Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@BillW,

BillW wrote:

A lot of people do not realize the harm a 5.56mm bullet does. It is not a round for hunting due to damage it does to the bone and meat!

The .223 Remington is widely used for defense against foxes and coyotes.

And it does less damage to bone and meat than the .270 Winchester does.

3 Replies

@BillW,

BillW wrote:

A lot of people do not realize the harm a 5.56mm bullet does. It is not a round for hunting due to damage it does to the bone and meat!

Whether hand-guns, or assault weapons, they were designed for a single purpose. To maim and kill humans. That's their only reason to exist.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
I didn't say assault rifle, I said assault weapon,

Same thing.

No it's not.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
those that were banned through the 1994 Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Act.

That law did not outlaw assault weapons.

Yes it did.

oralloy wrote:

It outlawed ordinary hunting rifles.

No it didn't.

oralloy wrote:

You will need to pay massive compensation for the atrocity that you committed before I ever give support to any new gun laws.

I've committed no atrocity for which to need to pay massive compensation. You need to support gun regulation laws for the good of the general welfare of the nation.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
We need to ban these weapons for good,

There is nothing good about you violating people's civil liberties for fun, and we certainly have no need to do such a thing. And we will not do such a thing.

I am not violating people's civil liberties, for fun or otherwise. We need to ban these weapons for good, for the good of the general welfare of the nation. We will do such a thing.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
limit the amount of guns possessable by individuals,

Unconstitutional.

No it's not.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
and establish a national gun registry.

We've had that for more than 50 years now. That's what a Form 4473 is.

That's just for purchases of firearms from Federal Firearms License holders. We need to establish a national registry for the ownership of firearms.

1 Reply

@Wilso,

Wilso wrote:

Whether hand-guns, or assault weapons, they were designed for a single purpose. To maim and kill humans. That's their only reason to exist.

Wrong again. Self defense guns are for the purpose of protecting people. Hunting weapons are for the purpose of killing game animals. Sporting guns are for the purpose of participating in competitions.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

No it's not.

That is incorrect. The term "assault weapon" applies only if a gun is capable of full-auto.

InfraBlue wrote:

Yes it did.

That is incorrect. Your 1994 law against pistol grips did not address a single assault weapon.

InfraBlue wrote:

No it didn't.

That is incorrect. Your 1994 law against pistol grips focused on banning ordinary hunting rifles.

InfraBlue wrote:

I've committed no atrocity for which to need to pay massive compensation.

You committed an atrocity in 1994 when you outlawed a bunch of ordinary hunting rifles solely because you enjoy violating people's civil liberties.

Whether you "need" to pay compensation is a different question. I will never support any new gun law (even if I have no objection to it) until said compensation is paid. And you will not likely pass many new gun laws without the support of moderates like me.

InfraBlue wrote:

You need to support gun regulation laws for the good of the general welfare of the nation.

I will do no such thing until after you've paid compensation for your 1994 atrocity.

InfraBlue wrote:

I am not violating people's civil liberties, for fun or otherwise.

That is incorrect. When you outlaw pistol grips for no reason, that violates people's civil liberties.

And when you have no real reason for violating people's civil liberties, it is pretty clear that the reason is because you enjoy violating people's civil liberties.

InfraBlue wrote:

We need to ban these weapons for good, for the good of the general welfare of the nation.

We have no such need to violate people's civil liberties, and violating people's civil liberties for no reason is not good for the nation in any way.

InfraBlue wrote:

We will do such a thing.

No you won't. The NRA will stop you.

InfraBlue wrote:

No it's not.

That is incorrect. People have legitimate reasons for owning a wide variety of guns, and there is no justification for restricting the number of weapons someone can have.

InfraBlue wrote:

That's just for purchases of firearms from Federal Firearms License holders. We need to establish a national registry for the ownership of firearms.

Form 4473s cover all new guns that are sold.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
That's just for purchases of firearms from Federal Firearms License holders. We need to establish a national registry for the ownership of firearms.

Form 4473s cover all new guns that are sold.

The system cut me off mid-edit. I edited my sentence posted above, and hoped to then add on an additional sentence a second later, but my editing time was expired. I guess I should have changed it all in one single edit.

I was hoping to add on a sentence saying that if universal background checks are ever passed into law then there will also be a Form 4473 for all secondhand gun sales.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

“There is nothing illegal about this. Unless he presents a threat, by his actions beyond that, there is no need to report him,” read a portion of the tweet made by EPPD.

Texas is an open-carry state. I would suggest people opposed to that, move.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
No it's not.

That is incorrect. The term "assault weapon" applies only if a gun is capable of full-auto.

No it doesn't.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Yes it did.

That is incorrect. Your 1994 law against pistol grips did not address a single assault weapon.

Confused and wrong. The 1994 Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Act was not a law against pistol grips; it specifically addressed assault weapons.

oralloy wrote:

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
No it didn't.

That is incorrect. Your 1994 law against pistol grips focused on banning ordinary hunting rifles.

You are wrong. The 1994 law was not against pistol grips nor did it focus on banning ordinary hunting rifles; it banned assault weapons.

Confused and wrong, again. The 1994 Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Act was not a law against pistol grips; it specifically focused on banning assault weapons.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
I've committed no atrocity for which to need to pay massive compensation.

You committed an atrocity in 1994 when you outlawed a bunch of ordinary hunting rifles solely because you enjoy violating people's civil liberties.

You're massively delusional.
I did not outlaw a bunch of ordinary hunting rifles. Your assertion of enjoyment of violating people's civil liberties is risibly irrelevant.

oralloy wrote:

Whether you "need" to pay compensation is a different question. I will never support any new gun law (even if I have no objection to it) until said compensation is paid. And you will not likely pass many new gun laws without the support of moderates like me.

Your other risible, irrelevant assertion of compensation aside, moderates will support the passing of gun regulations.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
You need to support gun regulation laws for the good of the general welfare of the nation.

I will do no such thing until after you've paid compensation for your 1994 atrocity.

I have no 1994 atrocity. Your risible assertions of compensation are irrelevant in regard to your need to support gun regulation laws for the good of the general welfare of the nation.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
I am not violating people's civil liberties, for fun or otherwise.

That is incorrect. When you outlaw pistol grips for no reason, that violates people's civil liberties.

Yours is a straw man argument and as such is irrelevant to the need for comprehensive gun regulation laws for the good of the general welfare of the nation which you need to support.

oralloy wrote:

And when you have no real reason for violating people's civil liberties, it is pretty clear that the reason is because you enjoy violating people's civil liberties.

You are delusional, but that does not negate your need to support comprehensive gun control laws for the good of the general welfare of the nation.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
We need to ban these weapons for good, for the good of the general welfare of the nation.

We have no such need to violate people's civil liberties, and violating people's civil liberties for no reason is not good for the nation in any way.

You are failing miserably in keeping up with the argument. We have every possible need to enact comprehensive gun control laws for the good of the general welfare of the nation.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
We will do such a thing.

No you won't. The NRA will stop you.

The NRA will be extinguished and relegated to an unfortunate chapter in the nation's history.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
No it's not.

That is incorrect. People have legitimate reasons for owning a wide variety of guns, and there is no justification for restricting the number of weapons someone can have.

Wrong. People only have a possibly legitimate reason for owning one handgun, one rifle and one shotgun, and the restricting of the number of weapons someone can possess is thoroughly justified.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
That's just for purchases of firearms from Federal Firearms License holders. We need to establish a national registry for the ownership of firearms.

Form 4473s cover all new guns that are sold.

We need to establish a national registry for the ownership and possession of firearms.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Quote:
“There is nothing illegal about this. Unless he presents a threat, by his actions beyond that, there is no need to report him,” read a portion of the tweet made by EPPD.

Texas is an open-carry state. I would suggest people opposed to that, move.

But then, weeks later, there was this, "While the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office does understand that Texas is an “open carry” state, they continue to remind citizens that they may not display a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm. This type of action is said to be a crime in Texas."

The El Paso County Sheriff's Dept., not the El Paso Police Dept., obtained an arrest warrant for the perpetrator.

Texas desperately needs to reform its irresponsible firearms policies for the good of the general welfare of its citizens.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

We need to establish a national registry for the ownership and possession of firearms.

We also need to establish a national registry for the ownership and possession of birth control and any type of abortion medicine or procedure.

The Police should be able to also stop and search anyone for any reason.

Soldiers should be able to sleep where ever they want to.

We should also require everyone to go to Church on Sundays or Saturday depending on which religion you sign up for. But, it will be required that everyone register for one of the major religions.

Also, the Press shall only print what the government feels it should. There shall be no further denigration or propaganda released via the press that is not cleared through a central committee of government representatives.

Any further slurs or insults directed at the Federal government or any official therein shall be met with mandatory jail time and hard labor.

Also, no further Jury trials. A qualified Judge is more than capable of deciding whether a person is innocent or guilty of any crime.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

Oh Goodie, I think you will be willing to support the major feminist movement to outlaw boner pills...If a man becomes impotent..that means God thinks his fertility issues are over...Somebody needs to stop them, so it may as well be us. Thank God for your support.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Every car manufactured has a unique VIN number different from every other car. You need that number to get a title for the car,to buy or asell it, to get it inspected or repafor a maor repair. You can tell if it's subjrvt toa recall, or been rtoktaled. No one ever bitches the government is coming to taske awayyour car. Cars are not intentionally lethal. Guns are. VIN number, or I guess it would be GIN numers for lethal weapons. Blue is definitely on the right track here.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Guns have been marked with serial numbers for more than 50 years now.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

No it doesn't.

That is incorrect. The term "assault weapon" applies only if a gun is capable of full-auto.

InfraBlue wrote:

Confused and wrong. The 1994 Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Act was not a law against pistol grips; it specifically addressed assault weapons.
You are wrong. The 1994 law was not against pistol grips nor did it focus on banning ordinary hunting rifles; it banned assault weapons.
Confused and wrong, again. The 1994 Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Act was not a law against pistol grips; it specifically focused on banning assault weapons.

That is incorrect. Your 1994 law focused on pistol grips on ordinary hunting rifles, and did not address assault weapons in any way.

InfraBlue wrote:

You're massively delusional.
I did not outlaw a bunch of ordinary hunting rifles.

You support the 1994 law that outlawed a bunch of hunting rifles for no reason.

InfraBlue wrote:

Your assertion of enjoyment of violating people's civil liberties is risibly irrelevant.

The fact that your violation of people's civil liberties was motivated by pure malice influences the amount of compensation that I require from you before I will support any new gun laws.

InfraBlue wrote:

Your other risible, irrelevant assertion of compensation aside, moderates will support the passing of gun regulations.

I'm a moderate and I will not do so until you have provided adequate compensation for your past atrocities.

InfraBlue wrote:

I have no 1994 atrocity.

That 1994 ban on pistol grips that you support was an atrocity.

InfraBlue wrote:

Your risible assertions of compensation are irrelevant in regard to your need to support gun regulation laws for the good of the general welfare of the nation.

I will not support new gun laws until you have paid compensation for your past atrocities, and you cannot make me do otherwise.

InfraBlue wrote:

Yours is a straw man argument and as such is irrelevant to the need for comprehensive gun regulation laws for the good of the general welfare of the nation which you need to support.

You have voiced support for the 1994 ban on pistol grips, so it is no straw man to point out that you supported violating people's civil liberties.

InfraBlue wrote:

You are delusional, but that does not negate your need to support comprehensive gun control laws for the good of the general welfare of the nation.

Everything that I say is true, and you have no power to make me support new gun control laws.

InfraBlue wrote:

You are failing miserably in keeping up with the argument. We have every possible need to enact comprehensive gun control laws for the good of the general welfare of the nation.

Not when those gun control laws are merely you violating people's civil liberties for fun.

InfraBlue wrote:

The NRA will be extinguished and relegated to an unfortunate chapter in the nation's history.

Your desire to destroy organizations that protect our civil liberties is chilling and Orwellian.

Thankfully you are again wrong. Progressives have no power to destroy the NRA.

InfraBlue wrote:

Wrong. People only have a possibly legitimate reason for owning one handgun, one rifle and one shotgun, and the restricting of the number of weapons someone can possess is thoroughly justified.

A single person could have:

a) a .22lr for rabbit and squirrel hunting and also for general target shooting

b) a .17 HMR to protect his garden from gophers

c) a 22-250 to protect his chickens from foxes and coyotes

d) a lever-action .30-30 for deer hunting in the woods

e) a bolt action 6mm Remington for deer hunting at even longer ranges

f) a single shot 6.5 x 55 for hunting mountain goats

g) a .270 Winchester for elk hunting

h) a .338 Win Mag for bear hunting in Alaska

i) a sporting rifle suitable for competing in the biathlon

j) a 12 gauge shotgun for hunting various birds and also for skeet and trap shooting

k) a handgun for concealed carry

l) a backup handgun for concealed carry

m) an AR-15 for home defense

And maybe the guy likes full auto guns and owns a sear to convert HK semi-autos to full-auto, and has the following weapons to install his sear into:

n) a HK-21E belt fed general purpose machine gun chambered in 7.62x51

o) a HK-33 assault rifle chambered in 5.56x45

p) a HK MP5 submachine gun chambered in 10mm

q) an HK MP5K machine pistol chambered in 9mm

That's a legitimate reason for owning 17 different guns.

Much more importantly though, is the fact that you don't have a legitimate reason for restricting the number of guns that someone can have.

Unjustifiable gun restrictions are unconstitutional gun restrictions.

InfraBlue wrote:

We need to establish a national registry for the ownership and possession of firearms.

Form 4473s already fulfil that function. If comprehensive background check legislation is ever passed, that will result in Form 4473s being filed for secondhand sales as well.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Thanks for the great reason you've just offered to ban .270 Winchesters as well.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

I did no such thing. There is no justification for outlawing deer and elk hunting guns.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Every car manufactured has a unique VIN number different from every other car. You need that number to get a title for the car,to buy or asell it, to get it inspected or repafor a maor repair. You can tell if it's subjrvt toa recall, or been rtoktaled. No one ever bitches the government is coming to taske awayyour car. Cars are not intentionally lethal. Guns are. VIN number, or I guess it would be GIN numers for lethal weapons. Blue is definitely on the right track here.

Owning a car is not a right guaranteed by the US Constitution.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Quote:

Owning a car is not a right guaranteed by the US Constitution.

He never implied that it was. His point was that the government has a record of every vehicle's identification number and title. When an abandoned car is found at a crime scene that number may furnish critical evidence. If a car is stolen it can be identified. Such information would be very useful if applied to firearms, both for purposes of law enforcement and gun owners themselves.

1 Reply

@hightor,

He was obviously suggesting that like cars, guns should be registered and licensed.
Unlike cars though, the people have a fundamental right to own guns and that right shall not be infringed. Despite the fact that it has already been seriously infringed, there has to be a line.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Why is it an infringement to have the serial number and the ID of the purchaser a matter of record?

Infringe:
• To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate.
• To defeat; invalidate.
• To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing.

2 Replies

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know