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

[martybegan]

No, but your plan is to keep semi-autos out of the hands of of anyone, regardless of the fact that THEY are not crazy.

Those are not "weapons of war"... Don't give into the lefts attempt to control the language as well as everything else.

Yeah. You negged me for writing "assault weapons" as if the very notion of a weapon with a semi-automatic firing system and fitted with a high capacity magazine is something other than an "assault weapon".

How can there be any discussion, any progress if simply calling a spade a spade causes some to go apoplectic?

Here's what an "assault weapon" is: any firearm equipped with a semi-automatic firing system and a high capacity ammunition magazine. Firearms such as, but not exclusively, shotguns with pump actions, bolt action rifles, revolvers and single action pistols are perfectly acceptable to be held by the general public. Assault weapons, which meet the criteria I set out above are arms best held by well regulated militias and not on the streets.

Hunting, target shooting, personal defense are all legitimate uses for fire arms. Assault weapons are not legitimately used for any of those activities. At least their design was not driven by those activities. In fact, the design of assault weapons is to kill as many people as quickly as possible. Should implements with that as the primary design be held by the general public? Are those weapons designed for combat operations? For law enforcement?

Luckily you dont define what law abiding citizens can own. Considering criminals wont follow the law anyway, all you are doing is disarming law abiding citizens.

Also, if we ever go through with a ban like this, then all non military government employees must be limited in the same way. If its good enough for us, its good enough for them.

So cops can have heavier weapons locked in an arsenal and issued when needed, but when off duty they have to use exactly what the rest of the population is limited to.

 

[martybegan]

Hunting, target shooting, personal defense are all legitimate uses for fire arms. Assault weapons are not legitimately used for any of those activities.

Houston, TX — The teenaged son of a Harris County Precinct 1 deputy shot a home intruder Tuesday afternoon with his father’s AR-15 rifle, according to deputies.

The 15-year-old boy was home with his 12-year-old sister when a pair of burglars tried to come into the home through the front and back doors. When that failed, the intruders broke a back window. The teenager allegedly grabbed his father’s assault rifle and defended himself and his sister.

Read more at Gun Control: 15-Year-Old Defends Sister From Burglars With AR-15 Rifle

Is that something he could not possibly do without an assault weapon? Could it be possible that other weapons, other firearms could have been used to accomplish the same thing?

and who the fuck are you to tell them how to defend themselves?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If this tragedy does not merit a responsible debate about the presence of assault weapons on our streets, I dread the tragedy that does.

Well please go on suggest something that hasn't already been tried.

Whenever the debate starts in D.C., the NRA doesn't get to sidetrack the issue with talk about the cosmetic aspects of assault weapons. And they don't get a veto on any other discussions.

The issue is too dire to leave it to the lackeys of the gun manufacturers.

Cosmetics? Are you serious? The whole anti gun movement is based on a lie one after another lie on top of a lie.

 

[Stephanie]

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.

Maybe someday someone will walk into the NRA headquarters armed to the teeth and just start shooting. I wonder what the official NRA position would be after such an event. Armed guards in every office across the US?

wow, sounds more like wishful thinking.
pathetic

 

[Missourian]

If this tragedy does not merit a responsible debate about the presence of assault weapons on our streets, I dread the tragedy that does.

I'm not opposed to a responsible debate Nosmo.

I'm not even opposed to tweaks in the law that will actually accomplish something.

What I am opposed to is gun grabbers using a tragedy to advance their predetermined agenda.

What I am opposed to is knee jerk reactions that only do something for the sake of doing something, things that have NO EFFECT whatsoever.

How is extending background checks going to stop anything?

Cho, Loughner, and Holmes all purchased there guns legally, passed background checks and all...Lanza stole a gun that was legally purchased in a state with a assault weapons ban.

So how does that solve any problems?

IT DOESN'T! Just an agenda to be advanced.

OK, let's ignore that Lanza had a legally owned gun in a state with an assault weapons ban in place. Cho killed more with two pistols. Loughner had a pistol.

So how is an AWB going to help stop these shootings?

IT DOESN'T!

So, what's the solution?

Let's ignore the 2nd Amendment for a minute and say we ban all guns everywhere in the U.S.

How has banning stuff worked out in the past in the U.S.?

We banned alcohol, that went swimmingly...war in the streets, alcohol everywhere, gang violence, and in the end, the cure was worse than the disease and we ammended the Constitution to bring it back.

Drugs? We're winning the war on illegal drugs, right?
Able to keep drugs out of the hands of the gangs, keep it from being smuggled into the country by the ton?

No?

How about illegal aliens? surely we can keep people from entering the country illegally? Right?

Laws only restrict the lawful.

Criminals are going to do what they always do, break the law.

And the only people whose rights will be infringed are law abiding citizens.

"The idea that no solution exists never occurs to them and in this lies their strength."

A gun, any gun, makes the taking of a human life easy. True or false?

False, the decision to kill makes taking a human life easy...the weapon is distantly secondary to the will.

All criminals were not criminals until they committed a criminal act. True or false?

True, which is why background checks will continue to fail.

A person in possession of a gun acts differently than a person without a gun in his/her possession. True or false?

True, I am much more conscious of the unintended consequences of my actions.

I don't flip off the asshole that cut me off in traffic or the guy who perceives ME as the asshole who cut him off in traffic.

In my minds eye I can visualize a scenario where that situation could escalate...I never want to ever, ever use my firearm against another human being unless it is absolutely necessary to defend my life or the lives of others...

Therefore, I am more likely to keep any aggressive tendencies in check.

Gun control means the total ban on firearms in civilian hands. True or false?

True, that's the end goal for most gun grabbers. They don't want a gun, and they don't trust you with that power.

The Second Amendment is sacrosanct. True or false?

True, it is as equally in sacrosanctness to the rest of the Bill of Rights.

And all of this is deflection from my original post, that the "remedies" proposed have no chance of reducing mass shootings, which the gun grabbers claim is their goal.

 

[Thinker1st]

The children that lost their lives should be a wakeup call for all those children who have lost their lives because of abortion!

 

[Stephanie]

The children that lost their lives should be a wakeup call for all those children who have lost their lives because of abortion!

It won't because they can't or want to USE THEM for their agenda

50 million children perished since it became legal because of abortion..

 

[Stephanie]

More from previous link:

The NRA's top corporate benefactor is MidwayUSA... MidwayUSA sells ammunition, high-capacity ammunition magazines, and other shooting accessories and has contributed between five and 10 million dollars to the NRA via its NRA Round-Up Program (which rounds up customer purchases to the nearest dollar with the difference going to the NRA) and other contributions. One Pittsburgh resident who apparently took part in the NRA’s Round-Up Program through MidwayUSA was concealed carry permit holder George Sodini, who in August 2009 opened fire at an LA Fitness Center in Collier, PA, killing three women and wounding nine others before turning the gun on himself and taking his own life.

... The study concludes, "The mutually dependent nature of the National Rifle Association and the gun industry explains the NRA’s unwillingness to compromise on even the most limited controls over firearms or related products (such as restrictions on high-capacity ammunition magazines)....The NRA claims that its positions are driven solely by a concern for the interests of gun owners, never mentioning its own financial stake in protecting the profits of its gun industry patrons. At the 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre told a cheering crowd that 'the guys with the guns make the rules.' The information contained in this report raises the question as to what degree it is the guys who make the guns who make the rules."

(ibid)

NICE! I guess Obama is getting too close the Golden Goose that feeds to animal.

Yeah he's too close to Golden Goose (unions) who bought and paid for him

 

[Pogo]

More from previous link:

The NRA's top corporate benefactor is MidwayUSA... MidwayUSA sells ammunition, high-capacity ammunition magazines, and other shooting accessories and has contributed between five and 10 million dollars to the NRA via its NRA Round-Up Program (which rounds up customer purchases to the nearest dollar with the difference going to the NRA) and other contributions. One Pittsburgh resident who apparently took part in the NRA’s Round-Up Program through MidwayUSA was concealed carry permit holder George Sodini, who in August 2009 opened fire at an LA Fitness Center in Collier, PA, killing three women and wounding nine others before turning the gun on himself and taking his own life.

... The study concludes, "The mutually dependent nature of the National Rifle Association and the gun industry explains the NRA’s unwillingness to compromise on even the most limited controls over firearms or related products (such as restrictions on high-capacity ammunition magazines)....The NRA claims that its positions are driven solely by a concern for the interests of gun owners, never mentioning its own financial stake in protecting the profits of its gun industry patrons. At the 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre told a cheering crowd that 'the guys with the guns make the rules.' The information contained in this report raises the question as to what degree it is the guys who make the guns who make the rules."

(ibid)

NICE! I guess Obama is getting too close the Golden Goose that feeds to animal.

I'd put this into Google Translate if only I could find out what language it's in.

