If the Sandy Hook incident does not bring on changes due to the NRA NO

[Nosmo King]

That's incorrect.
He sees the problem as the civilian ownership of firearms.
He sees his solutions as first steps toward solving that problem.

When you put words into my mouth, please be more precise! The problem is civilians holding assault weapons, not firearms in general. Assault weapons were designed for law enforcement and military use.

The style of weapon is your problem? Oh my goodness, it's all scary and black and everything!

Standing in the doorway, about 10 feet from me is a carbine in .308 caliber. It generally uses 5 shot magazines, but there are 30 round mags available. It fires the same ammunition as an M-14; considerably more potent than an AK-47 or M-16 and far more accurate than any of the 3.
BUT, it has a fancy walnut stock with checkering hand carved into the forearm, fancy engraving on the receiver, a hand tooled leather sling and an high end adjustable scope. It's a damned fine looking weapon, but if I was about to shoot up a school and wanted to inflict maximum damage, I'd be carrying the model 100 and not some weak assed military style glorified .22 magnum.

My but you're in tune with gun fashion! The "style" is not the issues! All though it was when the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was debated! The NRA and their lackeys got to talk about detachable stocks and bayonet mounts and flash suppressors and grips. But they refused to talk about what made assault weapons assault weapons: the semi-automatic firing system and high capacity magazines.

 

[Nosmo King]

When you put words into my mouth, please be more precise! The problem is civilians holding assault weapons, not firearms in general. Assault weapons were designed for law enforcement and military use.

The style of weapon is your problem? Oh my goodness, it's all scary and black and everything!

Yes. Removing the flash suppressor and bayonet lug from an 'assault weapon', in his eyes, apparently makes it OK for the public to own.

Don't bother asking what the practical difference is, because like most who want to remove firearms from civilains, he doesn't know.

I can speak and tjhink for myself. A claim I'm quite sure you would have trouble validating in your own case.

 

[Koios]

This will be an atrocity. There are so many things that could be done to assure that this never happens again. But if there is mention of gun laws or anything to do with guns the NRA says NO.

They don't represent the majority of gun owners anymore. They respresent the manufactorers. Sooner or later, the NO, is going to start costing them memberships.

While we agree in essence, nothing will assure that mass killings do not happen again. Sure; we can mitigate the severity, by reducing the lethality of weapons the general public can purchase, which we've always done since nasty ones came on line: nukes, grendades, full auto, etc. And the only reason to bar ownership of nukes, grenades, etc, vis a vis "well regulated," is they're massively lethal.

Now too, are survival / assault weapons, as it turns out. So fuck yeah; add them to the banned (from future sales) list. It's a no brainer, and might very well help, since making things more difficult to acquire reduces their use, and lowers our percentage risk, on something we cannot really prevent: some disenfranchised loser (millions are thus) turning into a sociopath bent on creating as much pain on their way out (very few of them). But with lesser-lethal weapons, fewer die, hopefully. Meanwhile, hunting, target shooting, protecting oneself, continue, unmolested, just as before.

 

[Dubya]

Aww... what's wrong, boo-boo? Does your lying puddy hurt?

Its quoted in our conversation.
Your post # 200
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...changes-due-to-the-nra-no-14.html#post6658388

There is no lie in there, fool!

Your entire story is a lie.
You made it up, you know it, and you cannot prove any of it to be true.

Hey Einstein! How can anyone prove they met someone 10 years ago?

Figure this out, you are internet scum, you're just worthless to a political forum.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is no lie in there, fool!

Your entire story is a lie.
You made it up, you know it, and you cannot prove any of it to be true.

Hey Einstein! How can anyone prove they met someone 10 years ago?

Exactly the response someone trying to cover a lie would give.
Thanks for the proof.

 

[Dubya]

Your entire story is a lie.
You made it up, you know it, and you cannot prove any of it to be true.

Hey Einstein! How can anyone prove they met someone 10 years ago?

Exactly the response someone trying to cover a lie would give.
Thanks for the proof.

I'm done with your fool ass. You're totally worthless.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hey Einstein! How can anyone prove they met someone 10 years ago?

Exactly the response someone trying to cover a lie would give.
Thanks for the proof.

I'm done with your fool ass. You're totally worthless.

Again: if you dont want to get all butthurt about being called out on your lies, don't lie.

 

[Pogo]

Again: if you dont want to get all butthurt about being called out on your lies, don't lie.

Haha That's hilarious M1.4, because you know what, I'm still waiting after two days, before Dubya even got here, for you to back up those lies you plopped down here yesterday, speaking of butt hurt. Shall we review?

Good to see you're willing to admit that you're more than happy to use the blood of 20 schoolkids to push your pre-existing agenda.
You may be a mionster, but at least you're an honest monster.

Oh no little man, you do not put words in my mouth. But just what do you think my "pre-existing agenda" is? This is an open book test as the answer is already posted. Many times.

But just what do you think my "pre-existing agenda" is?

Limiting the 2nd amendment rights of the law abiding to the greatest extent possible, regardless of any protection afforded to said rights by the constitution.

Bzzzt. You actually found a way to flunk an open-book test where the answer was right on the same page. I was mistaken; you don't read English.
No, I've never advocated anything about the 2nd amendment at all. Not here, not anywhere. Don't take my word for it-- find a quote.

... It's taking kind of a long time, don't you think?

I mean you already knew about my "agenda" so-- where did you see it? Now the cynic would say it could just be that you're a lying asshole who has no idea what he's talking about. But I'm sure that's not it. I have faith.

So where's this agenda? Where are the quotes? Where was I "using the blood of 20 schoolkids" to push this Second Amendment agenda? Where?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg]Cricket Sound - YouTube[/ame]

.
.
.
Let me guess -- you're new to the whole "debate" thing, right?

 

[Nosmo King]

So the gun lovers here seem to think that nothing will work. And as nothing will work, trying something, anything is just stupid. they also seem to think that as guns are cool, and they have some warped idea that any gun made is worth civilians having, others are forced to conclude that school massacres, theater shootings, gun fights on urban streets, mass shootings on college campuses and the lives taken every day by the irresponsible gun holders is just the price of doing business. the cost of the freedom to have assault weapons is the blood of children and everyone should just man up and either accept that or get themselves their own gun and prepare to play Army.

Irresponsibility is the hallmark of the gun lover if the justification for doing nothing at all is both a violation of his "right" to own military style weapons and just the cost of his perceived right to do so. Irresponsibility is turning a blind eye to the problem of gun violence and running up the whiter flag of surrender because they cannot plumb the intellectual depths of finding a solution.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Nosmo King what are your thoughts on Heller ?

 

[9thIDdoc]

This will be an atrocity. There are so many things that could be done to assure that this never happens again. But if there is mention of gun laws or anything to do with guns the NRA says NO.

They don't represent the majority of gun owners anymore. They respresent the manufactorers. Sooner or later, the NO, is going to start costing them memberships.

While we agree in essence, nothing will assure that mass killings do not happen again. Sure; we can mitigate the severity, by reducing the lethality of weapons the general public can purchase, which we've always done since nasty ones came on line: nukes, grendades, full auto, etc. And the only reason to bar ownership of nukes, grenades, etc, vis a vis "well regulated," is they're massively lethal.

Now too, are survival / assault weapons, as it turns out. So fuck yeah; add them to the banned (from future sales) list. It's a no brainer, and might very well help, since making things more difficult to acquire reduces their use, and lowers our percentage risk, on something we cannot really prevent: some disenfranchised loser (millions are thus) turning into a sociopath bent on creating as much pain on their way out (very few of them). But with lesser-lethal weapons, fewer die, hopefully. Meanwhile, hunting, target shooting, protecting oneself, continue, unmolested, just as before.

Sure; we can mitigate the severity, by reducing the lethality of weapons the general public can purchase,...

Really? How? As has been pointed out continually, the "survival/assault" weapon is no more lethal than most any other. And there remains the reality that there simply aren't any laws you can pass that can have much effect on anyone but the law abideing]

 

[GuyPinestra]

So the gun lovers here seem to think that nothing will work. And as nothing will work, trying something, anything is just stupid. they also seem to think that as guns are cool, and they have some warped idea that any gun made is worth civilians having, others are forced to conclude that school massacres, theater shootings, gun fights on urban streets, mass shootings on college campuses and the lives taken every day by the irresponsible gun holders is just the price of doing business. the cost of the freedom to have assault weapons is the blood of children and everyone should just man up and either accept that or get themselves their own gun and prepare to play Army.

Irresponsibility is the hallmark of the gun lover if the justification for doing nothing at all is both a violation of his "right" to own military style weapons and just the cost of his perceived right to do so. Irresponsibility is turning a blind eye to the problem of gun violence and running up the whiter flag of surrender because they cannot plumb the intellectual depths of finding a solution.

Two responsible things would be to enforce the laws already on the books and reduce/remove parole possibilities for anyone convicted of a 'gun' crime.

 

[Pogo]

This will be an atrocity. There are so many things that could be done to assure that this never happens again. But if there is mention of gun laws or anything to do with guns the NRA says NO.

They don't represent the majority of gun owners anymore. They respresent the manufactorers. Sooner or later, the NO, is going to start costing them memberships.

While we agree in essence, nothing will assure that mass killings do not happen again. Sure; we can mitigate the severity, by reducing the lethality of weapons the general public can purchase, which we've always done since nasty ones came on line: nukes, grendades, full auto, etc. And the only reason to bar ownership of nukes, grenades, etc, vis a vis "well regulated," is they're massively lethal.

Whoa, back up here. This brings up a previous question that was never addressed.

If the Second Amendment is sacrosanct, then why can't I have a nuke? A grenade? Even a simple tank?
I don't remember any part of the Second Amendment referring to what's "massively lethal" and what isn't. Why isn't the NRA protesting these egregious tramplings of the Constitution?

Who drew that line? And if we accept that line, why do we accept that one and not another one?

 

[Nosmo King]

Nosmo King what are your thoughts on Heller ?

Heller established that gun ownership was not predicated on joining a militia. It also banned restrictions like storing weapons unloaded and/or disassembled and ruled against mandatory trigger locks. It further said that residents of the District of Columbia were not subject to constitutional protections. But it failed to address the question of gun restrictions between law enforcement and military with civilians.

 

[Nosmo King]

So the gun lovers here seem to think that nothing will work. And as nothing will work, trying something, anything is just stupid. they also seem to think that as guns are cool, and they have some warped idea that any gun made is worth civilians having, others are forced to conclude that school massacres, theater shootings, gun fights on urban streets, mass shootings on college campuses and the lives taken every day by the irresponsible gun holders is just the price of doing business. the cost of the freedom to have assault weapons is the blood of children and everyone should just man up and either accept that or get themselves their own gun and prepare to play Army.

Irresponsibility is the hallmark of the gun lover if the justification for doing nothing at all is both a violation of his "right" to own military style weapons and just the cost of his perceived right to do so. Irresponsibility is turning a blind eye to the problem of gun violence and running up the whiter flag of surrender because they cannot plumb the intellectual depths of finding a solution.

Two responsible things would be to enforce the laws already on the books and reduce/remove parole possibilities for anyone convicted of a 'gun' crime.

What about background checks to weed out those with mental and emotional problems?

 

[Koios]

This will be an atrocity. There are so many things that could be done to assure that this never happens again. But if there is mention of gun laws or anything to do with guns the NRA says NO.

They don't represent the majority of gun owners anymore. They respresent the manufactorers. Sooner or later, the NO, is going to start costing them memberships.

While we agree in essence, nothing will assure that mass killings do not happen again. Sure; we can mitigate the severity, by reducing the lethality of weapons the general public can purchase, which we've always done since nasty ones came on line: nukes, grendades, full auto, etc. And the only reason to bar ownership of nukes, grenades, etc, vis a vis "well regulated," is they're massively lethal.

Whoa, back up here. This brings up a previous question that was never addressed.

If the Second Amendment is sacrosanct, then why can't I have a nuke? A grenade? Even a simple tank?
I don't remember any part of the Second Amendment referring to what's "massively lethal" and what isn't. Why isn't the NRA protesting these egregious tramplings of the Constitution?

Who drew that line? And if we accept that line, why do we accept that one and not another one?

Well regulated...

 

[Koios]

While we agree in essence, nothing will assure that mass killings do not happen again. Sure; we can mitigate the severity, by reducing the lethality of weapons the general public can purchase, which we've always done since nasty ones came on line: nukes, grendades, full auto, etc. And the only reason to bar ownership of nukes, grenades, etc, vis a vis "well regulated," is they're massively lethal.

Whoa, back up here. This brings up a previous question that was never addressed.

If the Second Amendment is sacrosanct, then why can't I have a nuke? A grenade? Even a simple tank?
I don't remember any part of the Second Amendment referring to what's "massively lethal" and what isn't. Why isn't the NRA protesting these egregious tramplings of the Constitution?

Who drew that line? And if we accept that line, why do we accept that one and not another one?

Well regulated...

In case the NRA crowd are wondering why no limits, save that of out and out bans of all guns, have ever been overturned by SCOTUS.

 

[Pogo]

While we agree in essence, nothing will assure that mass killings do not happen again. Sure; we can mitigate the severity, by reducing the lethality of weapons the general public can purchase, which we've always done since nasty ones came on line: nukes, grendades, full auto, etc. And the only reason to bar ownership of nukes, grenades, etc, vis a vis "well regulated," is they're massively lethal.

Whoa, back up here. This brings up a previous question that was never addressed.

If the Second Amendment is sacrosanct, then why can't I have a nuke? A grenade? Even a simple tank?
I don't remember any part of the Second Amendment referring to what's "massively lethal" and what isn't. Why isn't the NRA protesting these egregious tramplings of the Constitution?

Who drew that line? And if we accept that line, why do we accept that one and not another one?

Well regulated...

The phrase "well regulated" isn't defined in the Amendment. So why aren't the NRA and gunners challenging this limitation? Or to put it the right way, why have they accepted such limitations when no such limitations are articulated in the Constitution?

Tossing out 'well regulated' isn't enough. I mean it seems to me far more definition-gazing was expended over the last four years on the phrase "natural born citizen". Just looking for consistency here...

 

[M14 Shooter]

While we agree in essence, nothing will assure that mass killings do not happen again. Sure; we can mitigate the severity, by reducing the lethality of weapons the general public can purchase, which we've always done since nasty ones came on line: nukes, grendades, full auto, etc. And the only reason to bar ownership of nukes, grenades, etc, vis a vis "well regulated," is they're massively lethal.

Whoa, back up here. This brings up a previous question that was never addressed.

If the Second Amendment is sacrosanct, then why can't I have a nuke? A grenade? Even a simple tank?
I don't remember any part of the Second Amendment referring to what's "massively lethal" and what isn't. Why isn't the NRA protesting these egregious tramplings of the Constitution?

Who drew that line? And if we accept that line, why do we accept that one and not another one?

Well regulated...

No. The sort of arms protected by the 2nd was defined in US v Miller - they have to be of the kind that are effective in and useful for service with the militia, and part of the ordinary military equipment in common use at the time.

Common infantrymen are issued every manner of firearms, but aren't issued nukes. Case closed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Whoa, back up here. This brings up a previous question that was never addressed.

If the Second Amendment is sacrosanct, then why can't I have a nuke? A grenade? Even a simple tank?
I don't remember any part of the Second Amendment referring to what's "massively lethal" and what isn't. Why isn't the NRA protesting these egregious tramplings of the Constitution?

Who drew that line? And if we accept that line, why do we accept that one and not another one?

Well regulated...

In case the NRA crowd are wondering why no limits, save that of out and out bans of all guns, have ever been overturned by SCOTUS.

How many limits have been upheld by the SCotUS?
Be sure to cite the case and the limit(s) upheld by same.