HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Let's try this again, may...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 07:09 PM

 

Let's try this again, maybe this time someone can answer the question.

President Obama: "Weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don't belong on our streets."

A question to those who agree with him: Which of these weapons, which were all designed for soldiers in war theaters, should be banned? Please be specific.

M1 Garand semiautomatic rifle:



M1911 semiautomatic pistol:



Springfield M1903 bolt action rifle:



Colt Single Action Army revolver:
/800px-Colt_SAA_US_Artillery_RAC.


Springfield M1873 single shot rifle:



Brown Bess Flintlock musket:



Crossbow:



Sword:



By the way, this, a semiautomatic rifle which looks like an AK-47, is not a weapon of war:



No army equips their soldiers with it. It is designed expressly for civilian use.

126 replies, 10807 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 126 replies Author Time Post
Reply Let's try this again, maybe this time someone can answer the question. (Original post)
PavePusher Oct 2012 OP
slackmaster Oct 2012 #1
spin Oct 2012 #79
slackmaster Oct 2012 #83
Warren Stupidity Oct 2012 #2
dumbledork Oct 2012 #4
Warren Stupidity Oct 2012 #5
Remmah2 Oct 2012 #35
oneshooter Oct 2012 #92
Warren Stupidity Oct 2012 #98
oneshooter Oct 2012 #100
PavePusher Oct 2012 #105
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #115
Warren Stupidity Oct 2012 #117
gejohnston Oct 2012 #119
PavePusher Oct 2012 #121
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #123
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #124
sarisataka Oct 2012 #125
Eleanors38 Oct 2012 #3
GitRDun Oct 2012 #6
gejohnston Oct 2012 #7
GitRDun Oct 2012 #13
Eleanors38 Oct 2012 #44
rrneck Oct 2012 #9
GitRDun Oct 2012 #12
aletier_v Oct 2012 #14
holdencaufield Oct 2012 #18
holdencaufield Oct 2012 #16
GitRDun Oct 2012 #20
Db Owen97 Oct 2012 #116
rrneck Oct 2012 #17
GitRDun Oct 2012 #21
Reasonable_Argument Oct 2012 #28
GitRDun Oct 2012 #41
GreenStormCloud Oct 2012 #51
PavePusher Oct 2012 #10
GitRDun Oct 2012 #11
Reasonable_Argument Oct 2012 #15
Francis Marion Oct 2012 #24
GitRDun Oct 2012 #25
Francis Marion Oct 2012 #114
jeepnstein Oct 2012 #49
GitRDun Oct 2012 #89
GreenStormCloud Oct 2012 #91
aletier_v Oct 2012 #8
darkangel218 Oct 2012 #19
ileus Oct 2012 #22
Tuesday Afternoon Oct 2012 #23
Eleanors38 Oct 2012 #45
ileus Oct 2012 #46
Eleanors38 Oct 2012 #106
Tuesday Afternoon Oct 2012 #90
Eleanors38 Oct 2012 #107
graham4anything Oct 2012 #26
holdencaufield Oct 2012 #29
graham4anything Oct 2012 #30
glacierbay Oct 2012 #32
holdencaufield Oct 2012 #33
glacierbay Oct 2012 #34
holdencaufield Oct 2012 #37
graham4anything Oct 2012 #53
holdencaufield Oct 2012 #55
glacierbay Oct 2012 #58
graham4anything Oct 2012 #59
glacierbay Oct 2012 #62
graham4anything Oct 2012 #65
glacierbay Oct 2012 #67
graham4anything Oct 2012 #78
glacierbay Oct 2012 #80
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #39
glacierbay Oct 2012 #40
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #42
graham4anything Oct 2012 #54
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #61
graham4anything Oct 2012 #57
glacierbay Oct 2012 #60
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #64
graham4anything Oct 2012 #66
gejohnston Oct 2012 #69
glacierbay Oct 2012 #70
graham4anything Oct 2012 #72
gejohnston Oct 2012 #75
glacierbay Oct 2012 #76
Remmah2 Oct 2012 #36
PavePusher Oct 2012 #43
graham4anything Oct 2012 #63
PavePusher Oct 2012 #77
glacierbay Oct 2012 #38
sarisataka Oct 2012 #50
graham4anything Oct 2012 #68
gejohnston Oct 2012 #73
glacierbay Oct 2012 #74
sarisataka Oct 2012 #81
rl6214 Oct 2012 #93
chknltl Oct 2012 #27
glacierbay Oct 2012 #31
oneshooter Oct 2012 #47
glacierbay Oct 2012 #48
chknltl Oct 2012 #71
oneshooter Oct 2012 #84
glacierbay Oct 2012 #82
chknltl Oct 2012 #86
oneshooter Oct 2012 #87
chknltl Oct 2012 #94
oneshooter Oct 2012 #95
gejohnston Oct 2012 #96
chknltl Oct 2012 #52
glacierbay Oct 2012 #56
glacierbay Oct 2012 #101
oneshooter Oct 2012 #102
glacierbay Oct 2012 #104
oneshooter Oct 2012 #108
glacierbay Oct 2012 #109
petronius Oct 2012 #110
oneshooter Oct 2012 #111
petronius Oct 2012 #112
glacierbay Oct 2012 #113
dmallind Oct 2012 #85
oneshooter Oct 2012 #88
krispos42 Oct 2012 #97
Warren Stupidity Oct 2012 #99
oneshooter Oct 2012 #103
Warren Stupidity Oct 2012 #118
oneshooter Oct 2012 #120
Warren Stupidity Oct 2012 #122
krispos42 Oct 2012 #126

Response to PavePusher (Original post)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 07:10 PM

1. You could put an eye out with that Gladius

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #1)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 02:40 PM

79. You might also be able to decapitate an opponent with the Gladius ...


“Philip’s men had been accustomed to fighting with Greeks and Illyrians and had only seen wounds inflicted by javelins and arrows and in rare instances by lances. But when they saw bodies dismembered with the Spanish sword, arms cut off from the shoulder, heads struck off from the trunk, bowels exposed and other horrible wounds, they recognised the style of weapon and the kind of man against whom they had to fight, and a shudder of horror ran through the ranks.”

History of Rome, Livy, Book 31.34
http://historical-academy.co.uk/blog/2011/12/23/vegetius-double-weight-swords-and-cutting-with-the-gladius/


At extemely close range and in skilled hands a short sword similar to the Gladius is far more deadly than most handguns carried for self defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #79)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 04:37 PM

83. Definitely so. My primary home-defense weapon is a short sword.

 

It's a Hoplite style sword, about the same size and heft as a Gladius.

I've had some edged weapons training. I'm confident that anyone who broke into my house could not touch me. Someone with a gun might manage to shoot me, but they won't touch me as long as I'm alive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Original post)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 07:13 PM

2. None of those weapons belong on the street.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #2)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 07:17 PM

4. They sure don't...the street is a place where they will rust.

 

...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dumbledork (Reply #4)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 07:18 PM

5. Plus you could get a flat tire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #2)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 09:56 AM

35. Correct

 

And there's no reason not to own one for defense of my home/family. No reason that my wife/children should not know how to operate one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #2)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 08:12 PM

92. Yet the Brown Bess was the primary military shoulder arm at the

time the Bill of Rights was written.