 

[Nosmo King]

Those are not "weapons of war"... Don't give into the lefts attempt to control the language as well as everything else.

Yeah. You negged me for writing "assault weapons" as if the very notion of a weapon with a semi-automatic firing system and fitted with a high capacity magazine is something other than an "assault weapon".

How can there be any discussion, any progress if simply calling a spade a spade causes some to go apoplectic?

Here's what an "assault weapon" is: any firearm equipped with a semi-automatic firing system and a high capacity ammunition magazine. Firearms such as, but not exclusively, shotguns with pump actions, bolt action rifles, revolvers and single action pistols are perfectly acceptable to be held by the general public. Assault weapons, which meet the criteria I set out above are arms best held by well regulated militias and not on the streets.

Hunting, target shooting, personal defense are all legitimate uses for fire arms. Assault weapons are not legitimately used for any of those activities. At least their design was not driven by those activities. In fact, the design of assault weapons is to kill as many people as quickly as possible. Should implements with that as the primary design be held by the general public? Are those weapons designed for combat operations? For law enforcement?

Luckily you dont define what law abiding citizens can own. Considering criminals wont follow the law anyway, all you are doing is disarming law abiding citizens.

Also, if we ever go through with a ban like this, then all non military government employees must be limited in the same way. If its good enough for us, its good enough for them.

So cops can have heavier weapons locked in an arsenal and issued when needed, but when off duty they have to use exactly what the rest of the population is limited to.

No. You haven't thought this through. The military already has weapons not available to the general public and for good reason. Can you think of some good reasons why the military has weapons the public shouldn't have?

And no one with a shot gun, a bolt action rifle, a revolver or a single action pistol is going to be disarmed. The ban applies to military weapons sold to the public like semi-automatic firing systems and high capacity magazines. The buzz word 'disarm' is no longer disarming to the thinking American.

 

[Nosmo King]

I'm not opposed to a responsible debate Nosmo.

I'm not even opposed to tweaks in the law that will actually accomplish something.

What I am opposed to is gun grabbers using a tragedy to advance their predetermined agenda.

What I am opposed to is knee jerk reactions that only do something for the sake of doing something, things that have NO EFFECT whatsoever.

How is extending background checks going to stop anything?

Cho, Loughner, and Holmes all purchased there guns legally, passed background checks and all...Lanza stole a gun that was legally purchased in a state with a assault weapons ban.

So how does that solve any problems?

IT DOESN'T! Just an agenda to be advanced.

OK, let's ignore that Lanza had a legally owned gun in a state with an assault weapons ban in place. Cho killed more with two pistols. Loughner had a pistol.

So how is an AWB going to help stop these shootings?

IT DOESN'T!

So, what's the solution?

Let's ignore the 2nd Amendment for a minute and say we ban all guns everywhere in the U.S.

How has banning stuff worked out in the past in the U.S.?

We banned alcohol, that went swimmingly...war in the streets, alcohol everywhere, gang violence, and in the end, the cure was worse than the disease and we ammended the Constitution to bring it back.

Drugs? We're winning the war on illegal drugs, right?
Able to keep drugs out of the hands of the gangs, keep it from being smuggled into the country by the ton?

No?

How about illegal aliens? surely we can keep people from entering the country illegally? Right?

Laws only restrict the lawful.

Criminals are going to do what they always do, break the law.

And the only people whose rights will be infringed are law abiding citizens.

"The idea that no solution exists never occurs to them and in this lies their strength."

A gun, any gun, makes the taking of a human life easy. True or false?

False, the decision to kill makes taking a human life easy...the weapon is distantly secondary to the will.

All criminals were not criminals until they committed a criminal act. True or false?

True, which is why background checks will continue to fail.

A person in possession of a gun acts differently than a person without a gun in his/her possession. True or false?

True, I am much more conscious of the unintended consequences of my actions.

I don't flip off the asshole that cut me off in traffic or the guy who perceives ME as the asshole who cut him off in traffic.

In my minds eye I can visualize a scenario where that situation could escalate...I never want to ever, ever use my firearm against another human being unless it is absolutely necessary to defend my life or the lives of others...

Therefore, I am more likely to keep any aggressive tendencies in check.

Gun control means the total ban on firearms in civilian hands. True or false?

True, that's the end goal for most gun grabbers. They don't want a gun, and they don't trust you with that power.

The Second Amendment is sacrosanct. True or false?

True, it is as equally in sacrosanctness to the rest of the Bill of Rights.

And all of this is deflection from my original post, that the "remedies" proposed have no chance of reducing mass shootings, which the gun grabbers claim is their goal.

How about this; stricter background checks. No access to firearms of any kind to those convicted of violent crimes, a history of mental illness or minors. A National Database for the sale of semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines. Close the gun show loophole whereby any private sales do not include a background check. The end of the manufacture, sale importation and distribution of high capacity magazines and a national tax on ammunition to fund these efforts.

 

[Mustang]

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.

Maybe someday someone will walk into the NRA headquarters armed to the teeth and just start shooting. I wonder what the official NRA position would be after such an event. Armed guards in every office across the US?

wow, sounds more like wishful thinking.
pathetic

It's called risk assessment.

 

[OODA_Loop]

No access to firearms of any kind to those convicted of violent crimes, a history of mental illness or minors. A National Database for the sale of semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines. Close the gun show loophole whereby any private sales do not include a background check. The end of the manufacture, sale importation and distribution of high capacity magazines and a national tax on ammunition to fund these efforts.

How bout this:

- Commit a gun crime = hard labor Cool Hand Luke style
- Commit a gun crime projecting force = Cool Hand Luke for life.
- Commit a gun crime and take life = Execution
- Take a drug with suicidal / homicidal ideation as a known side effect= NOGO in NICS from the Pharmacy

 

[Missourian]

"The idea that no solution exists never occurs to them and in this lies their strength."

A gun, any gun, makes the taking of a human life easy. True or false?

False, the decision to kill makes taking a human life easy...the weapon is distantly secondary to the will.

All criminals were not criminals until they committed a criminal act. True or false?

True, which is why background checks will continue to fail.

A person in possession of a gun acts differently than a person without a gun in his/her possession. True or false?

True, I am much more conscious of the unintended consequences of my actions.

I don't flip off the asshole that cut me off in traffic or the guy who perceives ME as the asshole who cut him off in traffic.

In my minds eye I can visualize a scenario where that situation could escalate...I never want to ever, ever use my firearm against another human being unless it is absolutely necessary to defend my life or the lives of others...

Therefore, I am more likely to keep any aggressive tendencies in check.

Gun control means the total ban on firearms in civilian hands. True or false?

True, that's the end goal for most gun grabbers. They don't want a gun, and they don't trust you with that power.

The Second Amendment is sacrosanct. True or false?

True, it is as equally in sacrosanctness to the rest of the Bill of Rights.

And all of this is deflection from my original post, that the "remedies" proposed have no chance of reducing mass shootings, which the gun grabbers claim is their goal.

How about this; stricter background checks. No access to firearms of any kind to those convicted of violent crimes, a history of mental illness or minors. A National Database for the sale of semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines. Close the gun show loophole whereby any private sales do not include a background check. The end of the manufacture, sale importation and distribution of high capacity magazines and a national tax on ammunition to fund these efforts.

Stricter background check? What does that even mean?

Were any of these mentally unstable shooter convicted of misdemeanor violent crime? Then this has nothing to do with Sandy Hook, Aurora or Virginia Tech...just another line item on the gun grabber agenda.

While using a history of mental illness SEEMS like a good idea, I suspect it will only discourage folks will depression, PTSD and other mental disorders to forgo treatment. That solves nothing and may actually exacerbate the situation.

Close the private sale loophole? Why? Did Cho, Loughner, Lanza or Holmes purchase their guns from private parties? NO. They purchased them legally and submitted to background check, with the exception of Lanza, who STOLE the weapon. Just another agenda item, it has nothing whatsoever to do with solving the problem at hand.

Ban this, ban that, ban, ban, ban...and when the next guy simply brings 6 guns? Then what?

 

[asterism]

No, but your plan is to keep semi-autos out of the hands of of anyone, regardless of the fact that THEY are not crazy.

Those are not "weapons of war"... Don't give into the lefts attempt to control the language as well as everything else.

Yeah. You negged me for writing "assault weapons" as if the very notion of a weapon with a semi-automatic firing system and fitted with a high capacity magazine is something other than an "assault weapon".

How can there be any discussion, any progress if simply calling a spade a spade causes some to go apoplectic?

Here's what an "assault weapon" is: any firearm equipped with a semi-automatic firing system and a high capacity ammunition magazine. Firearms such as, but not exclusively, shotguns with pump actions, bolt action rifles, revolvers and single action pistols are perfectly acceptable to be held by the general public. Assault weapons, which meet the criteria I set out above are arms best held by well regulated militias and not on the streets.

Hunting, target shooting, personal defense are all legitimate uses for fire arms. Assault weapons are not legitimately used for any of those activities. At least their design was not driven by those activities. In fact, the design of assault weapons is to kill as many people as quickly as possible. Should implements with that as the primary design be held by the general public? Are those weapons designed for combat operations? For law enforcement?

The AR-15 and M-16 were not designed "to kill as many people as quickly as possible."

Where did you find such ignorance?

 

[asterism]

Hunting, target shooting, personal defense are all legitimate uses for fire arms. Assault weapons are not legitimately used for any of those activities.

Houston, TX — The teenaged son of a Harris County Precinct 1 deputy shot a home intruder Tuesday afternoon with his father’s AR-15 rifle, according to deputies.

The 15-year-old boy was home with his 12-year-old sister when a pair of burglars tried to come into the home through the front and back doors. When that failed, the intruders broke a back window. The teenager allegedly grabbed his father’s assault rifle and defended himself and his sister.

Read more at Gun Control: 15-Year-Old Defends Sister From Burglars With AR-15 Rifle

Is that something he could not possibly do without an assault weapon? Could it be possible that other weapons, other firearms could have been used to accomplish the same thing?

He could have used a bazooka.

 

[Nosmo King]

Well please go on suggest something that hasn't already been tried.

Whenever the debate starts in D.C., the NRA doesn't get to sidetrack the issue with talk about the cosmetic aspects of assault weapons. And they don't get a veto on any other discussions.

The issue is too dire to leave it to the lackeys of the gun manufacturers.

Cosmetics? Are you serious? The whole anti gun movement is based on a lie one after another lie on top of a lie.

Why was the assault weapons ban of 1996 watered down and largely ineffective? because the NRA took over and wrote a bill based on nonsense like detachable stocks, flash suppressors, grips and bayonet mounts. Thus is the poison when gun lobbyists and their lackeys in Congress write gun bans.

 

[Nosmo King]

And all of this is deflection from my original post, that the "remedies" proposed have no chance of reducing mass shootings, which the gun grabbers claim is their goal.

How about this; stricter background checks. No access to firearms of any kind to those convicted of violent crimes, a history of mental illness or minors. A National Database for the sale of semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines. Close the gun show loophole whereby any private sales do not include a background check. The end of the manufacture, sale importation and distribution of high capacity magazines and a national tax on ammunition to fund these efforts.

Stricter background check? What does that even mean?

Were any of these mentally unstable shooter convicted of misdemeanor violent crime? Then this has nothing to do with Sandy Hook, Aurora or Virginia Tech...just another line item on the gun grabber agenda.

While using a history of mental illness SEEMS like a good idea, I suspect it will only discourage folks will depression, PTSD and other mental disorders to forgo treatment. That solves nothing and may actually exacerbate the situation.

Close the private sale loophole? Why? Did Cho, Loughner, Lanza or Holmes purchase their guns from private parties? NO. They purchased them legally and submitted to background check, with the exception of Lanza, who STOLE the weapon. Just another agenda item, it has nothing whatsoever to do with solving the problem at hand.

Ban this, ban that, ban, ban, ban...and when the next guy simply brings 6 guns? Then what?

What about the straw man buyer issue? Should someone be permitted to buy dozens of guns at once? Should they then be permitted to sell them to folks who do not submit to a background check? What solutions, real solutions can be asked for without the abject rejection by the NRA or other gun lovers? Can we agree that there is a problem and obstinence provides no solution?

 

[OODA_Loop]

What about the straw man buyer issue? Should someone be permitted to buy dozens of guns at once? Should they then be permitted to sell them to folks who do not submit to a background check? Can we agree that there is a problem and obstinence provides no solution?

Each of these has an existing governing law.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Whenever the debate starts in D.C., the NRA doesn't get to sidetrack the issue with talk about the cosmetic aspects of assault weapons. And they don't get a veto on any other discussions.

The issue is too dire to leave it to the lackeys of the gun manufacturers.

Cosmetics? Are you serious? The whole anti gun movement is based on a lie one after another lie on top of a lie.

Why was the assault weapons ban of 1996 watered down and largely ineffective? because the NRA took over and wrote a bill based on nonsense like detachable stocks, flash suppressors, grips and bayonet mounts. Thus is the poison when gun lobbyists and their lackeys in Congress write gun bans.

That's ok you can rewrite history all you want. I'll be there to bust your lie every time.
What in the fuck are you talking about?