Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Fiancee Of Giffords Shooting Victim Works Hill As Gun Control Group Releases Chilling New Ad

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 08:47 AM
Original message
Fiancee Of Giffords Shooting Victim Works Hill As Gun Control Group Releases Chilling New Ad
Source: Huffington Post



WASHINGTON -- One of the nations most powerful gun-control advocacy groups is out with a new ad, and a symbolic new spokesperson, in an effort to persuade Congress to outlaw clips that allow up to 32 shots without reloading.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence put out the new spot on Tuesday morning calling directly on President Obama to take a stand against high-capacity magazines -- the clip used by Jared Loughner, the alleged shooter of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and 19 others in Tucson.

In conjunction with the ads release, the group is deploying a powerful new congressional liaison. Kelly O'Brien, fiancee of Gabe Zimmerman, the Giffords' staffer killed by Loughner, will be on the Hill Tuesday to endorse legislation sponsored by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) banning high-capacity magazines.

OBriens entrance into the debate over gun control legislation carries the same type of emotional undertones that accompanied the founding of the Brady Campaign itself. Once titled Handgun Control, Inc., the group evolved into its current incarnation and namesake after James Brady, a top aide to President Ronald Reagan who was permanently disabled during an assassination attempt on the President.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/12/fiancee-of-gif...



Ban Assault Clips Ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62Va-Ll2vKw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 08:55 AM
Response to Original message
1. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:04 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. That ad mirrors exactly what happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. And?
It was tragic, yet extremely rare event. Banning high-cap mags will do nothing to stop illegal shootings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #6
95. But it will force the killer to reload more often. As you remember
it was the pause as he reloaded that allowed his capture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #95
127. If you didn't know, Cho, the VA Tech shooter reloaded 17 times
using standard 10 round magazines and killed 32 people. How would a ban on higher capacity magazines stop that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #127
167. It depends on the situation. In the Tucson attack he
was in a crowd. His victims were nearby. Most were adults, some veterans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneTenthofOnePercent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #167
201. So if you restrict his items perhaps he changes his tactics...
You can't simply say "wihout a highcap Loughner would have killed fewer people" because you cannot his reaction to the new "rules" of the game.

What if lougher decided to use New-York-style reloads (two pistols, one always ready and loaded while reloading the other so the shooter is never unable to shoot)? Or loughner could have used more distance and a rifle. Or Loughner could have used an off-the-shelf shotgun which holds more pellets and shoots them faster than any pistol ever could empty its magazine. Maybe he fills a few barrels with fertilizer/fuel and blows everyone up instead.

The fact of the matter is that advocating limiting magazine size to thwart people like Loughner is a logical fallacy in that the proposal doesn't take into account a changing strategy given the changed conditions... some strategies which may be even more detrimental. And, given current supply, any criminal will likely just obtain a prohibited item for illicit use anyways... meaning the ban was useless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #201
211. Levels of expertise varies from one to another.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #211
223. All the levels needed are very basic.
Edited on Wed Apr-13-11 11:35 AM by GreenStormCloud
The decision to carry an extra gun does take an expert. Reloading is extremely simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #223
228. I know it is simple, but no matter how much you rehearse
your lines, when on stage there's always the change to draw a blank.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #228
232. Hoping an active shooter will screw up a magazine change is an extremely thin hope. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #232
233. Better than having no hope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #233
234. A better hope is to get training and carry a gun yourself. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #234
237. There were other guns there at Tucson, but weren't drawn.
He had the drop on them, so they couldn't respond without being killed too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #167
209. Same with the Ft. Hood shooter. He reloaded often. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #209
212. He had military training and familiarity with the people and place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RSillsbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 04:29 AM
Response to Reply #212
215. The Ft Hood Shooter was a Psychiatrist
And I'm going to bet he was assigned to MEDDAC which is about as close to not being in the Army as you can get and still wear BDUs to work. I would just about bet that he never even went to a qualification range or took a PT test or ever went to the field. IOW he had about as much "military training " as loughner did
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #215
219. Reports came out that he had been doing weapons training.
I was ASA, and under control of a civilian agency, but I still had to go through basic military training.

It's not hard to find firing ranges around military bases.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RSillsbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #219
229. You may have been ASA
But you weren't a Dr. that's a whole different breed. Dr.s go to OBC at Ft. Sam Houston where they are taught Military Customs and not too much else. When I was assigned to MEDDAC we didn't even have weapons or a unit arms room and we were ( as a whole) 100% non deployable.

Dr.s can be overweight, have long hair (w/ in reason) beards, they can be amputees, they can be older than dirt and still be in the Army because the Army is short on Dr.s especially specialist Dr.s
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 07:22 AM
Response to Reply #212
218. It doesn't take training to shoot unarmed people, nor to reload.
Reloading is easy. Push button and old magazine drops clear, other hand inserts new magazine, your are ready to shoot some more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #218
220. To do it smoothly while under extreme stress does take
some training.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #220
224. You are trying to make it sound like it takes an expert to be an active shooter.
The amount of training required is very minor. Guns are designed to be easy to operate under stress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #224
227. But the placement of the clips, and other details can give
just enough time for a bystander to escape or attack. It has to be practiced. Doing it in a shooting range and doing in the heat of "battle" are two different things. That's all I am saying. A split second was all it took for the heroes of Tucson to act. In practice he might have been much quicker, but in that heady moment, he may have fumbled just long enough to give an opening. How many lives might have been saved if he had to do that reload at ten shots?

What purpose does a 30 round clip serve that a 10 round clip couldn't serve?

I've been around gun play (in Detroit) and it wasn't more than a couple rounds fired off before the parties ran away.

I've been shot at. They guy had a six shooter. He emptied it and missed. I was too far away and I guess the mixture of a gun only good for close quarters, a bad shot, and only 5-6 chances at me saved my life. I don't remember how many shots, because by the second round I was in full flight. I can still hear the sound of the rounds passing through the weeds.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RSillsbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #227
230. Luby's Cafeteria
According to Dr. Susanna Gratia Hupp George Henard was very calm and methodical as he went from person to person (w/his back to several at most times) executing them. She stated that he went from person to person , deliberately aimed and fired. When her father rushed him Henard simply turned, shot him in the chest and continued on.