According to some folks here that is exactly the type of arm allowed by the Second Amendment! And the ONLY type allowed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #92)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 09:48 AM

98. So collect it and keep it at home.

The question was asked and answered. None of those weapons belong on the street. iI you wish to debate some other point, I suggest a new thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #98)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 01:08 PM

100. Yet the 2nd refers to "keep and bear arms". Surly this means that I have the right

not only to "keep" but also to "bear" arms of that time period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #98)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 02:35 PM

105. What do you mean by "None of those weapons belong on the street."? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #98)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 09:56 AM

115. The law would tend to disagree with you.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #115)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 01:49 PM

117. a. I was asked my opinion.

b. you go march down the street with a sword and see what happens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #117)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 01:55 PM

119. where I live, nothing nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #117)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 02:40 PM

121. Swords are arms.

 

If hassled by the police, a lawsuit would happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #117)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 03:49 PM

123. And of course you're entitled to your opinion

 

I was simply reminding you that yours is not a commonly held opinion nor is it supported by the experts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #117)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 03:58 PM

124. Also, what do you feel should happen to someone carrying a sword in public?

 

Not waving it around or attacking people, just carrying it, in a sheath and doing nothing particularly aggressive with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #117)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 04:13 PM

125. Had a friend carry a sword down the street

Cop pulls up and rolls down his window: Is that a sword?
Friend: Yeah
Cop: What are you doing carrying it around?
Friend: Going to a friend's house. I want to show it to him.
Cop: Ok, thanks. Bye

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Original post)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 07:14 PM

3. Is my 1905 Winchester "ought-three" .22 a battlefield assault weapon?

I mean, it's semi-automatic.

If you can find the ammo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Original post)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 07:27 PM

6. I'll take a shot at it

Just so you know where I come from, I have a healthy fear of guns. The first time I held a shot gun I was shaking. I had to be reminded on not pointing it in the wrong place, using safety, etc. I have only shot skeet a few times, lol I suck! Because of my experience I have a healthy respect for my friends who do use and handle guns safely. It is not duck soup.

I don't know anything about the guns in the pictures, but I would like to answer you from a broad perspective. I personally believe the public safety issue comes down to what the government has a right to do in terms of reasonable restrictions to keep us safe. For me 2 kinds of controls make sense:

1). Limiting the number of rounds in a magazine for guns that can be owned/held anywhere. They should be reasonable in light of normal hunting / personal usage. There is a big difference between 6 rounds and 30.

2). For high volume magazine use or guns that only use high volume magazines, put reasonable restrictions on where the guns / high volume magazines can be used and stored, e.g., hunt clubs, gun clubs, etc. You might even have special permits to carry high volume magazines outside these places during specific hunting seasons if those guns are normally used for that period. Or special permits that include heightened screening / safety classes.

I see the guns issue as I do most others. While I may not like them, it is not my position, nor should it be the government's position to unreasonably restrict them for those that don't.

Will be interested to hear what others think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GitRDun (Reply #6)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 07:38 PM

7. one thing about high capacity magazines and hunting

most states have hunting regulations about that. In Florida, the limit is a five round if it is a detachable box magazine (semi auto or bolt action, doesn't matter). Last time I was home, Wyoming had a similar regulation, probably still does. Wyoming does not allow automatic weapons, machine guns, in the wild at any time. There are target matches that use them, as well as for defense.

What is "high capacity"? I would define it as beyond what the gun was designed for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #7)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 08:31 PM

13. You may be right

I like your thought. I do not know enough about guns to presume I am qualified to answer that question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GitRDun (Reply #13)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 11:38 AM

44. Banning "high capacity" mags is the latest ban attempt

Because a few mass murderers used them. But the punk at Virginia Tech used conventional pistol with conventional mags (he merely carried more of them) to kill more folks than in other such incidents (regular mags are easier to conceal).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GitRDun (Reply #6)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 07:41 PM

9. Welcome to DU!

A lot of people worry about ammunition capacity in firearms, but there is no workable way to limit it. Any magazine fed firearm was designed, by incorporating a magazine, to be reloaded quickly. The vast majority of firearms sold today are magazine fed. While novelty magazines that hold an unreasonable number of rounds sound scary, they are actually prone to malfunction. So a novelty mag that holds a hundred rounds would do more to stop a spree shooting than laws to regulate firearm capacity.

I haven't been to the range for a long time, and I can still switch mags in under three seconds. Here's a guy that makes me look like I'm tied to a rock.



Need more ammo? Bring more mags.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #9)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 08:29 PM

12. Thanks for the Welcome, this is a fun site!

I get your point on mags. I am sure I don't have exactly the right formula, but I do think that "what is reasonable regulation" is where the discussions need to be.

I think the public goal should be to stop the freaks / criminals who buy high capacity weapons and go on sprees recognizing that responsible citizens should not be unduly burdened.

I don't think I have the expertise to argue a detailed solution, but I will say that despite the fact that some folks can switch low volume mags really fast and get the same effect, I don't think those are the folks we need to necessarily worry about, they are skilled experts. Maybe special permitting for high volume mags is the way to go, I don't know.

It's the low skill mentally unstable people we are trying to stop, right?

Lol I think I am getting in over my head here...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GitRDun (Reply #12)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 08:34 PM

14. Rapid reload was possible in the 19th century

Top-break revolvers with moon clips are almost as fast as any semi-auto today.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #14)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 08:49 PM

18. 130 British Soldiers ...

 

... held off 3,000 Zulu warriors at Rorkes's Drift in 1879 by the use of (comparatively) rapid fire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GitRDun (Reply #12)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 08:42 PM

16. "...he public goal should be to stop the freaks / criminals..."

 

And here, as Shakespeare would say, is the rub.

You can't get rid of criminals by passing laws -- they won't obey them. Passing laws on magazine capacity, muzzle velocity or what colours are acceptable for firearms only makes criminals out of people who would never harm a human being in their life.

And you can't get rid of freaks at all. There are situations and circumstances that cause people to do freakish things that are only partially understood and mostly likely not preventable. You can insert your favourite bogeyman (high capacity firearms, obscene music lyrics, violent video games or fluoridated water) but the reality is what makes a person want to kill a lot of people is not something that can be prevented by passing technical limitations on firearms.

If there weren't a firearm anywhere on the planet -- a freak could still drive a dump truck through a theatre queue and kill all the folks he wants.

Oh, and lest we forget, two of the largest mass murders in this country's recent history (911 and Oklahoma City), weren't committed with firearms at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #16)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 09:08 PM

20. You are right on many counts

I agree with what you say for the most part.

I would quarrel with you on making high capacity fire arms equivalent to obscene music, violent video games, or fluoridated water. The three latter someone (not me) could argue would cause an unstable person to pick up a high capacity firearm, e.g., the best one could say is they have an indirect effect on loss of life related to gun violence. High capacity firearms by themselves in the streets have a direct effect on increased loss of life.

I also don't quarrel with you that an unstable person could use any number of weapons besides guns to kill people. What I would say is it is a proper role of government to make it harder for them to kill people, including restricting use of high capacity mags.

As far as criminals go, you are right, they may find their way to the high capacity stuff anyway, not much you can do about that besides good police work. I can only say that if a regulation is reasonable and can stop less than professional criminals from improperly using high capacity weapons I would be for it.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GitRDun (Reply #20)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 10:43 AM

116. I feel the need to throw my two pennies into the discussion...

 

Let me state that at first I was against gun ownership and didn't see the need for such,but after what I have seen from the vids of crimes and the like that have been posted on youtube,the shootings that have happened in the past as well as currently (From the first AWB on through to the spree shooting in Colorado) ,I am more and more in favor of self defense and the weapons that are best for it.

Because if the criminals are going to break the law anyway,then logically a law abiding peaceful member of society should be able to protect themselves as well as their loved ones.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GitRDun (Reply #12)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 08:49 PM

17. It might well be argued

that those most likely to be spree killers are obsessive. If that's the case, they would be the most likely to practice, practice, practice. And like I mentioned above, even without practice it's not hard to switch mags very quickly.

Here's a test. Imagine you have just been shot at but missed. That means you will likely be at least crouched with your eyes closed facing the other way. Think you could turn around and cover twenty feet or so to disarm the assailant before he switches mags? And if he's smart, he won't shoot the gun dry, but leave one in the chamber for that hero who would try to rush him during the switch.

And that's just one scenario. It could go down a million different ways. The problem, as I see it, is that whatever legislation we pass to reduce the effectiveness of an assailant can be defeated with a tactical or strategic adjustment before the ink is dry. Take the Aurora shooting in that movie theater. As I recall, he entered through the emergency exit in front of the audience. The shooter's effectiveness wasn't the result of the weapon he carried. It was the fact that he stampeded the moviegoers into the exit aisles to get away from him. Think about it. He had a column of people clamoring to escape him, lined up in front of him, with their backs to him. He shouldn't have used an AR15 or a shotgun. A much more powerful deer rifle would have been better since it will shoot through two or three people at once. I believe in the Army they call it a kill zone.

Don't sweat it. This is an internet forum. We're all in over our heads here. Shit, that's what makes it fun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #17)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 09:18 PM

21. All good points

I REALLY do understand your thoughts and those of others on not being able to legislate safety for the obsessive, committed. I think you are all correct. We live at the mercy of our fellow man. A committed killer will do what he is going to do regardless of the law.

Where I come down on this is I think it is a proper role of government to do what it can to limit the public from the risk of merely unstable, but less committed potential killers WITHOUT unduly restricting the rights of law abiding citizens.

How we do that is the rub. It would seem to me that well meaning folks from both sides of the issue should be able to figure that out. Unfortunately, I think the issue is so hyper-politicized it makes it hard to build consensus on what is rational / reasonable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GitRDun (Reply #21)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 04:19 AM

28. The problem is history

 

We have many many gun control laws on the books already. Everytime in the past where gun owners have given in to "reasonable" compromises within a few days to a few months the gun control advocates come back asking for even more. If they passed an assault weapons ban tomorrow do you think the Brady Campaign and their supporters are just going to close up shop? The fact of the matter is, you're caught up in a battle between those who want to remove all weapons from public hands and those that feel we have given up too much of our constitutional right already. Gun control advocates understand that their positions of total civilian disarmament are not popular enough to say outright so they cloak them in the guise of public safety and use every tragedy to push their agenda before the bodies are even cold. Then when their lies get rebutted they wail in fake indignation that the gun rights advocates are politicizing the tragedy. That's why there can't be a compromise on this issue, there's two dedicated camps with totally opposed agendas and there's some folks who wander into the middle of the fray that don't understand what is going on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Reply #28)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 11:28 AM

41. I learned something last night

I think the discussion has been awesome. While I don't have strong feelings on gun control issues, I can now see why there are strong feelings on the gun advocates side. Whatever my logical thoughts are on the issue of what is rational control, it seems to me there has been a break down in trust between gun advocates and those who seek to restrict access to guns. Seems to me that rebuilding some trust between the two sides is what's necessary. If gun control advocates are truly dis arming zealots as you seem to be implying, then gun advocates have no choice but to fight incremental restrictions. I definitely get that. Lol the zealots screw up everything, no matter what the topic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GitRDun (Reply #12)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 01:30 PM

51. That's OK.

Here in the gungeon we welcome those who are open to actual information and want facts to inform their thinking. Most of the regular pro-gun folks here are very knowledgable and eager to explain things to any who will listen.

Your reasoning about the guy in the video is likely correct. But even an untrained person can learn to do a mag swap in three seconds with only a few attempts for practice. The VT killer walked among the students shooting and swapped magazines 17 times without being stopped. The Luby's killer also swapped mags and wasn't stopped by any of the victims.

In the two cases in which an extended magazine was used, the magazine jammed bring the shooting to an unplanned stop. All who are well familiar with guns are aware that high capacity magazines are failure prone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GitRDun (Reply #6)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 08:01 PM

10. You keep refering to hunting.

 

Please cite to this hunting in the Constitution or the Amendments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #10)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 08:16 PM

11. The 2nd Amendment and Miller

I am no expert in this area. My layman's understanding is that with regard to the 2nd Amendment, one side feels the 2nd Amendment only provides for weapons in defense of the state/country, while the other believes in a universal right to bear arms. I am with the latter crowd. The Miller case, which I suspect most know about said that the government could regulate guns not needed for defense / state militias. I do not have much knowledge about state constitutional law.

My references to hunting are merely my thoughts on what would be reasonable government regulation of guns in light of US v. Miller.

Based on some of the other comments, I may not have the right idea about WHAT the regulations should be, but that is where I think the competition for ideas belongs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GitRDun (Reply #11)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 08:40 PM

15. You're half right

 

They regulated certain arms BECAUSE they had no military purpose, i.e keeping the populace armed with military style weapons, therefore they felt the 2nd amendment didn't cover them per say. Which doesn't stand up under scrutiny but there it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GitRDun (Reply #6)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 01:49 AM

24. The phenomenon you describe resembles a civil privilege...

However, that language and meaning isn't found in the Bill of Rights.

People who aren't inclined toward criminality won't cause problems, even if they have 30 round magazines.

People who are habitual or nascent criminals will cause harm no matter what legal restrictions (well meaning?) people try to impose, as is the case today in Chicago with its strict gun 'control' laws. Rather than paradise, they have created a murder citadel.

Limiting magazine capacity is unacceptable not only because it won't stop crime, but because of the bad precedent it sets. If 'they' can arbitrarily limit how many rounds can go in a magazine, who says that next year instead of 10 it's 7, and then 3, and then 1 and then zero. It's like limiting the number of pages a book can have because some guy might read a textbook on investing, and then choose to scam people. No- it is not for Government to tread on the rights of The People in this manner. We keep books legal and the press free, and we criminalize the act of deceiving people. Laws limiting magazines reach too far, and if tolerated, what was formerly considered a Right surely degenerates into a tenuous privilege.

If we legislate that people may only use high capacity magazines in certain places, why may we not also say that the only place you can read a book is in a library? Once again, such a law on magazine use would do nothing to deter or hinder criminals. The only people who would obey such a law are the kind of people who have no intention of hurting anybody or causing trouble. Criminals won't obey our laws, thus it is bad policy to sign away a chunk of our Freedom for the purpose of reducing crime. We're better off keeping all our Freedom, and punishing criminals when they violate just laws.

By the way, the Founders were very disinclined to obey English acts and edicts which they believed violated their charter rights or their rights as Englishmen. They said that The People had no duty to obey such laws, even if enacted. So We the People need to impose a righting impulse to legislators now and then by means of civil disobedience, and by firing legislators during elections. We don't need any kind of law- we need just laws, laws that deserve respect, so that we'll willingly obey them, and can readily identify and punish criminals who violate the rights of others. But a thicket of petty, useless, freedom-shearing laws- bad or unjust law- simply serves to devalue the law an order establishment which imposes them. We need the consent of the governed in order to have a society worth having, and not a police state.

Thanks by the way for your very civil and thoughtful interest in this topic; I hope you'll share your further thoughts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Francis Marion (Reply #24)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 02:41 AM

25. Lol I give up

I do not think it is fair to ascribe to the notion that since you cannot prevent all crime you should not try to prevent any. I also think legislating where people read books is not the same as legislating how and where people can have or use high capacity magazines. I also believe the NRA would be there to challenge in court unreasonable reductions in magazine capacity.

I don't have terribly strong feelings one way or the other on guns. while i don't use them i can see why others do. I guess what I have learned tonight, in the end, is there may not be a rational middle ground...most who do have a stake in these laws would either like very few restrictions or as many as possible. I enjoyed the discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GitRDun (Reply #25)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 12:37 AM

114. Not a far fetched comparison...

Let's look at Amendment II. Says that your right to keep and bear shall not be infringed. That leads you to believe that government must maintain a hands-off approach. And why not- that is the plain meaning of the language.

Now let's look at Amendment IV:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

It's very inconvenient for the police to have to get warrants to search homes, to have to articulate probable cause for a vehicle stop, to Mirandize persons under arrest; all these things take time away from police work. So, to help out, the state legislature passes a law banning your right to be secure in your person, house, papers, effects, as outlined above in Amendment IV. They 'ban' your fourth amendment rights in the name of public safety.

They shred Amendment IV, despite the plain protection spelled out for you in that text.

Next, the prevailing party in the state legislature decides that it is inconvenient to have to appeal to all of the electorate; so instead, they ban voting in neighborhoods populated by their political opposition. Wait a minute- my family has been able to vote since Amendment 15...

Nah, not any more. Because Amendment II said "x", and the legislature successfully legislated "-x", we learned that we don't have to respect the rights of the people. We can do whatever we want. Henceforth, because you tolerated disrespect for 'gun rights' in the name of safety, we see no reason to treat you as free people any longer. The title of 'Legislator is obsolete- we will now be called Master.

Why not? That was the situation for Black Americans after the Civil War, when the law spelled out rights and protections which state legislatures banned, negated, disrespected at will for four generations.

It's better not to let freedom get away from you to begin with; you might not see it come back in your lifetime. Authoritarian structures don't arise dramatically overnight. But they do arise, policy after policy, and as fast as the people allow them. And yes, they will eventually take the people to a place where Government decides what books line the shelves, who can read them, and where. Just think of the worst people among us handed vast, unaccountable power, and the ensuing hell they'd create. That has been the human experience for large masses of Europe and Asia for most of the last century.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GitRDun (Reply #6)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 01:09 PM

49. The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting.

It's about self-defense. You don't use "high capacity" magazines at all for hunting. And one almost never encounters a rifle with a thirty rounder in it being carried around "just in case". I can't remember the last time I saw someone slinging an AR15 for self defense outside their home. It's really just not a big deal to anyone except for the moral crusaders who want them banned.

Oh, and of all the firearms in the OP's list, the first one, the M1 Garand, is probably one of the most deadly implements of war ever created. It only holds eight rounds. A good rifleman with an M1 can really do some impressive shooting. And at a distance that would make a pistol or shotgun completely ineffective.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeepnstein (Reply #49)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 06:14 PM

89. I did not say the 2nd Amendment was about hunting

I said that my understanding of the Constitutional issues was that the 2nd Amendment was about the right to bear arms with the two sides beliefs being:

1). The individual right to bear arms versus.
2). Only a militias right to bear arms, not the individual.

I went on to say my understanding has always been that the US vs. Miller case was the one that allowed government to regulate arms held by individuals. That is the extent of my knowledge on the Constitutional Law around the right to bear arms.

The references to hunting were nothing more than an honest attempt to discuss what might be a rational way to regulate the use of assault weapons or high volume magazines.

What I have learned from the discussion is that the pro-gun folks see the the anti-gun folks (who do not include me) as zealots who want everything banned, which means to me that no change to laws is possible, whether or not they improve things for anyone, pro-gun, anti-gun, or anyone else for that matter.

I enjoyed the discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GitRDun (Reply #6)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 07:40 PM

91. Only about 20% of gun owners are hunters.

The rest have their guns for other reason, primarily for trget shooting and self-defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Original post)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 07:41 PM

8. Hey, you forgot the Webley break-open revolvers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Original post)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 09:08 PM

19. M1911 is pretty nice x <3 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Original post)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 09:21 PM

22. He of course meant the mean looking ones that kill people...

like the AR with that scary looking adjustable stock and extra mean looking flash hider...those threaded barrels...super mean.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Original post)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 09:47 PM

23. He misspoke. He needs to be brought up to speed on this issue and quickly -

He could finish off Romney with a strong educated oral essay on the issues of RKBA and Guns In America. Someone on his team needs to Step Up!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #23)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 11:52 AM

45. He should talk to us. Seriously. We are Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #45)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 11:54 AM

46. We are the most progressive of democrats...we believe in the 2A, some rights shouldn't be given up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #46)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 02:46 PM

106. I quite agree. Maybe we need to send a letter with most of us signing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #45)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 06:36 PM

90. I keep hoping that one of his Crew keeps tabs on us ---

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #90)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 02:49 PM

107. Gun control is an elite outlook. We are not elite or well-placed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Original post)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 03:59 AM

26. ALL OF THEM.(and all bullets) Thank God for Mayor Mike!

 

each and every one should be banned from outside one's inside home.

remember-legal guns kill more people than illegal guns.

Thank God Mike must be reading my posts of the last months.
being that-
He vowed yesterday to spend EIGHT FIGURES- that is between 10-99 million dollars to start, to start a superpac helping candidates who back his desires, on either side.
His biggest is to rid the streets of ALL guns that should not be on the streets.

Mayor Mike got our back! Thank God for Mayor Mike!

I told you the 16 ounce sodas was just a trial ballon to show something better to come in the future.

The NRAieees are scared. Never before has someone with megamoney gone up against the bully pulpit that the NRA is.


God Bless him!


btw-listening to an old Cher record as we speak, this early Friday morning in the NYC area, ...care to guess which one?




liberal democrats should equal peace IMHO and not bullets that are manufactured specifically to kill something. (after all one could target practice with something that does not kill, one can collect guns without ammo, and one can buy food in the supermarket like most people do these days.)

and I go bowling...you don't see me pack my shoes and ball and go looking to have a legal bowling ball concealed with me while enjoying my first amendment right to life liberty and my pursuit of happiness in a movie theatre, restaurant or post office.

and I don't see baseball card collectors packing their rookie Mantle cards while stalking poor innocent unarmed people in Florida, and taking that baseball card and coward like blowing away a living vital human being, like the NRA backed Zimmerman did saying it was his 2nd amendment right to do just that(and having people actually donate big money to him...WTF???)

and I don't see stamp collectors packing their 2cent rarities in a dark movie theatre.
and I don't see coin collectors packing their pennies in a bar while arguing issues that raise the blood pressure and lead to bar room fights.
If one is a collector, collectors put their prize possessions in a collector showcase or on the wall.
Remember, stamps don't kill.

peace and love to all, this beautiful Friday morning, from the greatest city in the world.
as now deceased legendary dj Ron Lundy in the 1960s and 1970s and early 80s used to say every single day he was on the air. Home to Mayor Mike! (God Bless Mayor Mike).

the draconian SCOTUS that gave us their opinion of the 2nd, also gave us corporate personhood. People want to amend the later and shall God be willing, do so one day, and just as easily the forementioned opinion can also be overturned.

IMHO of course, you all are entitled to yours.

peace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #26)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 04:32 AM

29. First they came for my Soda ...

 

... but I didn't like big sodas so I did nothing ...



Let the billionaire megalomaniac Mike B. piss away his money ... it won't change anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #29)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 04:56 AM

30. you have the right to your opinion but they are only YOUR opinion

 

BTW-have a good day

I from now on learned a good lesson.
Speak my piece (but don't carry one) and only address the issue at hand.
You have of course, the right to speak your piece (and for now carry one if you choose)

AND I AM JEWISH and detest the comparisons to Hitler and the war.
One has nothing to do with this thread.

and the ole' canard you bring up could also mean the following

-first the NRA came and took away the rights of any candidates who spoke out
-then the abortion foes came and whittled away the rights of any candidates for abortion
-then the asssasssin came and took away ALL women's rights to privacy in Kansas by
(laughably) killing an unarmed man in a Church (A CHURCH OF ALL PLACES)
-then the asssassins came and murdered a judge and attempted to murder a democrat congresswoman on the way up
-then a terrorist named Zimmerman came and stalked and hounded like an animal a young man with no weapon far, far, far, far away from Zimmy's house, and in cold blood killed his prey, of course taking away Trey's first amendment right for LIFE liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

so the ole' canard could be turned around...be seeing you as #6 once famously said.
and it's funny how in all the situations, it is always the innocents who's constitutional rights to freedom, liberty and/or their political view are taken from us

be seeing you
#6 would be me, same as I am juror #8 no matter how some try to twist my words
No, I am not a number, I am trying to be a peaceful free man, without the threat of bullets shattering that peace.

(same as one who might look at my profile sees I am in this area of this board alot.
But what they don't see is that everytime I post in this area, it is AGAINST THE GUN
not for it.
So appearances can be deceiving.


peace.

(reminder-the NRA has 4.3 members out of 320 million.
just 1.48% of the population round down, the NRA is the 1% elite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #30)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 09:28 AM

32. NRA may only have 4.3 million members

 

but you keep on failing to mention the other appox. 75 million other gun owners in the country who will fight tooth and nail against people of your ilk and against your hero, "Mayor Mike" whom I also refer to as Blooming Idiot Mike.
Yes. Blooming Idiot Mike has started his own super pac, but I highly doubt that he's going to take on the NRA, if he did that, you would see the NRA membership jump dramatically and it's coffers would swell to historic proportions, besides, who do you think politicians are more likely to listen to, Blooming Idiot Mike, who is only one person, or the NRA who represent millions of gun owners who vote?

But if your dream of a ban outside of the home is what makes you feel warm and fuzzy all over, more power to you, meanwhile, I'm going to donate more money to my local gun rights group and while I'm at it, I think I'll join the GOA just because you convinced me that I have to protect my rights. Thanks for helping me make up my mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #32)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 09:40 AM

33. Mike Bloomberg ...

 

... is probably the most mocked man in America right now -- between his war on trans fats and his soda envy he's made himself into a caricature of the nation's nanny. I only wish Mr "do as I say, not as I do" would take a direct shot at American gun-owners, it would be the end of his rather checkered-career.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #33)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 09:43 AM

34. Honestly

 

do you really see him taking on gun owners in this country, because that's what he would be doing if he declares his intention to take on the NRA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #34)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 10:25 AM

37. Having worked for him in the past ...

 

... I can HONESTLY see him thinking he can. But, I can also honestly see him blaming everyone but himself when he fails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #37)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 01:38 PM

53. just a quick question

 

why would you on a liberal democrat board argue pro guns and all and on purpose
take the name you did as your board name, who was in the book and the reason and the object being read by the asssassssin who took one of the single biggest peace person away from us?

but for A GUN. without a bullet,Ghandi and John Lennon would be here today

i could see it if you weren't in the gun thread, but I do find it a weird coinky dinky.

none of my business though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #53)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 01:43 PM

55. "the single biggest peace person away from us?"

 

I doubt that Nathuram Godse ever read "Catcher in the Rye" ... you were talking about Gandhi, right? What did John Lennon ever do for peace besides being paid millions of dollars to sing about it?

And I argue in favour of civil rights because I AM a liberal Democrat. No one who calls themselves a liberal Democrat could ever argue in favour of stripping law-abiding citizens of their rights under the constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #53)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 01:52 PM

58. The biggest peace person? Really?

 

What about Martin Luther King Jr.? Or how about Mohandas Karamchand Ghandi? John Lennon was a lightweight compared to them and many, many others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #58)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 01:55 PM

59. oops, i forgot LBJ, my bad. One of the biggest peace persons(Ghandi King Lennon LBJ all tied #1

 

therefore, as all are tied at #1, they are all the biggest


but its'amazing how Mitt Romney like it is to avoid the questions at hand when spewing nra propaganda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #59)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 02:00 PM

62. LBJ?

 

The same LBJ that escalated the war in Vietnam and cost me two years of my life fighting to stay alive, that LBJ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #62)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 02:07 PM

65. LBJ signed the voting rights/ civil rights acts that made ALL EQUAL, like the declaration of indep.

 

but only LBJ made all people equal like the founding fathers wanted but never actually did
(especially Tommy jefferson who as you know, owned slaves and abused the women that he owned.)

How about their 1st amendment rights?

without LBJ, Obama couldn't be president
because NO OTHER PRESIDENT would have or did back then.

The war is something started by Eisenhower, so blame Ike.

but you made this into a distraction of the real fear- Meek Mayor Mike is going to kick the NRA's butt bigger than LBJ kicked Goldwater's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #65)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 02:14 PM

67. And LBJ never would have got the Voting Rights Act passed w/o the R's

 

so how does that square with you?
Meanwhile I'm sitting here enjoying my vacation that you think that Blooming Idiot Mikey is going to take on the NRA. I hope he does, I would love to see him get him get a good ass kicking and sent back to NY with his tail between his legs like his NY Yankees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #67)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 02:36 PM

78. He is not running for office after his term ends in 2013.

 

and Texas shall turn blue in 2014 and 2016, if not this year.

have a nice vacation. I gotta go out now, so to be continued.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #78)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 02:43 PM

80. You have a good day also

 

Am going to Busch Stadium to watch the Cardinals finish off the Giants tonight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #32)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 11:20 AM

39. megalomaniac??

No; just commander-in-chief of the 6th largest army in the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #39)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 11:27 AM

40. That's OK

 

his "Army" is more like the gang that couldn't shoot straight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #40)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 11:29 AM

42. I see him...

...as more of a cross of Sgt. Bilko and Sky-net.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #42)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 01:41 PM

54. when you start calling your enemy dumbo names, it means you is scared silly

 

and meek mayor mike is scaring alot of people it seems who support the piece
instead of THE PEACE

verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy interesting..as they say on laugh-in................. but you can bet your sweet bippy it's true as they said on laugh-in

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #54)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 01:59 PM

61. When you're unable...

...to express a cogent applicable reply it means that...


...you're unable to express a cogent applicable reply and...
...that you're being defensive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #32)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 01:45 PM

57. for all we know, one rich person put 4.3 million people's diff. names down

 

you reminded me of something

for all we know, the 4.3 is less than 100,000

all it takes is a person with money who writes in a few 100 names or 1000 names and the 4.3
becomes maybe 100 rich people

as Art Garfunkle sang "That's all I know"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #57)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 01:58 PM

60. Didn't address the question

 

what about the other 75-80 million other non NRA gun owners out there? You really think that we'll just sit there and do nothing while people of your ilk attempt to strip away a civil right? Do you think that the ranks of the NRA won't swell and the money won't flow in to protect a civil right? Do you think that the politicians will listen to Blooming Idiot Mike instead of millions upon millions of American firearms owners who vote?

Pull on the other leg, it's got bells.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #57)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 02:06 PM

64. mayor mike seems to have...

...a number of "People hearing without listening" and among some "Silence like a cancer grows".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #64)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 02:12 PM

66. mayor mike will kick the nra's butt...90% of the people used to smoke, now they don't.

 

but the silence is the people cowering in fear of the nra all these years

all those politicians that refused to go against them, because the NRA would defeat them

now they have someone who is spending 8 figures (thats between 10-99 million) to have the backs of those that side on the side of his issues, regardless of party

which will lead to those in our party finally having a way around the bully pulpit of the 1% the nra represents.

btw-bloomberg is finishing his term and not running for another office.
in freedom there is power.
the NRA has no position to defeat him on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #66)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 02:20 PM

69. the number of smokers were never that high

40 percent maybe, but not 90.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #66)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 02:22 PM

70. Really?

 

How much has Blooming Idiot Mikey spent so far trying to defeat the NRA? Got a figure for that? Perhaps a link to an amount? Do you have any proof that he's going to take on the NRA?
Your pipe dream of the NRA being defeated is just that, a pipe dream. It's people like you and BIM that are the best recruiting tool for the NRA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #70)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 02:28 PM

72. he just announced 8 figures three days ago.

 

and i have heard that bull line you put in the end before on cgcs(a now defunct board that was an offshoot of the old official Kerry site.)
That line didn't impress me then and doesn't know.

you also forget to include the army of people who will flock to Meek Mayor Mikes side.

(like Harry Reid in some ways...sometimes he appears meek, but he is a scrappy old time fighter when he needs to be.)

i expect this will take years. It is not something overnight.

and at some point they will invent something that makes bullets obsolete, thereby making there be no need to get rid of the gun itself, if ammo don't work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #72)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 02:31 PM

75. phaser control

and at some point they will invent something that makes bullets obsolete, thereby making there be no need to get rid of the gun itself, if ammo don't work.
then you and Mike will be ranting about "assault phasers"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #72)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 02:34 PM

76. But did he announce any for combatting the NRA?

 

No he didn't.
The army of people that will flock to BIM's side? Oh you mean like the million mom march that's now down to a few hundred mom march, how about the Brady Org. who have a whole, what, 25,000 members?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #30)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 10:04 AM

36. Beware the loss of liberty, all is relevant.

 

http://jpfo.org/

There are pro gun Jewish people and anti gun Jewish people. Hitler also did a multi-cultural mass murder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #30)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 11:31 AM

43. Has Mike given up his armed bodyguards or his "fourth largest army in the world" yet?

 

Ooops, I guess that was "sixth largest army in the world". Whatevuh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #43)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 02:02 PM

63. I wish trey had bodyguards to protect him from the stalker who cowardly with a gun shot him

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #63)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 02:34 PM

77. Coherency, please? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #26)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 10:33 AM

38. You are getting less and less coherent

 

with every post here. I can't even make heads nor tails of you're talking about. Maybe somebody here can translate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #26)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 01:14 PM

50. Are you a single issue voter then?

Thank God Mike must be reading my posts of the last months.
being that-
He vowed yesterday to spend EIGHT FIGURES- that is between 10-99 million dollars to start, to start a superpac helping candidates who back his desires, on either side.
His biggest is to rid the streets of ALL guns that should not be on the streets.


Since he will back candidates on either side... will you vote for an anti-gun Republican over a pro-gun Democrat?


Also this is the person who funded illegal interstate gun sales, having no legal authority to do so, to further his agenda. I am less than trusting of a person who has so little respect for the law. Breaking laws is a lot like potato chips...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #50)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 02:17 PM

68. it's not in the top ten of important to me issues.

 

but it seems to be overly important on a liberal democrat board to back killing equiptment made solely to kill something.

a collector don't need bullets that kill

and guns can kept at shooting ranges under lock and key
(I don't bring my bowling ball to a bar or restaurant or movie theatre)

it is the NRA lie, that people protect themselves in a house with family, and kids because their guns are locked up. If someone enters there would be no time to unlock so it's a phony sound byte (like Mitt blaming taxes hurting small business)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #68)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 02:29 PM

73. sure

so what about rural and small town people who don't live near ranges? Wait, it should be the hobby of rich urbanites.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=96055&page=1#.UIGa0jn_6Gg

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #68)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 02:29 PM

74. Really?

 

You're going to tell us that people can't protect themselves in their homes with a gun, even if the gun is locked up? Seriously?
I know far better than you that it happens and happens far more often than you believe.
Here's one of a 12 yo girl protecting herself against an intruder.
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/117280652

Oh yeah. I forgot, she shouldn't have shot that man, after all, he might one day invent the cure for cancer or AIDS.

There are stories everyday of someone protecting their home from intruders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #68)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 02:48 PM

81. I would put GC in my top ten, but not #1

Ignoring the redundancy, none of my guns have killed a person. Several animals have net unfortunate ends but I only choose to go into the hunts to rectify human caused ecosystem imbalance.
There is the possibility that someday a person may be killed but it will only be in a life and death situation.

Some people collect ammunition...

Do you lock up your bowling ball? I too do not bring bowling balls to such as bowling balls, golf clubs or power tolls to bars... They would serve no purpose. Public places provide me protection from many dangers e.g. sprinklers for fire, storm shelter areas for severe weather. One thing they do not provide me protection from is personal assault. I therefore provide my own tool.
I did bring a gun to bowling yesterday. It turned out to be useless to me; although in retrospect I probably would have done better with that than the ball. In any case, my wife was the only one aware that I had it.

No security is ever 100% perfect, but locking a gun is better than leaving it on a coffee table. If a gun is in a vault type safe, it would take time to retrieve it. I use a push button lock box for the time I am not carrying my pistol. Even from sleep I can retrieve it in under 5 seconds, much better than than SPPD response time. I also keep a flash light and a spare house key attached to a glow stick in there. My cell phone rests on top of the box at night.

The best family protection from harm by a gun in the house is education. Everyone in the house is aware of the guns and know that if one is left out it is not to be touched. The only exception being my wife and myself as we are the only trained shooters; all children and other adults agree to this. My children are learning proper firearms safety with air soft guns. After use they clean them and then lock them in the safe with my guns. When I feel they are ready, and if they choose to continue, we will move onto BB guns and so on. They may opt out any time they wish, but will respect, rather than fear firearms from the knowledge they have gained.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #26)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 08:40 PM

93. circle jerk with the republican

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Original post)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 04:17 AM

27. You forgot PBO's well known hate for:



Everything else pictured in the OP should be just fine in civilian hands over the next four years....well unless that Romney fellow takes over. No telling what he might take away from us. Hell, I suspect Romney hates tanks too!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chknltl (Reply #27)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 09:16 AM

31. That is and was a beautiful fighter.

 

I've always loved the look of the P-51 Mustang, it just looks lethal and it's sting was deadly, as the Germans found out.



Here's what the Tuskegee Airman flew during WW2.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #31)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 12:10 PM

47. It looks nice, but the "golden BB" could take it down.

I prefer a P-47D
.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #47)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 12:32 PM

48. Yeah

 

Ground fire could take out the Mustang by hitting the radiator mounted on the bottom of the aircraft. I also liked the looks of the P-40 Tomahawk. The sharks mouth was fricken awesome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #47)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 02:25 PM

71. Why was the Thunderbolt called a Jug i wonder.

To me it looks like a sleek tank with wings and a tiny cockpit. To many many Nazi tank commanders it was the last thing they saw before meeting their makers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chknltl (Reply #71)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 05:04 PM

84. Because when seen from below the fusalage resembled a milk jug.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #47)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 02:54 PM

82. This is what Bush Sr. flew during the war.

 



The Grumman TBF-1 Avenger.
Not a bad looking aircraft.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #82)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 05:36 PM

86. Yep. President Kennedy 'flew' this baby:



I watched a rebuilt one in operation on Bellingham Bay back in the mid 1980s. Make no mistake about it, for a boat of its size those babies fly across the water! What it lacked in armor it made up for in speed and nimbleness. The one I sa was very bit sa beautiful as many of the fighters of that time. I suppose an argument can be made that they just don't build em like they used to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chknltl (Reply #86)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 06:03 PM

87. No picture!!! Kennady commanded an 80ft Elco boat.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_Torpedo_Boat_PT-109

Can you ID Kennedy in this photo?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #87)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 08:44 PM

94. Not the one in picture?

I snagged it from PT 109 Images.

Well thanks to modern tech I could cheat and pretend to guess. Not my style so I will guess that JFK is the shirtless guy standing portside (btw they did not teach me port from starboard in the army so I am thinking that Kennedy is the shirtless guy standing on the right in this image).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chknltl (Reply #94)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 11:43 PM

95. Well despite your obvious and rampant cheating

You are correct!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chknltl (Reply #94)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 11:49 PM

96. that would be the port side

since he is facing the bow. In the air force we learn cool French words like sortie just has a different meaning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #31)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 01:30 PM

52. The last Tuskagee Airman is here.

A few months ago at the VA Medical Center At American Lake in Lakewood Wa. I sat in the canteena having lunch. The room was almost empty as the lunch crowd had all but left but at one table sat a half dozen men of various ages, all black. The oldest one wore a jacket with a P-51 Mustang and the words Tuskagee Airman on the back.

I thought about going over and asking if he really and truly was one of those pilots, one of the most famous warriors of all times but I did not. I chickened out....who knows, the old guy may have just been wearing a way cool jacket that's all!

Weeks later, while playing pool in Lakewood, a different group of black males came in wanting to play some pool too. We played pool and chatted, our talk mostly being about football. One of the older guys had an impressive knowledge about football players from the !970s and 80. It turns out that his knowledge came from more than a love of the game, he was a retired Dallas Cowboy Defensive Lineman. I took it as an honor to shake his hand, he being the first NFL player I have ever done that with.

Then I mentioned that I may have missed my chance to shake the hand of a Tuskagee Airman recently. The youngest guy in the group informed me that he has a group photo of those nobel pilots, signed by most of them! He knew about that guy I saw at the hospital that day. He told me that guy was indeed a Tuskagee Airman, one who had signed his photo and THE last one yet living!

If what I was told is true I have missed a once in a lifetime chance to shake the hand of a legend! I know the story of the Tuskagee airmen. Those 'boys' hold a military record that borders on the fantastic! Like many many WWII fighter pilots they escorted bombers on their missions. Unlike any other fighter escort group, the Tuskagee Airmen brought each and every one of their flock back home safely!

When I think about this feat, I am in total awe! Consider it this way: How many thousands and thousands of Americans are alive today, alive because their fathers, grandfathers or great grandfathers survived WWII thanks to the heroic efforts of the Tuskagee Airmen! There are literally thousands upon thousands of Americans walking around alive today who would not be here if these heroes had not done what they did! Considered from that perspective the Tuskagee Airmen take on a whole bigger level of awesomeness!

I spend a lot of time at the VA hospital, I have seen that same group of black males over in the canteena more than a few times but now I am keeping an eye out for the guy with that jacket. Gods willing I will shake his hand. Gods willing I won't tear up while doing so....which is the very reason I chickened out that first time.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chknltl (Reply #52)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 01:44 PM

56. Outstanding story

 

those men were and are still hero's who, despite the rampant racism of that time, still went out and did their duty w/o hesitation and, like you said, saved the lives of thousands of bomber crews over Germany, and they were the first to shoot down the new german jet fighter, the ME-262



Quite a feat downing a jet fighter with a piston powered fighter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #56)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 01:18 PM

101. And just for shits and giggles

 

Here's what Gregory (Pappy) Boyington flew during WW2,
Vought F-4U Corsair.



The Japanese hated and feared this fighter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #101)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 01:37 PM

102. Strangly enough the Corsair was not aproved for carrier landings

until the Brits figured a way to do it. The trouble was that big damn engine forced the cockpit to be behind the wing center. Damn poor visibility for landing on a moving deck.

From WIKI: In Royal Navy service, because of the limited hangar deck height in several classes of British carrier, many Corsairs had their outer wings "clipped" by 8 in (200 mm) to clear the deckhead. The change in span brought about the added benefit of improving the sink rate, reducing the F4U's propensity of "floating" in the final stages of landing. Despite the clipped wings and the shorter decks of British carriers, Royal Navy aviators found landing accidents less of a problem than they had been to U.S. Navy aviators due to the curved approach used. British units solved the landing visibility problem by approaching the carrier in a medium left-hand turn, which allowed the pilot to keep the carrier's deck in view over the dip in the port wing, allowing safe carrier operations, and would later be adopted by U.S. Navy and Marines fliers themselves as well for carrier use of the Corsair.

The "Whispering Death" became a favorite of the USMC fliers.

Question, and no cheating! Why were the wings bent? Two part answer.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #102)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 01:58 PM

104. Aha

 

one of the reasons was because of the large propeller and the other was so the landing gear could be shortened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #104)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 03:44 PM

108. The second part is "why".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #108)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 03:51 PM

109. I'm not sure

 

but I'll take a stab at it, how about for performance and handling. Maybe something to do with the airflow over the wing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #108)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 03:52 PM

110. I'm going to guess that shorter landing gear reduced weight?

Beautiful airplane - it's always been one of my favorites to look at...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #110)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 05:24 PM

111. Landing on a carrier is best decribed as a "controlled crash"

The landing gear needs to be as strong as possible. Shorter gear is easier to build stout.
The prop on the Corsair is the same 14' prop used on the P47. In order to provide ground clearance, and build a shorter stouter landing gear, the wings were "bent" or gull winged. This allowed for both the needed landing gear AND the needed prop clearance!

Plus it made a easy to recognize fighter!!





A "Controlled Crash"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #111)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 08:02 PM

112. Interesting - so the wings are reaching down to the deck, not curving up

to the sky...

The video really shows the violence these planes (and pilots) put up with during a landing much more clearly than a normal-speed version. Very cool to see, thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #111)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 10:44 PM

113. This is what my dad flew during the war

 

Lockheed P-38 Lighting
made famous as the fighter that shot down Admiral Yamamoto's transport plane on 18 April 1943



Wow, I guess I got a little off topic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Original post)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 05:08 PM

85. Well there are other ways of interpreting that

Hardly any gun enthusiasts I've met support civilian access to weapons designed for war such as MOABs or ICBMs, so we would be better served by dumping the semantically correct examples on the extremes of the phrase and seeking realistic definitions of where the line should be.

My suggestion is doubtless imperfect but should be a more reasonable start than staking out silly positions on medieval arms or city-destroying strategic weapons. Let's go for the difficult middle not the easy but pointless oratorical devices of the extremes.

I'll start with where I'm comfy accepting civilian bans (and unless you are for Fred Phelps owning a nuke, we all have a line somewhere : Weapons which when used with basic competency and as designed, pose a significant risk to those other than a single legitimately targetted individual human threat.

Sure we would need to hash out the subjective terms basic competency and significant (and even risk) for a start, but again avoiding cheap argumentum ad absurdum tricks like positing ninja fighter pilots as competency models on the one side and "significant risk" meaning a ricochet from a passing car into the heart of a window cleaner thirty stories above on the other, it should be workable. It should exclude weapons with broad blast areas or bullets with extreme penetrative characteristics while allowing any of the "scary black rifle" variants that are in fact less powerful than a kid's first deer rifle. The line I suspect would end up being pushed somewhere around wildly inaccurate spray and pray cheap machine guns, which I'm ok with banning for one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #85)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 06:06 PM

88. Fred Phelps can have a nuke.

As long as he shoves it up his ass before detonating it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #85)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 12:01 AM

97. The difference between a gun and a bomb is public safety.

A gun is aimed. This is particularly true for the non-automatic ones.

One, and only one, bullet or cloud of shot is discharged per trigger pull. You aim, you shoot, you hit. At least, in theory.

Full auto guns and things that explode (bombs, mines, artillery shells, nukes, military rockets, hand grenades, etc.) done have that. They have a broad swath of destruction, usually 360°. Since you can't aim them at a specific target, the public is put in danger by their prescribed and approved method of deployment.

If I throw a hand grenade at a home invader, I'm putting everybody within dozens of yards in mortal danger. My kids, my spouse, my neighbors. And that's using the grenade as it is designed to be used.


So making those sorts of things tightly controlled is quite reasonable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #97)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 09:50 AM

99. No militia could hold its own without a much different set of weaponry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #99)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 01:38 PM

103. What type of "different set of weaponry" do you refer to?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #103)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 01:50 PM

118. if you do not know, I suggest you keep your militia in practice mode only.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #118)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 02:02 PM

120. So you really have no idea of what you are talking about.

Typical of the anti's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #120)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 03:10 PM

122. please explain your defense against drones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #99)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 04:29 PM

126. Sure it can.

The trick is to attack with your strengths against their weakness.


Obviously, a citizen militia would not form up into squads, put on uniforms, and march out to engage regular military troops. That would be stupid, as they were bombed and shelled into oblivion while tanks and APCs sprayed machine gun bullets.


The things that the army protects, that make the country run, those would be the targets the militias would have to either seize or destroy. They would work from ambush, striking prime targets at vulnerable points, infiltrate the ranks, run a civilian intelligence network, etc.

The million or so soldiers and Marines we have would have to patrol 3.5 million square miles and 310 million people, looking for a relative handful that continue to disrupt at night while working among the civilians during the day. If there was a widespread prolong militia guerrilla movement, there would have to be a draft and a national security state, and all that implies. The high-tech superweapons we have would remain largely idle, as they are not particularly useful in a guerrilla war. Not many targets, and the ones that come up are in America!


Ultimately, of course, there would have to be a political victory as well. A movement would have to rise up, savvy politicians and dealmakers would have to be able to convince the population and the military to come to an accommodation. If the war dragged on, you would see the militias grow in experience and numbers, becoming more like regular army troops.



For clarity, I'm not saying it's a certainly. I'm not saying it's a good idea. I don't endorse civil war, or the paranoid fools that run around in the woods with "The Turner Diaries" in one hand and a rifle in the other.

But it's not impossible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread