Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

@farmerman,

Quote:

Full auto guns are always being taken from dealers stashes when caught.

Full auto rifles tend to be less deadly then semi auto as the recoil have most of a burst going high into the air over the targets.

Stray and pay is not a good way to service targets that is one of the reasons that real military weapons are going to a three burst mode not a fully auto mode.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BILL _JEEZUS CHRIST I aid it and Monterey Jack said it. IT WAS A BAN that tried to list and tie up SEVERAL FEATURES that collectively made a gun an assauklt weapon. The BUSHAMASTER 223 , which came out POST BAN DATE, was actually built to ONLY have a large capacity clip and they did away with the other unlethal features.

If we ban these guns again, along with a removal of grandfather status (for real), we will have a beginning.

If you wish this meaningless slaughter to continue then you and several on here are going about it correctly by just trying to assert that these existing design features of a gun arent at least partly responsible for the killings.

Ive argued that several things need to be done
1security upgrade
2have armed reps and teachers in the schools or (like courthouses) have actual armed officers
3have better interdiction in mental health issues of potential perps
4have meaningful gun control to remove such easy acces and lethal designs of guns that have no use anywhere in the sporting world

3 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

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

what idiot will use a Bushmaster to hunt deer. The load will, if effective, not be lethal with one shot

What calibers does the Bushmaster come in? The .308 Winchester is suitable for deer and even elk. If the Bushmaster doesn't come in .308 Win, there are plenty of assault weapons that do.

farmerman wrote:

what class of sport do you actually mean?

All classes. Having a pistol grip does not make a gun unsuitable for any sport.

farmerman wrote:

You mean TARGET PRACTICE only cause ultimately the gun is used to kill and maim people.

No, I mean all forms of hunting. A pistol grip does not make a gun unsuitable for hunting.

farmerman wrote:

oralloy wrote:
The .223 is a very popular varmint round.

The BUSHMASTER 223 is NOT a varmint gun. It is not really accurate and its a "spray and pray" type of a weapon that I dont think any sport hunter would choose as a weapon of choice.

I am not familiar with the Bushmaster brand, but the AR-15 form in general is accurate, and is one of the world's most popular varmint rifles.

I think it's likely that the Bushmaster is the same.

farmerman wrote:

its just a "Niche gun" that was originally marketed as a "Military style" gun after the wheeneie assaultweapon ban 0f 94

The Bushmaster was being produced in the 1980s, long before any assault weapons ban.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Your use of childish epithets isnt sticking oralloy. You gotta argue the issues and not cast insults.

Stop being so dishonest. I've been arguing the issues endlessly.

I am only occasionally rude, and only when it is very well justified.

farmerman wrote:

to an uniformed person like you who spouts party lines and makes up **** that isnt so.

You have a big mouth for a clown who can't show a single untrue thing I've said (much less anything I've ever made up).

farmerman wrote:

Youve unsuccessfully tried to counter the points Ive made but thats no mind, I got em in record.

How is pointing out all the places where you are wrong "unsuccessful"?

farmerman wrote:

Whether the Constitution does or does not hold with a present 2nd amendment as written is a question that we cannot know at this point. I venture to say that, since NRA (non gun manufacture members) are slowly swinging TOWARD reasonable gun laws then e may see some meaningful change in the 2nd amendment in several decades (I am not a fool, its gonna be beyond my lifetime).

You have very little grasp of either the NRA or the views of the American people.

Even without the NRA, the American people will never allow the Second Amendment to be repealed.

The NRA is not controlled by the gun manufacturers. (The gun manufacturers actually have no objection to assault weapons bans. They just pay lip service because we'll boycott them into bankruptcy if they don't.)

And NRA members do not even remotely support a ban on harmless cosmetic features.

farmerman wrote:

However, the vast majority of Americans dont want this needless slaughter going on while some industry quietly keeps manufacturing instruments of death. (That includes the defined weapons, the defined ammo, the Grandfathering issue, and illegal sales)

Defining harmless cosmetic features as an assault weapon does not mean those harmless cosmetic features are responsible for any slaughter.

And it certainly won't prevent the Supreme Court from striking down any unconstitutional ban you pass.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

No one in either nation is allowed to carry handguns when they go about in public.

ooh - and look - not so many gun murders in either nation (Aus/Can)

win-win

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Oral just keeps sounding the same error filled assertions and hopes they stick.

Funny how you can't show any of these supposed errors.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

RapRap, Frank Apisa, Farmerman and MontereyJack haven't got a clue.
Nothing but democrat talking points and anti-constitution BS from them.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: farmerman (Post 5201902)
farmerman wrote:
Oral just keeps sounding the same error filled assertions and hopes they stick.

Funny how you can't show any of these supposed errors.

Farmerman has shown them; I have shown them; others have shown them.

All you do is say "NO"...like a stubborn two year-old.

You really gotta get a grip (!) on it, Oralloy.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

You have a big mouth for a clown who can't show a single untrue thing I've said (much less anything I've ever made up).

It's a wonder how people as delusional as you, Oralboy, make it thru the day. You constantly post lies and half truths and think that stamping your feet and denying it somehow makes you right. It only highlights your delusional nature.

Here's a shining example where you have often described an untruth and you were proven wrong.

See,

http://able2know.org/topic/139022-4#top

Quote:

You can't show one case of the US targeting civilians in the past hundred years.

You are big time delusional, Oralboy. You obviously are aware of the many cases before that hundred year period because the standard of attacking innocents was set early in American history and it has never ended.
[/quote]

See,

http://able2know.org/topic/139022-4#top

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

BILL _JEEZUS CHRIST I aid it and Monterey Jack said it. IT WAS A BAN that tried to list and tie up SEVERAL FEATURES that collectively made a gun an assauklt weapon.

Several cosmetic features, that the Constitution forbids you to ban.

farmerman wrote:

The BUSHAMASTER 223 , which came out POST BAN DATE,

Were time machines involved?

What were they doing selling them in the early 1980s?

farmerman wrote:

and they did away with the other unlethal features.

You're slipping up. You're trying to pretend that those other features are not merely harmless and cosmetic, remember?

farmerman wrote:

If we ban these guns again, along with a removal of grandfather status (for real), we will have a beginning.

No, banning harmless cosmetic features will not achieve anything. It'll just get the ban struck down by the courts.

But be real sure to tie the large capacity magazine ban to the ban on harmless cosmetic features. The last thing we want is severability. Twisted Evil

farmerman wrote:

If you wish this meaningless slaughter to continue then you and several on here are going about it correctly by just trying to assert that these existing design features of a gun arent at least partly responsible for the killings.

Pointing out that harmless cosmetic features have nothing to do with the killing is just plain telling the truth.

The person here doing the most to help the slaughter continue is you, because your headlong rush to ban harmless features has a very real chance of getting any ban on high capacity magazines thrown out of court.

You might just get a medal from the NRA at the end of all this.

farmerman wrote:

4have meaningful gun control to remove such easy acces and lethal designs of guns that have no use anywhere in the sporting world

That's nice and vague, but it is safe to assume you mean to include harmless cosmetic features, and there is nothing meaningful about banning them.

If you also mean high capacity magazines, the fact that they have no sporting use would come as a great surprise to all the varmint hunters who use them. (They also have a legitimate civilian use outside sport: self defense.)

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

oralloy wrote:
No one in either nation is allowed to carry handguns when they go about in public.

ooh - and look - not so many gun murders in either nation (Aus/Can)

win-win

Yes, but I don't see how having fewer gun murders helps. Your murder victims are still dead. Meanwhile you've given up priceless freedom.

Anyway, gave you a thumbs up for not engaging in name-calling. Answering your post was a brief moment of respite for me.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

oralloy wrote:
farmerman wrote:
Oral just keeps sounding the same error filled assertions and hopes they stick.

Funny how you can't show any of these supposed errors.

Farmerman has shown them; I have shown them; others have shown them.

Liar.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

First

Oraboy wrote:

No

Then

Oraboy wrote:

Liar.

My my my; Oraboy, your debating skills have just doubled.

Rap

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Quote:

ooh - and look - not so many gun murders in either nation (Aus/Can)

win-win

ohh ohh you have a magic wand that is going to make 300 millions firearms disappear in the US as without that magic wand a ban on law abiding citizens carrying firearms just mean that they will be defenseless to any criminal that wish to be armed.

ohh ohh indeed................and such would be a win for all armed criminals.
\

3 Replies

@BillRM,

Begrudgingly I have to agree with you--In the US Pandora's box is wide open.

Rap

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

You obviously are aware of the many cases before that hundred year period because the standard of attacking innocents was set early in American history

I sure am.

Did you ever hear what we did to the "Thanksgiving Indians"?

Some 50 years after that Thanksgiving celebration with the natives who helped us survive that winter, we went to war against them and largely eradicated them.

Their leader at the time was the son of the leader who helped us some 50 years before.

When we captured him, we cut off his head and mounted it on a pole in downtown Boston for 20 years.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

4have meaningful gun control to remove such easy acces and lethal designs of guns that have no use anywhere in the sporting world

Half of my guns was from private sales between friends and so how in the hell with 300 millions weapons plus are you going have any real meaningful control of guns unless you think that a gun shop is the only means of buying a gun.

Moving gun sales from gun stores to private sales including a black market seems not all that helpful.

Plenty of sites now existing on the dark net that will sell you any type of light weapons for bitcoins.

Second bans on rifles for how they looks is not of any aid either that I can see.

0 Replies

@raprap,

raprap wrote:

Oraboy

You engage in name-calling because you are too stupid to come up with an intelligent argument.

raprap wrote:

your debating skills have just doubled.

No, they remain the same.

They will also continue to not be wasted on you.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Your murder victims are still dead.

we also have fewer of those, percentagewise, than the U.S.

my curiosity, overall, isn't so much about guns in the U.S., but what it is that causes Americans to appear to take the high murder rate of their fellow citizens so lightly

there are more 'mass murders' in the U.S. than in other developed nations, and most of those have been with guns so I do have a concern about gun use in the U.S. - but the higher murder rate is the big puzzler for me. We've gone over this on threads before - the populations are quite similar between the U.S. and other developed countries - English/European founders, immigrants/illegal immigrants, all that sort of thing. We have very similar media (though we control advertising in some areas more stringently) and entertainment. Canada currently has an actual Conservative government than the U.S. so I can't say that conservatives murder more than liberals do (though I would have loved to take that on as a position to debate).

Why is the U.S. murder rate so high that it has to be compared to Central and South American countries to look good?

3 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

you have a magic wand that is going to make 300 millions firearms disappear in the US as without that magic wand a ban on law abiding citizens carrying firearms just mean that they will be defenseless to any criminal that wish to be armed.

ohh ohh indeed................and such would be a win for all armed criminals.

maybe the U.S. could consider learning from other countries like England and Australia? might do some good

2 Replies

Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know