Henard was Armed w/ a Ruger and a Glock ( 10 and 15 rounds respectively) and stopped to reload several times. She stated , very clearly , in her address to Congress WRT the first AWB (you know, the one that lost us control of the house for 10 years?) that it took Henard less than one second to reload and there was not time to rush him between magazine changes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #227
231. Clearing a jam takes longer than a split second.
Edited on Wed Apr-13-11 03:15 PM by GreenStormCloud
Reloading is very simple, very fast , and requires very little practice. Because guns are intended to be used in combat they are designed to be extremely simple to operate. They are also designed to be extremely reliable because fixing a malfunction while in combat is not something you want to have to do. Even a simple failure to feed jam requires a magazine extraction, hold the slide back and shake the loose round out, remember to hold the slide catch lever up, release the slide, insert fresh magazine, release slide. That is a lot to do under stress and competent handgunners practice clearing a jam. Even with everything going well it can take me five seconds or longer.

Reliability of feeding is important. It is well known among competent gunners that extended magazines, especially the 30+ round kind are prone to failure to feed. Since he had a 33 rd magazine and only fired 31 rounds and was tackled while the slide was back it is almost certain that he was attempting to clear a jam. Be thankful that he did have a monster magazine instead of a reliable standard magazine. With a standard magazine he could have quickly reloaded and kept on shooting. The VT killer did. The Luby's killer did. The Ft. Hood killer did. They all used standard magazines.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starboard Tack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #6
203. How do you know that? Are you clairvoyant?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #203
210. One does not have to be clairvoyant to know that people change methods...
...to respond to changing conditions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RSillsbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #2
166. I'm sorry but that ad made me laugh my ASS off
Assualt Clips? seriously? The world itsself does not contain that much fail
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
matt819 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #1
9. But is it wrong?
Does an assault clip allow the user to fire 32 rounds in 16 seconds? Yes.
Is an assault clip necessary for self defense? No.
Does it have any other purpose other than allowing someone to kill as quickly and indiscriminately? Yes
Is this an appeal to emotion? Sure. What are you going to do? Make an intellectual argument for a pressing need to purchase these over the counter? Give me a break.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #9
15. To justify a ban
the burden of proof lies with the one pushing it, not everyone else to refute it.

Everything should be available and legal unless a compelling reason can be made for it to be illegal.

Like say a study linking people who legally buy these clips to increased rates of murder. One will not be presented because such a link doesn't exist.

You don't get to ban things because your gut says it's a good idea. We tried that with prohibition and it was a terrible idea. So present facts to back such a ban.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
forty6 Donating Member (849 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #15
103. "the burden of proof lies with the one pushing it" WHY?
What possible benefit to society are these inventions?

Let's invent more deadly gases, more bazooka's more atomic weapons...just because we can!

And when we invent these deadly things, let's challenge everyone in the nation to come up with a "burden of proof" for banning them....otherwise, let any legally "sane" adult own them, it's a free country!

You see how silly your argument can be?

The only "burden of proof" needed is their deadliness. "Quod erat demonstratum"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lawodevolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #103
136. High cap magazines have nothing to do with the other things you listed
High cap magazines are not dangerous and are not evil. There is no need to ban them just because you are afraid of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
forty6 Donating Member (849 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #136
161. Other than their common intended use: to kill human beings. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glassunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #161
169. Exactly!
That's why only the police, government agencies and some select civilians should only be allowed to have them: to kill human beings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #161
185. Damnit, mine must all be broken.
I want my money back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lawodevolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #161
200. So you think magazines kill people?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Callisto32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #103
159. The funny part....
is that you think you made an argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #103
195. Because thats how our society works.
All things are allowed until and unless they are forbidden.

The burden of proof, when it comes to changing a thing from allowed to forbidden, therefore, lies with the people pushing to make a thing forbidden.


In this case, expect resistance, and ultimately failure, in forbidding "assault clips".


And rightfully so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LanternWaste Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #15
117. I've never read that as the reason for prohibition
"You don't get to ban things because your gut says it's a good idea. We tried that with prohibition..."

I've never read "feeling good" as the reason for prohibition, let alone a primary reason; I've read that its originators pushed for its passage as a means to destroy the political corruption of the saloons, the political power of the German-based brewing industry, and the need to reduce domestic violence in the home as reasons cited (Max Henius 'The Error in the National Prohibition Act', & 'Alcohol, State and Society' by Stephen White), but certainly not the precise reason you yourself cited.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #9
16. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #9
46. nonsense
Assault clip is a Frank Luntz/Josh Sugarmann propaganda buzz word. Do you know anything about guns yourself, or just parroting the ad?
Someone who has little or know knowledge on a subject has no business telling someone who does "what they need"
Some target completions use them.
This is an emotional appeal because there is no intellectual argument for banning them.
Emotional appeals based on disinformation or lack of information never makes good policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Travelman Donating Member (326 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #46
89. + 10,000
Spot on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Callisto32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #9
158. Last I checked...
the burden of proof/production rests upon a prohibitionist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #9
184. You forgot 'does an assault clip exist'
because no, it does not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #9
225. The U.S. does not have a Dept. of Needs and you are not the Needs Czar.
Does an assault clip allow the user to fire 32 rounds in 16 seconds? Yes. That same rate of fire can be done with 10 rd magazines. Reloading a semi-auto is fast. They are designed to be quickly and easily reloaded. "Assault clip" is just a gun controllers scarry name for it.

Is an assault clip necessary for self defense? No. Until the situation arises I have no idea how many shots I will need. There was a recent posting of a guy that had to defend himself against four armed attackers. He shot all four but ran out of ammo also. He had a 12 rd magazine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #1
11. Those 'people.' With their 'emotions.'
'Pfft, Rebel scum!'



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maineman Donating Member (411 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #1
13. Gun violence is not emotional ???
Killing or injuring dozens of people very quickly is not emotional?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maineman Donating Member (411 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #1
20. A high capacity clip is good for what exactly?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #20
26. Watch the video. It shows a man using a high-capacity magazine for a peaceful purpose.
:argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maineman Donating Member (411 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #26
33. Practice shooting a child is peaceful ??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #33
36. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #36
70. Please provide a link to anyone in the Gungeon advocating doing that
I dare you to try.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #36
97. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Hangingon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #33
45. Not a child.
Please read the full article. In HuffPost's confused lexicon that is a "printable, target practice sheet".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #33
47. The only one ever practicing shooting a child is the guy in that video.
All of those silhouettes are fabricated by the brady bunch to evoke the exact emotional response you just gave.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #47
171. And in the movie "Men In Black" N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoopla Phil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #171
221. I noticed that similarity too. Very odd isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #33
52. Pretending to shoot a child is a 'harmless fantasy.'
Edited on Tue Apr-12-11 10:05 AM by onehandle
Perfectly 'normal.'

:sarcasm:

Sarcasm tag added for those who don't get quotation marks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #52
55. only in the add
that target exists nowhere else
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #52
68. He wasn't pretending to shoot a child. He's an actor shooting at a paper target.
In order to create an emotional response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Remmah2 Donating Member (971 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #52
129. No such target exist.
Only in the video.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #52
236. The only ones shooting at kiddie targets
are gun control shills and hacks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #33
67. You see a man shooting a child. I see a man punching holes in a piece of paper. For money.
Edited on Tue Apr-12-11 10:22 AM by slackmaster
Paid to shoot at a unique target in order to create an emotional reaction. Why is that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cherchez la Femme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #67
104. 'Emotional' is NOT a dirty word
Having 'Emotions' is NOT a negative thing.

Have you no shame at all?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #104
106. I find it telling that you inferred from what I wrote that I think emotions are negative
Edited on Tue Apr-12-11 12:09 PM by slackmaster
I said no such thing.

Have you no shame at all?

I have shame when it's warranted. In this case, it isn't. I see the propaganda for what it is. I can look at it objectively, without being swayed emotionally as intended by its creators. I'm proud of my ability to do that.

In the Huffington Post piece, the author calls the ad "chilling". It chilled him, and I'm sure it chills many other people, but not me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cherchez la Femme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #106
109. Gee, in which place?
you've repeated yourself all over this thread.

As for the 'shame at all' comment -- best I could do atm when I really wanted to give you a pithy two-word phrase.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #109
110. Your ire moves me even less than the vile Brady propaganda piece
Edited on Tue Apr-12-11 12:35 PM by slackmaster
:hi:

(I am having an emotional reaction to the video, BTW. Just not the one intended by its authors.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Callisto32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #104
162. No, but they are piss poor things to base deicisons about controlling the actions of others upon.
Emotional decisions can be fine, "I won't eat broccoli, because I don't LIKE" broccoli is fine.

I think I will control everybody else's behavior because I don't like something....not fine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #104
204. Who said it was? Oh, just you.
Why do you make things up?

Have you no shame at all?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy Vixen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 12:33 PM
Original message
Imagine the "emotional reaction" when Christina-Taylor Green's parents found out she was dead.
Imagine the "emotional reaction" when 33 people a day are cut down due to gun violence in the United States of America.

I am SO sick and tired of reading NRA talking points, and frankly, I don't give a shit about "target competitions".

There is NO other reason for high-capacity magazines than hunting humans. After all, they're just "collateral damage", and their families should just "understand".

It is really telling that there are those who choose to demonize Sarah Brady for actually attempting to do something to protect others from her husband's fate. Then again, I'm sure certain parties would think it was an honor, wouldn't they?

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
131. Why don't you work on car safety instead
You could save many more people that way because many more people are killed in car accidents daily than are killed by guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy Vixen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #131
141. Cars aren't made specifically to kill
Perhaps you should work on your arguments. We've heard them all before; they're no more true or relevant than they have been the past 23430493804 times they've been trotted out after yet another spree shooting in the USA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glassunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #141
142. But what about when we are discussing registration and licensing?
We register and license cars? What's this difference if we want to register and license firearms?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy Vixen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #142
143. Again. Cars are not manufactured specifically to kill.
Guns are. As someone else has tried to note (while citing appropriate law,) ammunition is never mentioned in the Constitution. After all, in those days, it was a freaking musket that took 20 minutes to load.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glassunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #143
147. If I may quote you...
"There is NO other reason for high-capacity magazines than hunting humans."

That's why the police need them. Right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #143
148. Ammunition is part of arm
You know, the right to keep and bear arms.

Do some research, it doesn't take 20 minutes to load a musket.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #143
173. Actually a musket took about 20 [b]seconds[/b] to load.
Pour gunpowder in barrel, wrap bullet in cloth patch and put in muzzle of gun, use ramrod to push bullet all the way down and tap it, take out ramrod,cock hammer, pour small amount of powder in primer pan, aim and fire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oneshooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #173
196.  The Brown Bess was a smooth bore musket, no patch issued or required. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #196
208. True. It had a faster rate of fire and could sustain it.
Not having the tight clearance of the Kentucy Rifle enable it to keep shooting even with considerable fouling. After a few shots the Kentucky Rifle had to be cleaned out. Of course the KR was the height of accuracy in its day and had a longer range than the Brown Bess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #141
145. Cars aren't meant to kill, but they do
That means they aren't doing what they are supposed to do when they kill. I would think that makes killer cars that much more important.

And I've heard all your arguments before as well. If you want to be a bleeding heart and make a difference, work on something that will save the most people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rrneck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #141
155. Kill who? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Callisto32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #141
163. BUT BUT BUT...guns are DIFFERENT!
No, they are not.

Guns and cars are the same thing. They are tools, the use to which one puts that tool is up to the user.

Frankly, I wish this analogy would die, because people like you who are bad at analogies piss me off royally, but until then, is posting "but that's DIFFERENT" any less irritating than the action for which you censure another?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #141
186. You're right, cars are not intended to kill....
yet they do so at a higher rate than objects you claim are.

Logically, you should direct some of your energies to car safety.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 05:48 PM
Response to Original message
190. Maybe you ought to consider the viewpoint of her parents...
Edited on Tue Apr-12-11 06:12 PM by beevul
Maybe you ought to consider the viewpoint of her parents, before hijacking her name in support of something they themselves do not support.

Or is that asking too much?

John green:

"we don't need any more restrictions on our society"

"If we live in a country like the United States where we are more free than
anywhere else, we are subject to things like this happening, and I think thats the price we have to pay."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05ir9437zO0


As he ended the NBC interview, he defended America's freedoms.

"This shouldn't happen in this country or anywhere else, but in a free society, we're going to be subject to people like this," Green said. "So I prefer this to the alternative."

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/10/arizona-shooting-youn...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YllwFvr Donating Member (757 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 05:35 AM
Response to Original message
216. Mine have never been used to hunt human beings
I demonize sarah brady because hers is a campaign based on disinformation and emotion. Logic and facts would be better to argue with, and the awb did nothing. The back ground checks they got passed is the only points they get.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #33
130. It's a target, made by the brady's I'm sure to appeal to emotion
They could have used a simple circular target but it wouldn't have gotten the emotional response like it did out of you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Callisto32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #33
160. I have been a member of the shooting culture my whole life.
I have NEVER seen a target that disgusting....until the Brady Bunch decided to make another "PSA."

Just like the old one about the EEEEEVVVIIVVIVIVVVLVVLVL FiveseveN, where the "ex cop" says that a guy who was shot with a 1 oz slug is probably okay, because the slug didn't penetrate the vest....


Real experts on danger and weapons, they are.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #33
191. Is that what you saw?


:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #20
76. I think it is like a vibrator
the more bullets one can fire in short time period = orgasm. Unless one is using the gun for the purpose it was invented (killing) there is no real reason the clip can not be limited to six or even nine bullets. I would imagine even the hot shots could hit their target with six shots..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #76
182. So, are you going to advocate limiting the police to the same number of rounds?
If not, why not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Travelman Donating Member (326 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #20
91. Defense, among other things
You shoot until the attacker is down, no matter how many rounds it takes. In more than just the occasional case, it take more than just six or eight or ten rounds to make that happen.

It doesn't work like the movies. It's not one bullet and the attacker freezes, gets a weird look on his face, and falls down. In a whole lot of cases, it takes several rounds to drop someone, particularly someone who is jacked up on angel dust or something. I'm not interested in running out of bullets with someone still coming at me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #20
122. Some People Miss a Lot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:10 AM
Response to Original message
3. I don't see why gun owners have a problem with ammunition control.
After all, we regulate cars and tobacco for health and safety.

Why not regulate ammunition to ensure public safety?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. Are cars and tobacco a civil right?
And do you agree then with the policy of warrantless wiretapping? After all, its for public safety.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #7
19. Is ammunition? After all, you don't dispute the illegality of armor-piercing rounds, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. So you sidestep the issue with a strawman?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. No--it's just that you haven't pointed out where ammunition is in your Constitution.
Edited on Tue Apr-12-11 09:29 AM by msanthrope
So you haven't explained why cars and tobacco, which aren't in the Constitution, aren't just like ammunition, which also isn't in the Constitution.

You see, this is why laws like 18 US922 exist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. Because I am not going to argue against your strawman.
Edited on Tue Apr-12-11 09:27 AM by cleanhippie
Yours is a ridiculous argument that deserves no rebuttal.

And until you address your initial absurd claim, we cannot move on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #24
29. You are the one who brought up the Constitution. You are hoist on your own petard.
Edited on Tue Apr-12-11 09:39 AM by msanthrope
Show me your claimed constitutional authority for absolute, unregulated possession of ammunition--and explain to us all why federal laws like 18 US Sec. 922, as it relates to ammunition, are therefore, illegal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #29
40. Hoist yourself. YOU are the one that made the fallacious argument to begin with.
Let me know when you are ready to have an honest conversation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #40
49. No, dear, YOU are the one who brought up the constitution, not I. Post # 3
mentions health and safety, and you replied full of constitutional hauteur....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #49
56. No dear, YOU are the one that compared cars and tobacco to a civil right.
Besides, your OP was a strawman, as the main OP has nothing to do with ammunition, brady wants to ban magazines, not ammo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #56
59. Really, where did I do that? Quote it?
You have yet to establish how ammunition is a 'civil right.' Kindly cite the case on point which backs you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #59
61. Your post, #3. Total strawman, has nothing to do with the OP whick is takling about magazines
But since you insist, here ya go.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec...

Only armor-piercing ammo is restricted (you know, the third move of your goalposts).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #61
66. Strawman that you replied to? So, under your theory of ammunition being a 'civil right'
Edited on Tue Apr-12-11 10:22 AM by msanthrope
tell us all how this restriction is unconstitutional....


I await your analysis.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hangingon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #29
53. Please call the BATFE and ask if it is constitutional to own
common hunting or target ammunition. Or call your local US Attroney.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #53
60. Sigh--you are confusing your branches of government.
The judiciary decides what's constitutional.

The executive branch may, or may not tell me what is legal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #60
62. Has the juduciary decided that ammo is NOT covered under the Second Amendment?
:popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #62
69. Tell us. You are the one claiming ammunition is a 'civil right,' not I.
You made the claim. Show us the case on point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #69
78. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #78
82. Thank you!!! I find it relaxing and fun!
On your second paragraph--someday it's going to dawn on the gun lobby that Scalia's Heller was a gift to gun control.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hangingon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #60
98. Well why don't you try to find some backing for this ...
strawman from constitutional scholars. Nice the way you do that little turn about wrong branch to deflect the blow to your fallacious reasoning. I sent you to the US attorney to see if they would if they would make a case for your contention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straw Man Donating Member (986 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #29
137. Surely you don't believe that the right to "keep and bear arms" doesn't include ammunition.
That would be just... silly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LanternWaste Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #24
118. One type of ammo is moral, righteous and God-fearing.
One type of ammo is moral, righteous and God-fearing. Another type is not... :shrug:

I imagine there is a precise and relevant ethical difference between the two... :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hangingon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #23
51. The correct cite is 18 usc 922
I struggle to see how it covers your point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #51
58. Give it a sec, it will move the goalposts to armor-piercing ammo.
Already did it in several other posts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hangingon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #58
102. Yep. I was chided for not knowing my branches of govt.
Yet It slides back and forth between law and Constitutional claims. Thanks for doing the Lord's work Clean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #51
63. I missed a blank space. Thank you. Did you check my spelling?
Edited on Tue Apr-12-11 10:34 AM by msanthrope
Because I'm pretty sure I spelled 'ammunition' incorrectly a few places, and it would do you good to search, I bet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oneshooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #19
164. The only AP ammo that is illegal is handgun ammo. AP rifle ammo is legal to own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Callisto32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #19
165. What do you mean by armor piercing round?
Steel core 5.56x45?

SLAP

"Teflon" bullets?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #19
176. Armor piercing rounds are legal. Most hunting rifle ammo will go through body armor. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #3
12. Cars/tobacco are not in the constitution
and no on is seriously out there trying to eliminate either.

Also neither have anything to do with self defense or the preservation of rights.

Like saying we regulate what can and cannot be shown in movies, so why are people so up in arms about their first amendment rights elsewhere?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #12
22. Where is ammunition in your consitution? n/t
Edited on Tue Apr-12-11 09:25 AM by msanthrope
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #22
25. Aw geez, not this canard again
Yeah you can have a gun, but it can't be loaded.

Likewise you can vote, but have no right to expect those votes to be counted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #25
31. No, you can have a gun, and it can be loaded, but what with is subject to regulations such as
18 USC 922, et seq.

Or are you stating that federal regulations on armor-piercing rounds are illegal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #31
38. You didn't say armor piercing
you said "ammunition".

And like with free speech you can regulate it **if a compelling reason can be given that overrides the loss of freedoms**

No such reason exists here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #38
48. Of course not, it keeps moving the goalposts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #38
57. So you agree that federal regulation of ammunition, such as armor-piercing rounds,
is a good thing? Constitutional?

Actually, you have misstated the constitutional view on free speech. Regulation of speech is not in the government's purview--that would be content-based restriction and not allowed. Time and place restrictions are, however, permissible. Note the difference--'speech' itself cannot be regulated, but time and place restrictions on where said speech can take place are permissible, but must generally be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.

While speech is a fundamental right, you've failed to note how ammunition is.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #57
64. It can be acceptable if a compelling reason is given
I'd prefer no such regulations exist, but in extreme situations it can be warranted.

Can you please cite such a compelling reason to ban these magazines?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #64
74. You are applying an incorrect standard.
Edited on Tue Apr-12-11 10:36 AM by msanthrope
In order to claim strict scrutiny, (and therefore a compelling reason to regulate) you must first prove how the right to possess armor piercing bullets infringes a fundamental right. (and heck, I'd say ANY fundamental right, not just the 2nd. Let's open the whole bag.)

Please note that I was not the poster who raised the issue of 'civil rights.' It is a bit silly, IMHO, to a priori assume that possession of ammunition is a fundamental right in the absence of the ability to cite a case on point.

I don't think government, therefore, needs a 'compelling reason' to ban these articles, because you haven't proven that their banning interferes with a fundamental right.

So when you prove that, I'll give a 'compelling' reason. In the meantime, I think it would be rational review, and the obvious health and safety reasons would suffice.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #74
80. Maybe because an unloaded firearms is useless
and thus someone without one cannot be considered armed.


It's absurd to assume that the 2nd amendment protected guns but not a crucial component.

When you get down to it triggers aren't specifically mentioned either. Or barrels.

"I don't think government, therefore, needs a 'compelling reason' to ban these articles, because you haven't proven that their banning interferes with a fundamental right. "

So the default position should be a ban, and we have to prove the need to not ban it? I disagree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #80
85. Triggers and barrels are regulated, aren't they?
If I remember correctly, triggers and barrels are regulated in all sorts of ways, right? Certain triggers aren't allowed, and certain barrels aren't, right??? Triggers are modified, too, by trigger locks and regulation, aren't they?


And shouldn't all manufacturers have minimum safety standards for manufacture?


No--the default should not be 'ban' but 'regulate' for health and safety. It's what keeps the drug supply relatively safe. It's what keeps food, air, and water, relatively safe. In the case of these magazines, rational review would apply, IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #85
124. No, triggers and barrels by themselves are not regulated other than for export
The configurations in which they may be assembled into working firearms are regulated.

For example, a rifle with a barrel less than 16 inches long is regulated as a Short-Barreled Rifle under the National Firearms Act. A smooth-bore handgun is also an NFA item. But the barrels themselves are just parts, unregulated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #124
174. "The configurations in which they may be assembled into working firearms are regulated."
Which means they are regulated.

I think you are attempting to parse a distinction without a difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #174
181. The parts alone are not regulated. Anyone can buy them mail order. They are not tracked.
So the parts are not regulated.

What's regulated is USE of the parts, i.e. behavior.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #57
198. False
Edited on Tue Apr-12-11 07:02 PM by TPaine7
There is no time or place where disclosure of national defense secrets to unauthorized persons is permissible. There are content restrictions on what can be communicated to anyone without clearance and a need to know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MicaelS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #31
128. Your focus on armor-piercing ammuntion is a diversion
ALL, repeat ALL, current center-fire rifle ammunition, including all the popular hunting calibers, containing a jacketed bullet (i.e not pure lead), will penetrate any level of SOFT body armor. SOFT body armor is Level II to Level IIIA.

Some ordinary center-fire pistol ammunition, which does NOT penetrate soft body armor when fired from a handgun, DOES penetrate soft body armor if fired from a carbine length (16 inch) or longer barrel. This is due to the increase in velocity, and thus energy, produced with a longer barrel.

Level III armor is a ceramic or steel strike plate inserted into a soft armor carrier. It only protects the center vitals. Level III is rated up to 7.62x51mm NATO M80 ball ammunition.

Level IV protects is also a strike plate and will protect up to .30-06 Springfield M2 armor-piercing ammunition.

Since there are center fire rifle hunting calibers up to the .700 Nitro Express used for hunting big game, there is no known armor that a human can wear that will stop them.

Thus the only "real" armor piercing ammunition that would be practically affected by 18 USC 922 is military surplus AP clearly labeled as Armor-Piercing.

More information on levels of armor protections at Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_vest
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #22
133. Ammunition is included as arms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #22
188. Pens, pencils, ink, paper, computers, radios, television.....
Edited on Tue Apr-12-11 05:36 PM by PavePusher
No mention in the First amendment. Turn all yours in to the nearest government office immediately. Please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oneshooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #22
197.  Where is it in YOURS?? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zoeisright Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #12
83. Wow, what a dumb post.
Cars didn't exist when the Constitution is written. Do I really have to point that out? And no one knew about that tobacco is a killer. Do you understand that the Constitution was written in the 1700s?

Christ.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #83
86. Neither did the internet
I suppose the first doesn't apply there.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #83
93. self delete
Edited on Tue Apr-12-11 11:21 AM by msanthrope
wrong post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maineman Donating Member (411 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #3
32. Gun owners often use some very low quality logic - which is scary.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Yes, but guns make it a hell of a lot easier!

Hammers don't drive nails, carpenters do.

Bats don't hit homeruns, hitters do.

Fast balls don't hit batters, pitchers do.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #32
34. Well, I love appeals to the Constitution!!!!
Okay!!!! Show me Originalist intent on armor-piercing rounds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maineman Donating Member (411 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #34
39. You replied to the wrong post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #39
44. No, just didn't use the sarcasm tag.
:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #34
41. You just keep moving those goalposts, don't you.
Your original fallacious argument went down with one reply, so you have now moved your goal posts TWICE.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #34
79. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #79
88. See post #83 above--it's close enough. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #32
54. At least we use logic
instead of having specially made targets for a TV ad. My problem with Brady and their allies, other than the fact that they are all Republicans, is their intellectual dishonesty. If you have to use disinformation to fight your cause, then your cause is not worth fighting for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #54
87. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #32
84. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Remmah2 Donating Member (971 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #32
134. Actually there's been some outstanding responses.
Many which are logical and do not rely on cheap shots at emotion, fear, or vulgarity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
florida08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #3
37. neither do I
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #37
42. For starters, this ad has nothing to do with ammuniton at all.
It has to do with "assault clips" which is a made up term by the brady bunch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Travelman Donating Member (326 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #3
94. One of the top reasons is that it is UNIVERASALLY
a bunch of people who don't know which end of the tube the round comes out of who are so busy telling everyone else how many bullets they may have. You may as well have a bunch of locomotive engineers deciding how airplane pilots do their job: it's a bunch of people who have not one clue about what they're talking about going off and making decisions for others who know the subject far better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #3
112. Sure - when you actually demonstrate a threat to public safety.
When it come to large magazines, I don't think one incident is sufficient.

What do you consider reasonable restrictions on ammo?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #112
114. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #114
116. But since they are in fact very rare, there is no need, is there? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy Vixen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #116
119. Would you like a list?
I'm sure I could list out a few school/workplace shootings that would have been even MORE deadly with the addition of a 32 bullet magazine! Imagine the fun!

:sarcasm:

Again: Those who love their guns more than anything or anyone else don't give a shit about the never-ending grief of loved ones and friends of the dead. Just admit it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #119
123. But there are millions of high cap mags out there
surely you have actual examples instead of vague threats of what might happened? If they are not being use to slaughter people now, what do you think is going to change in the future?

More people are killed with baseball bats than with high cap mags. You are trying to solve an imaginary epidemic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #119
139. Would YOU like a list?
Cho, the VA Tech shooted fired 172 rounds, reloading 17 times. Simple math, 172 divided by 17 = 10 round magazines and NO ONE could step in and stop him during any of these 17 reloads. So how is a ban on 30 round magazines going to stop this killer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy Vixen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #139
146. Imagine how much more efficiently he could have killed with a 30 round magazine!
Why, he could have doubled the death toll! He was inefficient!

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #146
187. No because it's been proven that 30 rd mags are inefficient
and prone to jamming. The death toll may have been lower if he had a 30 rd mag.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #146
207. Have you listened to the video?
There is cell phone footage of the Virginia Tech shooting. You can listen to the shooting in the back ground, unhurried, methodical, punctuated by pauses where he reloaded. Cho had almost a half hour to wander the building expending 174 rounds, reloading 17 times using "ban legal" 10 round magazines. Cho had a almost a half hour to wander around Norris Hall.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkrDYR-pd7I

This is about the last two minutes shot by a student with his cell phone. Note the stalwart campus cops milling about with no apparent sense of direction or urgency waiting for the "real" police and occasionally yelling at students to "Get away." Remember, this is after Cho came back on campus after mailing his manifesto to NBC news after having killed two people in a dorm room hours earlier. Dressed in "de rigueur" black trenchcoat and backpack, like he came from central casting, Cho walks past the campus constabulary unnoticed.

Listen to the shots. There are a couple spots where wind noise overpowers the audio, but close to the end you hear a blast where SWAT finally breaches the barricaded door. They rush in and almost immediately, in the face of an armed response, Cho kills himself.

Except for an 86 year old Holocaust survivor who tried to barricade a door no one took any action to thwart the shooter. I still wonder why someone did not break the "In case of emergency" glass on one of the fire axes in the hallway and try to find the opportunity to use it. Autopsy reports indicate a number of the victims simply cowered under their desks meekly waiting their turn to be shot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #207
213. Thank you for countering hysteria and moral panic with empirical evidence.
It will not work on the bitter-enders, of course- but it might help with the more honest and open minded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #139
180. A ban on 30 round magazines wouldn't work but one person with a concealed weapon ...
might have stopped him.

Of course, had concealed weapons been allowed on campus, he might never have picked VA Tech as his shooting gallery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #119
226. Not likely. Perhaps you should look at the facts.
A semi-auto pistol is fast and easy to reload with a fresh magazine. It takes about a second. The Luby's, VT, and Ft. Hood killers all reloaded several times. Cho at VT reloaded 17 times. Limiting the magazine size to 10 rounds does not mean that the shooter stops shooting at 11 rounds. It merely means that he pauses for about a second. The extended magazine that Loughner had did stop the shooting as the magazine caused a failure-to-feed jam with the gun. With his gun jammed he had to stop shooting while he attempted to fix the gun enabling the people to jump him.

Extended magazines are notoriously unreliable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
florida08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:11 AM
Response to Original message
4. that was chilling
Edited on Tue Apr-12-11 09:11 AM by florida08
and I agree
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. Agree with what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
florida08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #8
35. ?? with what?
Banning 32 load assault clips
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #35
43. Why?
What purpose would it serve? How would it save any lives? How would it keep criminals from shooting anyone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
florida08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #43
99. I'm a gun advocate
We have rifles and handguns. My spouse has CWP but there are still places he can't enter even with a permit.
Sometimes logic and reason have to be applied in certain situations. I do think banning this size clip will save more lives than it will protect. We don't have them and have never felt the need for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Upton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #99
101. That's your choice..
Edited on Tue Apr-12-11 11:50 AM by Upton
but if you are truly a gun rights advocate as you claim, you wouldn't be trying to impose your support of an extended mag ban upon others...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cherchez la Femme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #101
105. You gotta be joking,
forget your sarcasm tag?

"but if you are truly a gun rights advocate as you claim, you wouldn't be trying to impose your views upon others..."

Only the *approved* views, right? :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
florida08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #101
111. I'm not imposing anything but saving lives
Just like I would support banning the use of 20 year old outdated nuclear facilities that would endanger innocent lives when it's built on a faultline. With freedoms comes responsibility. I think even police officers would support this ban.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #111
194. How do you propose to make criminals obey your ban?
there are millions of these high capacity mags out there - how will they all magically disappear?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YllwFvr Donating Member (757 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 06:34 AM
Response to Reply #111
217. No officers I know would support a ban
Im in the law enforcement field. Im all for people owning guns, large cap mags are fine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #99
138. So you can offer no reason to ban them?
But because YOU don't use them, its okay?

What am I missing here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #99
189. Then please....
show us the evidence. Numbers, stats, anything that shows your beleif to have some validity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:11 AM
Response to Original message
5. ...
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:15 AM
Response to Original message
10. Man these people are loony
yeah because 32 bullets is exactly the amount needed to kill what looks to be a small girl.

10 certainly couldn't do the trick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. Cue someone to produce a story about an 'out of control' small girl...
...that didn't drop until the 11th bullet.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #14
18. Cue the nonsensical strawman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:20 AM
Response to Original message
17. Oh FFS. Ad says it's only good for one thing then shows a man using it for something else entirely.
Appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #17
28. If only we could all be like Nomad.
Emotionless... Armed to the teeth...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. I like lions because ice cream has no bones
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rage for Order Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
27. LOL!!!!
:rofl:

I object to them showing a man pulling the trigger. They are insinuating that all men want to murder little girls with pony tails, old people with canes, and sundry other innocent people.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Remmah2 Donating Member (971 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #27
135. In other words telling lies? nt
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
50. The only reason to have a high capacity magazine is to kill lots of people very quickly
ban them

the end

yup
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #50
65. That's like saying the only reason to have internet is to spread idiotic propaganda
ban it
yup

Just because you would use both in such a manner doesn't mean everyone will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #65
72. Well, it is for that and for pictures of people having sex with animals.
:hide:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #72
75. Lies!
You leave out the videos of people having sex with animals and the lolcats at your peril!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #65
73. What is an acceptable death toll?
How many gun deaths does the GOP/NRA tolerate before it becomes unacceptable?

A far as I can see, all gun deaths are OK with them

yup
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #73
77. To make that statement first
correlate legal gun ownership rates with violence committed via guns.

/be sure to take suicides and legitimate self defense cases out of those stats. If there is a correlation why be sneaky in your data manipulation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rrneck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #65
156. It might be worth it
to get rid of drivel like his.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cherchez la Femme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #50
107. You're just being emotional
didn't you know, emotions have no place regarding guns and killing people? :sarcasm:

That statement is sadly true -- for psychopaths
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #50
192. Please keep posting, You, more than most, help the RKBA cause.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Upton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
71. How pathetic this group is....
using a tragedy to try and push their authoritarian agenda aimed directly at law abiding gun owners..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
russspeakeasy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
81. Am I paranoid? Lately, when I see Huffington Post as the
originator of information I wonder. Really? Or are they just
in it for the headlines?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingofalldems Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 11:12 AM
Response to Original message
90. Settled law, gun grabbers, strawman, the NRA says----
Loads of cliches every time guns are discussed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #90
96. They have a phrase generator on some Ayn Rand site somewhere.
I just know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Upton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #90
100. President Obama:
"I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. And the courts have settled that as the law of the land."

http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_011e7...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy Vixen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #90
115. How about a drinking game?
The arguments are so predictable, the rest of us should get some enjoyment out of this...

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mvd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 11:16 AM
Response to Original message
92. I don't like guns and favor controls
Edited on Tue Apr-12-11 11:18 AM by mvd
There are only two reasons why I don't support a full ban:

1) the gun culture in the US wouldn't be ready for it

2) I still fear people in power having the only ability to have arms. In fact, the only time I would own a gun is if I'm under imminent threat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #92
108. Those who disagree would stop reading at the end of your subject line.
Edited on Tue Apr-12-11 12:11 PM by onehandle
And call you a gun grabber.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
113. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #113
120. Shh. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #113
121. Tsk, Tsk. As someone who has been here a while, you should know better.
Do not draw negative attention to the fact that someone is new, has a low post count, or recently became a member of Democratic Underground.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detai...


:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
125. Dancing in the blood of her fiance
Edited on Tue Apr-12-11 01:35 PM by rl6214
Disgusting.

And WTF is an assault clip? A 2 round 'clip' can be an assault clip if in the wrong hands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Remmah2 Donating Member (971 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #125
132. With two left feet. nt
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy Vixen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #132
144. Perhaps you should explain your statement
I often wonder if those who believe any mention of the dead of a random shooting would ever have the balls to confront grieving loved ones and friends with the news they were simply "emotional", "celebrating" a death by mentioning it, or "dancing in the blood of the dead".

One would think it to be a very short conversation.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Remmah2 Donating Member (971 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #144
150. Do you know what "dancing in the blood of the dead means"?
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #144
153. I have had to deal with the deaths of loved ones
none of them felt the need to manufacture a cause because their loved ones died from a gunshot. They know it is not the weapons fault.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #125
140. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Remmah2 Donating Member (971 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #140
149. Gun nuts?
LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #140
151. Her opinion means no more than yours does
Cute:

"Again: The gun nuts love their deadly little toy more than they love anyone or anything else in life. They are the only people who could equate a mention that a loved one is dead due to random gun violence with "celebrating" it in any way."

Trotting yourself out in front of the world to push a cause is not quite a "mention".

Again, Cho, the VA Tech shooter got off 172 shots, reloading 17 times while he killed 32 people in a GUN FREE ZONE. He used 10 round magazines. How is a ban on 30+ round magazines going to affect that sort of situation? Why didn't someone jump out and stop him while he was reloading during his rampage? There were 17 opportunities.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Remmah2 Donating Member (971 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #151
152. Lack of civility?
How there be a discussion when emotion clouds judgement?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Remmah2 Donating Member (971 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #140
154. Clearly you do not comprehend the phrase. nt
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Remmah2 Donating Member (971 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
126. How can you ban something that does not exist? nt
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RSillsbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
157. Source: Huffington Post
That's all I needed to hear
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
168. An example of how to use raw emotion to influence people ...
The video totally ignores the simple fact that firearm massacres have happened without the use of extended magazines and also the fact that the reason Loughner was subdued was because his gun jammed due to the extended magazine.

Loughner fired all 31 bullets in the magazine and was reloading when a woman in the crowd, already wounded, attempted to grab the gun from him. He finally changed the magazine and tried to fire, but the gun jammed. Meanwhile, two men from the crowd grabbed him and subdued him, officials said.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/09/nation/la-na-01...


The Brady Campaign has once again invented a new term "assault clips". Obviously, the correct terms" standard, extended or high capacity magazines just doesn't ring the emotion bell hard enough.

As usual the Brady Campaign is interested in pushing another useless "feel good" law. They could devote their efforts to helping the President in his efforts to improve existing law and ensure that unstable purchasers are restricted from purchasing firearms. Obama's ideas might actually accomplish something and perhaps prevent a future massacre and in order to get them passed into law, he needs all the support he can get. Unfortunately the Brady Campaign is more interested in pushing emotion button of people in order to restore their sinking donation levels.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 04:34 PM
Response to Original message
170. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Pullo Donating Member (367 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
172. The gun in the ad fired only 17 rounds.
As usual, the gun control proponents fail to be accurate in their representation of firearms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nolimit Donating Member (21 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 03:52 AM
Response to Reply #172
214. That's the same as a standard 9mm magazine for a glock
That's weird that the Brady Campaign would show a malfunctioning hi-cap magazine. I think they inadvertently made a case against banning hi-cap mags by showing they don't work so well and can be a liability to the shooter. Plus their length gives leverage that allows them to be wrested from grasp easily.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DonP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 04:44 PM
Response to Original message
175. This reminds me of that old National Lampoon cover - Buy this magazine or we'll shoot this dog!
Except that was a joke and funny.

This is just pathetic.

Here a GOP run organization (yes the Brady center is all GOP from Helmke to the Bradys) creates a phony ad and a phony phrase "assault clips" (come on people!) and a bunch of progressives get their heartstrings and wallets pulled artificially. They shut off any higher centers of their brain and react from the gut doing exactly what the Brady clowns wants them to do revitalizing another wedge issue just in time for the 2012 elections.

Most of the people here would freak equally as much if it was a pencil outline of a dog or cat too and mail in $5 to PETA.

Funny, these are some of the same people that freak out at any target with a vaguely human shape, but here it's just fine because it suits their particular brand of prejudice.

Barnum was obviously right. Suckers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
177. Started as actual breaking news. Swept into the gungeon.
Never to be seen again.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #177
178. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #177
183. The creation of disgusting propaganda is only mildly newsworthy
It's not very important.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #177
205. Where it should be.
Right with the rest of the anti-gun nonsense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
179. Good thing he had a stunt paper target.
Because he didn't hit shit for grouping in the first camera angle when he's firing downrange.

Also, it's 'magazines' not 'clip'. Go ahead, ban 'assault clips'. Ban Unicorns while you're at it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 06:14 PM
Response to Original message
193. Yes indeed, a shilling new ad. Shilling indeed. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr_Scholl Donating Member (35 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 07:05 PM
Response to Original message
199. Assault clip? Lol!
That's idiotic even for them.

Murder and violent crime are at historic lows right now, even though there are more guns than ever in this country. How exactly is banning high capacity, or really normal capacity, magazines going to make the country safer? It's not. All it would do is piss off and alienate a lot of voters.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 08:00 PM
Response to Original message
202. The *Brady Campaign* invented those targets in order to sway the weak-minded.
And they certainly worked....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:23 PM
Response to Original message
206. "assault clip"
:rofl:

Of course! Especially if the guns that use them have "assault grips" and "assault stocks"!


:banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoopla Phil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
222. Does anyone think that such a magazine ban would pass constitutional muster?
I don't think it has a snowball's chance in Hades.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Remmah2 Donating Member (971 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 07:35 AM
Response to Reply #222
235. Never underestimate emotion and deceit.
Politicians will also posture for political favors and campaign donations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoopla Phil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #235
238. I just don't see a magazine ban passing muster as set out by Heller.
The 2A is about "arms" not firearms. With 4 or mags being produces for every firearm that accepts them, they are rather "prevalent". They also have are very valid use for the "militia" should it ever be called up. If you read Heller, and all the citations in it, there is now way (IMO) that a magazine ban could be constitutional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 16th 2014, 07:07 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC