and into the magazine.
http://www.minutemanreview.com/2008/09/clip-vs-magazine-lesson-in-firearm.html


If manufacutured stipper clips are already limited to 10 rounds, adopting legislation to prohibit manufacturing stripper clips to hold in excess of 10 rounds would not change a thing.

Prosense said AR-15 and I should have said AR-15. (In my old age, I said M-15, a rifle which hasn't been in use for a great many years.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #36)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:29 PM

45. Well...there is a difference, as your link points out.

 

If manufacutured stipper clips are already limited to 10 rounds

There's no such limit in place.

adopting legislation to prohibit manufacturing stripper clips to hold in excess of 10 rounds would not change a thing.

What would be the point? Very few people use stripper clips to fill their magazines these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Johnny Rico (Reply #45)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:41 PM

53. Did you see the word "If"? It's there. Manufacturers decide the limits to place upon stipper clips

 

as part of the manufacturing process.

You say, "Very few people use stripper clips to fill their magazines these days." I don't know about your expertise in this area, but I still do (although not for a AR-15). At the range, I still see others that do as well. If you have some special expertise in the area by which you can be informed that "Very few people use stripper clips to fill their magazines these days," I would like to know what it is.

You also say, "There's no such limit in place" in response to my statement that "If manufacutured stipper clips are already limited to 10 rounds." There are 5-round stripper clips and 10-round stripper clips. The 5-round stripper clips are a little more practical to carry, but I've used both. I suggest that manufacturers have every right to set their machines to manufacture 5-round clips or 10-round clips. No one can prevent them from limiting themselves from doing so. Pushing 10 rounds into a magazine off a clip is sufficiently challenging. If you know of any manufacturer that makes a clip in excess of 10 rounds, I'ld like to know the identity of that manufacturer. If not, I think that the manufacturers decide the limits that they want to place on their own clips.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #53)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:56 PM

67. While I'll grant that there's a practical limit to the size of a stripper clip, I was speaking of a

 

legal limit...of which there's none.

As for how popular strippers clips are...I'll be the first to admit that I don't spend a lot of time at the range, but of the dozens of times I have been there, I don't recall seeing stripper clips used to fill magazines even once.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Johnny Rico (Reply #67)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 06:13 PM

77. There is also 2-round stripper clip which is sometimes used for NRA matches (8 & 2 to mimic a M1)

 

but loading the last 2 rounds off a 5-round clip works just as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:08 PM

21. The 100 round circular magazine was what allowed Holmes to shoot so many people so quickly.

Because he didn't have to reload until the magazine was empty.
The FBI said that Holmes fired all of the rounds from his shotgun first, then used the rifle, and then used his 2 handguns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Hogwash (Reply #21)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:52 PM

64. C-Mags have been around long before the AWB

And were fully legal to own and sell during the AWB, so long as they were made before 1994. Sure, you'd have to pay $500 for one, but I don't think that would have stopped this psycho.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #64)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 07:07 PM

204. Germans used C-mags for their MG-42s during WWII

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:10 PM

24. Which is relatively meaningless.

There are many semiautomatic weapons which aren't "assault weapons" that he could and possibly would have used with just as deadly an effect. Anyone arguing about whether "high capacity magazines" make a difference is also probably relatively ignorant of firearms; high capacity or no it takes 2 seconds to change magazines and chamber a round. Someone who's proficient in the use of firearms would not have a problem just dropping the spent magazine and loading another (and the ban was on magazines with a capacity of over 10, which still leaves 10 rounds and a minimal time to change magazines; not to mention that even when the ban was in place "pre-ban" magazines were readily available secondhand or from old stock and not subject to regulations).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #24)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:18 PM

32. Quit it. That is logical fact reasoning and not acceptable here!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:13 PM

27. And it probably wouldn't have stopped this nutcase from getting one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:27 PM

43. That is true, but would he still have had one?

I say yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:49 PM

61. Bad reporting. Millions of AR-15's were made and sold during the AWB

The AWB didn't prohibit their manufacture or sale, as the author implies. It simply said they couldn't have certain features, such as a flash hider, bayonet lug, or come with factory-new high capacity magazines. A few states, such as California, went further and banned detachable magazines and pistol grips, but Colorado was not one of those states.

Since the items banned on the rifles were all cosmetic, manufacturers simply removed them and kept selling them by the millions. Unless you want to argue that a bayonet lug or flash hider would have made the guns used even more deadly than they already were.

This reporter really knows nothing of what he writes in this instance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:58 PM

69. Oh. but no! There is no such thing as an "assault weapon"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #69)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 06:21 PM

80. True. Congress tried to define it. Assault RIFLE is a real thing.

It's military nomenclature, referring to a select fire weapon of intermediate caliber between a submachinegun, and a battle rifle.

For edumacation purposes, that means a weapon that has at least one burst or full-auto mode, and a caliber/cartridge somewhere between a machine pistol/submachinegun like the Thompson, a .45 caliber pistol cartridge in a machine gun, and a full sized battle rifle like the M1a's .308 NATO cartridge.

Assault WEAPON is whatever the fuck Congress thinks looks scary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #80)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:40 PM

159. Exactly

If you slap a "skeleton" stock on a .22 plinkster rifle, it will look badass, and will make zillions of folks eagerly buy it, and will also make zillions more think it's an assault rifle. I have seen the former happen at gun shows and in stores, and at the range.

The distinction between an assault rifle and am assault weapon is a good one. Informative post!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #69)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 06:25 PM

83. Thank you.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 06:05 PM

72. zacks a dumbass if he believes what he wrote.

post ban ARs can still be bought and are still AR's. 30 round mags were just more expensive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 06:12 PM

76. OH NO, did it have a bayonet lug, flash suppressor and a pistol grip?! THE HORROR

No wonder so many people died!

Because if it didn't have those features, that AR-15 would have been perfectly legal during the AWB. I bought two. Brand new, post-ban.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 06:35 PM

86. Such a red herring.

Yay. So assuming that he wouldn't just have gone ahead and bought or traded for this gun illegally (like the apparently very interesting explosives/booby traps in the apartment), that leaves the 3 completely legal-under-any-circumstances weapons he brought in... and some 4th gun, of which there are plenty of equally lethal varieties that would be legal. So really, there's not a lot of point in this piece.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 06:55 PM

92. And this would have mattered..

.. how? Any number of guns that were legal during the ban would have worked just as well. High cap magazines were available also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #92)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 07:01 PM

93. I know

"And this would have mattered.... how? Any number of guns that were legal during the ban would have worked just as well. High cap magazines were available also. "

...guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Aurora Theater Shooting Is Deadliest In U.S. Since Virginia Tech | Last night’s tragic shooting at the midnight premiere of “The Dark Knight Rises” in Aurora, Colorado was the largest mass shooting in the U.S. since the massacre at Virginia Tech in 2007, which killed 32 people and wounded 15 others. 12 people were killed and at least 38 injured Thursday night at the Aurora movie theater. There are about 20 mass shootings every year in the U.S. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence lists hundreds of mass shootings since 2005. The Aurora shooting suspect, 24-year-old James Holmes, has been arrested.

UPDATE
This was the deadliest mass shooting in Colorado since the Columbine High School massacre on April 20, 1999, when two students opened fire at a high school in Littleton, CO, about 15 miles west of Aurora, killing 13 people and wounding 26 others before killing themselves.

http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/07/20/554341/aurora-theater-shooting-is-deadliest-in-us-since-virginia-tech


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #93)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 07:05 PM

94. And while we are at it..

... "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns".

Folks that think that someone who is willing to walk into a public place and open fire are concerned about some kind, ANY kind of "ban" amuse me. you really have to be beyond hope if that is what you believe.

Seriously, there are problems for which there is no good solution. More than likely this guy is legally insane and the only thing that could have been done would have been to restrict his rights beforehand, something that is not going to happen in America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #94)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 07:09 PM

97. I know

"when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns".

...too bad the victims weren't armed, right?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002980942

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 07:31 PM

106. Gun Ban ? That's crazy

You don't think the other guns where enough ? What if 1 or 2 people had guns or the guts to use them. Why did some of the men not rush him . Banning guns don't work. In close quaters a shot gun would have been more effective. Gun sales up crime goes down. It's a fact And again where have all the hero's gone. Me or my kids or your kids I would rather die trying;

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clint55 (Reply #106)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 07:49 PM

107. When something happens this sudden and fast, in the dark, with tear gas...

it's unlikely that someone would just stand up and take out their gun, they would be scrambling for cover. If they had kids, I'm sure their #1 priority and instinct would be to get the kids out of danger.

It happened in a movie theater, but real life isn't a movie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 08:34 PM

109. Amurikans don't want no god-damned legislation banning their semi-automatic

assault weapons nor high-capacity clips or other large capacity ammunition feeding devices. No siree, neither the NRA nor the GOP, nor any self-respecting Amurikan wants to prevent anyone from being able to get their jollies off by shooting off their assault weapons into a crowd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 08:59 PM

110. This is absolutely untrue.

 

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban did not ban assault weapons.

All it did was require importers to add a few US-made parts to imported assault rifles, and they made it so that you could have any TWO of: detachable magazine, pistol grip, or bayonet lug. Since the bayonet lug was basically useless, most manufacturers omitted them, and importers ground them off.

I bought a civilian AK-47 during (and directly because of) the Assault Weapons Ban. It is a Romanian SAR-1. It is identical to civilian AK-47s sold prior to the ban, except the bayonet lug was ground off.

The AWB did ban the sale of new high capacity magazines, but grandfathered in existing ones, and there was such a massive supply of them that there was never any trouble buying them, though prices did go up for them. I bought 6 of them as a result of the ban.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 09:12 PM

111. He could have used one of these




California-legal AR-15. California's ban on "assault weapons" is tighter than the now-expired federal ban.


No protruding pistol grip, no bayonet lug, no grenade launcher. Mechanically, it's still an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle chambered in .223 Remington and fed through a standard AR-15 magazine.


But it's not an assault weapon. Doesn't have the cosmetic features that make it an assault weapon, by definition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 09:36 PM

112. Neither the AR15 nor the high-capacity (clip) magazine were banned under the 94 AWB

 

Thanks for playing, try again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:25 AM

118. Comon Sense

Yes, there should be a back ground check to see i8f you are mature enough to own a gun

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 03:23 AM

120. What kind of surprised me was the 6,000 rounds. Seems that would have triggered some interest.

All of this had to have cost a good deal of money, as well. I don't know many people who could afford to buy these.

The intention and the possiblitiy of 'something going wrong' does not seem to figure into this any more than buying any other consumer goods. As long as that is the prevailing attitude, nothing will change.

This was no spur of the moment thing, but he was allowed to stockpile dangerous stuff. I still feel that nothing is going to change on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #120)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:37 PM

155. and he supposedly bought his ammo over the internet!

We actually have more restrictions on buying cold medicine than ammunition

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DBoon (Reply #155)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:52 PM

169. Whoa, that adds a new dimension to the case. It makes oversight by state laws or vendorsirrelevant.

That should be taken into consideration in these discussions. We get into fighting over the Second Amendment and the level of gun control laws in different areas, and that blows all of them out of the water. Thanks for that information, ir really changes the perspective of the issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 06:26 AM

122. What's to stop him from buying a different gun?

One other than the AR-15 or anything on the list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLP24 (Reply #122)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 09:45 PM

182. He could have bought an AR-15 anyway, just without a couple features that had no bearing on the atta

ck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 11:42 AM

123. Another Update

The type of cop killer ammo purchased by Holmes was also banned under the old Brady law. Thanks President Bush for insisting that this law be allowed to expire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #123)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 11:54 AM

125. I would like to give DallasNE some recognition for an amazing mish-mash of incorrect information

 

The type of cop killer ammo purchased by Holmes was also banned under the old Brady law. Thanks President Bush for insisting that this law be allowed to expire.

1. The Brady Law is still in effect. It requires background checks on firearms sold at retail by licensed gun dealers (all gun dealers are required to be licensed by the Gun Control Act of 1968.)

2. Neither the Brady Law or the expired federal "assault weapons" ban, which expired in 2004, included restrictions on any type of ammunition.

3. President George W. Bush was on record as saying he WOULD HAVE SIGNED a renewal or extension of the AW ban, should one reach his desk. It was Congress that allowed it to expire - Advocates of the law had 10 years to make a case for extending it, and they came up empty-handed in 2004 because the law had no measurable effect on public safety.

4. The type of ammunition that Holmes used is not unusual or special in any way. It's not of any type that has been referred to as "cop killer ammo."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #125)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 11:58 AM

128. Thanks Slackmaster! It amazes me the crap people pull out concerning guns. n-t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #128)


Response to slackmaster (Reply #130)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:04 PM

134. Openly mocking actual progressive DU members with a Freeper talking point, i.e.,

calling that poster a "DUmmy." Nice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #134)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:12 PM

142. You missed my point. There are posters who feign ignorance on DU in order to make DU look stupid.

 

HTH

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #130)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:08 PM

137. I agree. Where are the rational arguments? n-t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #125)


Response to DallasNE (Reply #133)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:11 PM

140. The expired "assault weapons ban" was not the Brady Law

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #140)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:34 PM

152. My Post Was On Ammo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #152)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:38 PM

156. And it was WRONG in every respect on ammo

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #152)


Response to permatex (Reply #162)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:47 PM

165. Armor piercing ammo is perfectly legal to buy over the internet.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Johnny Rico (Reply #165)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:51 PM

168. My bad

 

I thought that armor piercing ammo was illegal for civilian use. I was wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #152)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:49 PM

167. I have not read any "cop killer ammo" was used

A link?

Also, is there even any true "cop killer ammo" for .22 or .223???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #167)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 01:05 PM

176. As defined by gun grabbers, all .223 is "cop killer ammo",

 

Given that it (like virtually all centerfire rifle cartridges) will penetrate a ballistic vest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #133)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:11 PM

141. Hey clueless, read closer.....

He said the "assault weapons" ban expired in 2004. WTF is wrong with you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #141)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:36 PM

154. Who's Clueless - My Post Was On Ammo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #133)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:13 PM

143. No.

The Brady law is still in effect. The AWB expired in 2004.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #133)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:23 PM

145. You really need to stop and research before you post

 

all your doing is making yourself look foolish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to permatex (Reply #145)


Response to DallasNE (Reply #160)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:48 PM

166. You said that the ammo he used was banned under the Brady law that bush let expire

 

which is patently untrue. It was pointed out that you need to do research before you post and make yourself look foolish. Show me where I'm wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #160)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:59 PM

171. There is no reason to personally attack anyone like that

Good God.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #133)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:29 PM

148. Two different laws.

The Brady Law is still in effect...the AWB was a separate law that expired in 2004...they are not the same law.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #133)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:32 PM

151. You sound about as clueless as this congresswoman

 


or how about this idiot?

Are you sure you want to sound like them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to permatex (Reply #151)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:57 PM

170. I give Carolyn McCarthy a pass, because of her son and husband

being murdered. I understand why she is emotional, and I also think she should educate herself about the issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #170)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 01:02 PM

173. If she weren't in a position to craft laws

 

then I would also give her a pass, but she is in a postition to craft and introduce laws affecting firearms and she could at least learn what she's talking about instead of looking foolish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to permatex (Reply #173)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 04:33 PM

178. I understand your POV, so we will have to agree to disagree on this

A life experience like that can really make someone hyperfocused on an issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #123)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 11:58 AM

129. There is no such thing

 

as cop killer ammo.

It is a myth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JeepJK556 (Reply #129)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:04 PM

135. Come on, we all know that there are now micro-chips inserted into bullets

 

to make them magically seek out cops over anybody else.

As if I needed this:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:02 PM

132. I have a friend that works at the gun counter in a Cabelas store, he said the

military style weapons were flying off the rack yesterday. The gun nuts gotta get them there guns before that damn Obama makes them illegal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #132)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:29 PM

147. What idiot told you Obama is going to ban the most popular-selling longarm in US history?

 

Did this idiot offer you any proof, I'm sure you asked for some because I'm also sure you're not stupid enough to parrot some inflammatory lie just because some loser said so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tejas (Reply #147)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:32 PM

149. That was just sarcasm, don't you know the NRA has been pushing that

line for the last 4 years and the idiots believe it..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #149)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:39 PM

157. Sorry, 95% of gunowners do NOT belong to the NRA.

 

80m gunowners vs 4m NRA members, we don't keep up with (much less give a shit about) the NRA as much as you do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:26 PM

146. The Sickest Day

 

We are all responsible for our actions.

What happened in Aurora Colorado at a movie theater was a gross aberration and perpetrated by a human being. The actually questions & answers as to why may never be known. However, that will not console all the victims of this heinous criminal act.

The bigger picture is that the United States has become the most violent Country in the World. Gun violence is pervasive. To ban guns is not the answer but the human condition may be the first start.

My question is how does a seemingly sane and bright 24 year old PHD candidate turn into a monster?

To the First Responders and all of the families who lost a loved one in Aurora or were injured I am sending you my thoughts and condolences and thanks that the alleged perpetrator was caught.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elbloggoZY27 (Reply #146)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 01:04 PM

175. I doubt the USA is the most violent nation in the world

I doubt even in our hemisphere, or continent. I am curious about Mexico stats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 08:54 PM

180. 5.56 or .223 ammo is the reason more did not die

The AR-15/M-16 was put into service during the Viet Nam war as a replacement of the M-1/M-14 rifles. The ammo for the M-16 (5.56 mm or .223 caliber) is much smaller than the .30 caliber rounds used by the earlier guns. Roughly, three M-16 rounds weigh as much as one M-14 round.

The smaller ammunition was designed to horrifically wound, but not instantly kill the enemy. This is important since a wounded soldier takes another two soldiers/medics to treat and diminishes the enemy's force. A clean kill is ignored by the enemy, but a screaming soldier demands attention. If the enemy declines to treat the wounded soldier, or shoots the wounded soldier, it demoralizes the other enemy soldiers.

If the Aurora shooter had used an AK-47 (7.62 mm), then more people would have died instantly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chapel hill dem (Reply #180)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 09:47 PM

184. If I've gotta get shot by something, I'm definitely going to opt for .223 over anythign .30 cal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 06:09 AM

188. The fact is that these rules were never really enforced

 

and were never going to effectively address this issue. Another hollow victory by the politicians representing the rational and clear thinkers of America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rudycantfail (Reply #188)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 06:15 AM

189. How were they not enforced?

 

From 1994 to 2004, the AWB was in full force. I remember watching normal capacity pre-ban Glock magazine jump in price from $20 to $150 because of the limited supply. Pre-ban "assault weapons" doubled to tripled in price.

Gun manufacturers followed the law to the letter until it expired.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Johnny Rico (Reply #189)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 06:26 AM

190. People who wanted to get assault weapons

 

were able to get them in spite of the "Assault Weapons Ban Law".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rudycantfail (Reply #190)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 09:42 AM

192. That's because the Assault Weapons Ban didn't make it illegal to purchase assault weapons.

 

It simply made it illegal to manufacture new ones. The ones which had already been made were still perfectly legal to own and sell.

I never said that it was a particularly rational law...but it was enforced!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Johnny Rico (Reply #192)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 06:49 PM

198. Point made and taken

 

on enforcement but the larger point is to what end? The Democratic Party wants the appearance that it is doing something to protect Americans against gun violence but in reality it is abetting the status quo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rudycantfail (Reply #198)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 06:50 PM

199. It was a stupid law then and it would be a stupid law now.

 

That doesn't keep people from advocating for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Johnny Rico (Reply #199)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 07:36 PM

213. Again, I want a law to do what this law claimed it would do - ban assault weapons.

 

More importantly, I want the Democratic Party to actually take on the nonsensical gun nuts in this country and drop the charade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rudycantfail (Reply #213)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 07:38 PM

214. We'll have to agree to disagree on the need for such a law.

 

In any case, it's not going to happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 07:03 PM

200. So, were you going to update the title and contents of your post with the truth, or what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 07:24 PM

211. Colt simply changed the name and modified the gun in order to continue selling the AR-15

To be legal, a semi-automatic with a detachable magazine had to have only one of the following features:

"Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those which are mounted externally)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Definition_of_assault_weapon

So all Colt had to do was produce an AR-15 that had a pistol grip and none of the other features listed and call it the "Match Target 6400c".

So technically, the OP is correct in that one could not buy a brand new AR-15 while the AWB was in effect. But one could buy the Match Target 6400c which was the AR-15 by another name and other then the pistol grip, had none of the other features listed.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread