64
   

Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

 
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Thu 20 Dec, 2012 09:15 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
Statistics consistently show that having a gun in the house makes you less safe.


No they don't.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Thu 20 Dec, 2012 09:16 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
perhaps the elimination of sales and the repeal of the"grandfather" status of these assault weapons would only be a part of the solution, but it would be a critical part nonetheless no matter what second amendment fans would say.


If you choose to ignore the fact that the Constitution forbids banning harmless cosmetic features like pistol grips and flash suppressors, and you choose to ban them despite there being no real reason to ban them, all you do is doom your legislation to being struck down by the courts.

Rather ironic that you are doing more to preserve the legality of large capacity magazines than the NRA will ever do.
farmerman
 
  5  
Thu 20 Dec, 2012 09:17 pm
@oralloy,
HEY HEY HEY, Were having an argument here, if you want to start name calling then youve gotta go over to the "VERBAL ABUSE" thread
oralloy
 
  -2  
Thu 20 Dec, 2012 09:18 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
The first step is to get the automatic and semi automatic guns outlawed.


Never going to happen. The Democrats will never even attempt it.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Thu 20 Dec, 2012 09:19 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
Any gun that can shoot lots of bullets without reloading is a part of the solution, whether people agree with me or not.


Well, if you wanted to focus solely on magazine capacity, you might have a chance. The NRA would still stand in your way however.

But you're going to sabotage any such legislation by banning harmless cosmetic features, even though there is no reason to do so, and even though it is unconstitutional to do so. So in the end, even if you get such legislation passed, it'll be struck down by the courts.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Thu 20 Dec, 2012 09:20 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:
Interesting. By your reasoning, Canada and Australia - among other countries - should be dictatorships.


Well, they certainly aren't free. If they were free, their citizens would have the right to carry handguns when they go about in public.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Thu 20 Dec, 2012 09:23 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
**** on your liberties if it means more senseless slaughter.


Thankfully we have a system of courts that will not allow you to violate our rights no matter how much you want to.

(That said, it is hard to see how harmless cosmetic features like a pistol grip and flash suppressor make for more senseless slaughter.)
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Thu 20 Dec, 2012 09:33 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
semi autos (Severtal of which, including the Bushmaster, can be easily converted to full auto, with conversion kist available at gun shows


Not all that easily. In addition to the parts, you need to have a competent gunsmith perform the conversion. Otherwise all you end up doing is ruining the gun. And not many competent gunsmiths seem very interested in committing major felonies.

And is there a rash of such illegal conversions in any case? I've yet to hear of a spree killer using a full auto weapon.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Thu 20 Dec, 2012 09:54 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
Those of us who do not approve the wholesale slaughter of innocents do not want those people to get their hands on these weapons of mass destruction.


Guns are not weapons of mass destruction.

Otherwise, you just justified the 2003 invasion of Iraq, because there were a lot of guns in the country when we invaded.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -4  
Thu 20 Dec, 2012 10:07 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Val Killmore wrote:
Regulation, is one thing....

But edgar's idea that ban all semi automatic is not the solution.


why not? we did it for about 10 years or so.


No. Semi autos have never been banned in the US. The Democrats would never dare to even consider such a move.



farmerman wrote:
Assault weapons are NOT for sport, they are killing machines.


Nonsense. You know very well that a pistol grip does not make a weapon unsuitable for sport.

And you also know very well that having a pistol grip does not make a gun any more lethal.



farmerman wrote:
Im a hunter and Id never take what is essentially an overpressured .22 caliber bullet into the field to hunt a moose. Itd piss him off <AND, whod use one of those for small game hunting??


Pretty much everyone who goes small game hunting.

The .223 is a very popular varmint round.



farmerman wrote:
They are just for killing people.


Not really. The .223 is very well suited for small game.



farmerman wrote:
Id love to see em banned but Id also recommend that we do away with the "Grandfather" provision that, during the last assault weapon ban kept all the existing assault weapons sold or on inventory at a gun shop as legal. Id propose a buy-back and a melt-down.


I'm not sure why you have a sudden objection to harmless cosmetic features like pistol grips and flash suppressors, but the Constitution is very clear on the fact that you aren't allowed to ban them.

The only thing you're going to achieve is a sabotage of any ban on large capacity magazines, because the courts WILL strike down any ban on harmless cosmetic features. And if it is inextricably linked to a ban on large capacity magazines, the ban on large capacity magazines will be struck down right along with it.



farmerman wrote:
and devestating and "cop killer" ammo.None of this stuff has any use as "defined sporting potential "


"Cop killer ammo" is a meaningless term that is just applied to whichever bullet the freedom haters are trying to ban at the moment.

You did not specify which ammo you were proposing to mislabel and then ban, but odds are that it does have sporting use. Odds are as well that the Constitution would forbid such a ban.

But it is hard to say for sure unless you specify which ammo you are talking about.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Thu 20 Dec, 2012 10:28 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
http://cmsimg.battlecreekenquirer.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=A5&Date=20121218&Category=NEWS01&ArtNo=312180022&Ref=AR&MaxW=640&Border=0&Military-style-rifles-hold-allure-among-shooters

These are essentially .22 magnum bullets with a whole lotta powder behind em to jack up the muzzle velocity so the bullet can penetrate and, when so designed with soft materials and hollows, the bullet can rotate and cause devestating damage to the body.


"Soft and hollow" will make the bullet expand, not tumble. It is the bullets which don't expand that tumble, because the laws of physics will not allow a bullet to pass through flesh going "point first".

Regardless, I don't want to be too graphic, but compare the wound of a varmint gun like the above with, say, the wound caused by a .270 Winchester softpoint.

I'm not sure why you are making such a big deal over what is, for a hunting rifle, a pretty tiny wound.



farmerman wrote:
The concept is sickening what those kids felt before they died. The second amendment is gonna have to be revised by another amendment, If not now, then how many lives more do you want spent with such cold blooded determination??


Doing away with the Second Amendment would not save lives. People would kill with other means if they could not get guns.

And you would have zero chance of repealing the Second Amendment, one of the cornerstones of the Bill of Rights, even if the NRA wasn't watching. (And the NRA *is* watching.)
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Thu 20 Dec, 2012 10:50 pm
@MURDOCK212,
MURDOCK212 wrote:
Ammunition should have never been designed in the first place


Would be pretty hard to shoot if there were no ammunition.



MURDOCK212 wrote:
as you said "Assault weapons are not for sport, they are killing machines", its basically true although most may disagree with me but what you have said is completely true.


No. Having a pistol grip does not make a gun unsuitable for sport.

And it does not make a gun any more lethal than it already is.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Thu 20 Dec, 2012 10:56 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
semi-auto means one trigger pull = one shot. ALL assault weapons sold to the public are semi auto.


Remington makes a pump-action assault rifle. Takes M16/AR15 magazines too.



farmerman wrote:
There are a few semi auto sport rifles but these arent of the "Assault style" .


That would be surprising news to all the hunters who hunt with a gun that has a pistol grip.



farmerman wrote:
They dont carry a mega clip. SPorting guns are limited to 3 or 5 cartridges in the gun and one in the breech.


That would be surprising news to all the varmint hunters out there who hunt using 30+ round magazines.



farmerman wrote:
can be converted to full auto as I said before, that turns em into a class that the Canadians call PROHIBITED and we call "dangerous weapons" (which are prohibited without special assignment type licenses and are only useable as assigned protection by such folks as explosives carriers and Brinks (or such) transporters of precious metals, and , of course para=military (police) and DOE nuke rods, weapons, triggers , yellow and redcake, UF6, and nuke power plant guards.


Full auto requires registration, not licensing. And anyone who goes through the process of getting one can use it for whatever legal purpose they wish.

Nuclear weapons are guarded by much more than mere full autos, BTW (though I'm sure those are included in the defense). Whenever a thermonuclear warhead is transported along one of our freeways, there is a flock of Apache helicopters hovering over the convoy.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  3  
Thu 20 Dec, 2012 10:57 pm
@farmerman,
I wish I could be bothered screen capturing this page a lone post by FM in a sea of 'user ignored'.
oralloy
 
  -4  
Thu 20 Dec, 2012 10:58 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

Quote:
. However, in the last two decades of the century, following several high profile multiple murders and a media campaign, the Australian government co-ordinated more restrictive firearms legislation with all state governments. Australia today has arguably some of the most restrictive firearms legislation in the world.

Currently, about 5.2% of Australian adults (765,000 people)[1] own and use firearms for purposes such as hunting, controlling feral animals, collecting, and target shooting.


Quote:
Current Australian firearm laws

State laws govern the possession and use of firearms in Australia. These laws were largely aligned under the 1996 National Agreement on Firearms.

Anyone wishing to possess or use a firearm must have a Firearms Licence and, with some exceptions, be over the age of 18. Owners must have secure storage for their firearms.

Before someone can buy a firearm, he or she must obtain a Permit To Acquire. The first permit has a mandatory 28-day delay before it is first issued. In some states (e.g., Queensland, Victoria, and New South Wales), this is waived for second and subsequent firearms of the same class.

For each firearm a "Genuine Reason" must be given, relating to pest control, hunting, target shooting, or collecting. Self-defence is not accepted as a reason for issuing a license, even though it may be legal under certain circumstances to use a legally held firearm for self-defence.[2]

Each firearm in Australia must be registered to the owner by serial number. Some states allow an owner to store or borrow another person's registered firearm of the same category.


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

Quote:
Registration of firearms in Canada has been an issue since the 1930s when the registration of handguns became mandatory. Over the past few decades, legislation had become increasingly restrictive for firearm owners and from 1995 until 2012, all firearms were required to be registered. As of April 6, 2012, the registration of non-restricted firearms is no longer required in any province or territory, except for Quebec, pending litigation. Systematic auditing of firearm owners and sports is implemented and enforced in most of Central Canada,[1][2] and to a lesser extent, in Western Canada (in most cases firearm ownership regulations vary slightly in different provinces and territories, where some provinces have decided to mandate their own laws, such as the Quebec Bill 9 course, which is mandatory for all owners of restricted firearms).[3]


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

Quote:
It is effectively illegal to carry concealed handguns in Canada. There is a permit[7] that allows people to carry if they can prove they need to protect their lives under specific circumstances, but the permit is very rarely issued to civilians.[



Both Canada and Australia have conducted gun buybacks over the past couple of decades.

No dictatorships in sight.



Yes, but no freedom in sight either. No one in either nation is allowed to carry handguns when they go about in public.
oralloy
 
  -4  
Thu 20 Dec, 2012 11:06 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Val Killmore wrote:
There was an "assault weapon ban" that was useless and only banned "military looking" weapons and did nothing to decrease crime, it was completely useless peice of legislation.


It was designed as "Useless" It , for the most part, was an idea that wasnt even tried properly. AS I SAID before, assault weapons were "GRANDFATHERED" as long as they were already in someones ownership or inventory. SO, if the weapon already existed at the effective date of the assault weapon ban, IT WAS LEGAL. Thats total politically motivated dickless BULLSHIT. So please dont say it was useless, cause the concept wasnt even tried.


Actually, the reason it was useless was because it banned harmless cosmetic features that have no impact on a gun's lethality.



farmerman wrote:
I know for a fact that the NRA "Sporting members" are in the majority, all for meaningful control, and banning of these people killer guns.


You are wrong. The majority of the NRA object strongly to unconstitutional bans on harmless cosmetic features.



farmerman wrote:
Its just that the NRA, as it is now constitutd, is a lobby for the gun manufacturers, not the sportsmen.


No they aren't. The gun manufacturers have no objection to assault weapons bans. The NRA opposes it because their members object to having the Constitution violated.



farmerman wrote:
The politicians that are in favor of lax gun laws are in the pockets of the NRA and its ability for political largesse


No. They are in fear of NRA members going out to vote on election day.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -4  
Thu 20 Dec, 2012 11:09 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
HEY HEY HEY, Were having an argument here, if you want to start name calling then youve gotta go over to the "VERBAL ABUSE" thread


Frank Apisa was lying about me. I was within my rights to respond the way I did.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -4  
Thu 20 Dec, 2012 11:13 pm
@hingehead,
hingehead wrote:
I wish I could be bothered screen capturing this page a lone post by FM in a sea of 'user ignored'.


Your hiding from reality won't save a ban on large capacity magazines from being struck down by the courts because you insisted on sabotaging your own legislation.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -2  
Thu 20 Dec, 2012 11:29 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Do you think the world was less violent before guns were invented?


SOunds like youre tiring of making a real debate out of this,
this sounds like youre attempting to justify the kids actions
based upon archeological evidence that cavemen were violent beings.

You really have gotta do better than that, and you know it.

Ill make believe you didnt post that and you get a freebie.
Government simply was given permission to exist
on condition that some things, like gun possession and holding opinions
were beyond the reach of its jurisdiction.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -2  
Thu 20 Dec, 2012 11:44 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
Statistics consistently show that having a gun in the house makes you less safe.
Liberal hoax.

Convince the police and the Army to throw their guns in the garbage.





David
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 03/06/2025 at 03:06:00