If we banned all guns

[RDD_1210]

I offered a solution. You didnt like it. So dont lie and say "gun nuts" sont offer solutions.
Your solutions suck. They are based on total ignorance of guns, how they work, how they are made, and how they have been regulated.

Your 'solution' is tantamount to fighting a house fire with cans of gasoline. Removing all restrictions on guns will only serve to add more guns to a street already flooded with guns and blood. And you say my solutions suck. you, gun makers, ammunition makers and funeral directors are the only folks hoping there are more guns out there to create gun violence.

Guns dont create gun violence. People create gun violence.
My solution is tantamount to admitting the obvious: restricting guns when the problem is people is counterproductive and foolish.

Great, so lets put tighter restrictions on which people can possess a firearm. If you are qualified to possess a weapon, own any or as many as you want. But lets, like you suggest, put the restrictions on who can own them. Deal?

 

[RDD_1210]

Idiot. I am a firearms dealer.

You were a firearms dealer. Your business closed down, remember.

And because you were doesn't mean you should be. Clearly laws need to be revamped to prevent people such as yourself from owning weapons purely designed to kill.

I am a firearms dealer, asshole. I passed all the BG checks etc necessary to do that.
Clearly you would like laws revamped to punish people you dont like. Which is why you're a lib.

Sorry, you are a dealer. Just not smart enough to keep your business open. My mistake.

And you are a shining example about why BG checks needs to be changed to ensure that sensible people are controlling the access to guns and not self serving lunatics such as yourself.

 

[Valerie]

How Ronald Reagan Passed The Assault Weapon Ban


As the assault weapon ban vote neared, Reagan — who as president had signed 1986 legislation loosening restrictions on guns — wrote a letter with former Presidents Ford and Carter to the House of Representatives urging them to vote in favor of the ban.

"We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety," the letter said.

"While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons," the letter said concluding.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/how-ronald-reagan-passed-the-assault-weapon-ban

 

[The Rabbi]

Your 'solution' is tantamount to fighting a house fire with cans of gasoline. Removing all restrictions on guns will only serve to add more guns to a street already flooded with guns and blood. And you say my solutions suck. you, gun makers, ammunition makers and funeral directors are the only folks hoping there are more guns out there to create gun violence.

Guns dont create gun violence. People create gun violence.
My solution is tantamount to admitting the obvious: restricting guns when the problem is people is counterproductive and foolish.

Great, so lets put tighter restrictions on which people can possess a firearm. If you are qualified to possess a weapon, own any or as many as you want. But lets, like you suggest, put the restrictions on who can own them. Deal?

OK. if you're an American citizen or green card alien you are qualified to possess a weapon. Says so in the Constitution.

 

[The Rabbi]

How Ronald Reagan Passed The Assault Weapon Ban


As the assault weapon ban vote neared, Reagan — who as president had signed 1986 legislation loosening restrictions on guns — wrote a letter with former Presidents Ford and Carter to the House of Representatives urging them to vote in favor of the ban.

"We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety," the letter said.

"While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons," the letter said concluding.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/how-ronald-reagan-passed-the-assault-weapon-ban

Bill Clinton passed the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994.

 

[RDD_1210]

Guns dont create gun violence. People create gun violence.
My solution is tantamount to admitting the obvious: restricting guns when the problem is people is counterproductive and foolish.

Great, so lets put tighter restrictions on which people can possess a firearm. If you are qualified to possess a weapon, own any or as many as you want. But lets, like you suggest, put the restrictions on who can own them. Deal?

OK. if you're an American citizen or green card alien you are qualified to possess a weapon. Says so in the Constitution.

It also says well regulated. Good point.

 

[Valerie]

What features make a gun into an assault weapon?

Some assault weapon features, like pistol grips, second handgrips, or barrel shrouds, make the gun easier to hold with two hands. This allows the shooter to spray an area with bullets without taking careful aim, and to control the gun without getting burned as the barrel heats up. Others, like detachable magazines, make it easier to maintain a high rate of fire for an extended period of time. Still others, like flash suppressors, allow the shooter to conceal his position. These features, most of which were specifically designed for the military, are unnecessary for hunting or target shooting.


What is the federal assault weapon ban?

In 1994, after a string of mass killings committed by criminals with assault weapons, Congress passed a law banning certain assault weapons. The 1994 law named 19 specific models, and also banned "copies or duplicates" of those models. In addition, the law outlawed guns that have two or more specified assault weapon features. Guns that were legally possessed before the effective date of the law remain legal.


What is the "sunset clause"?

The 1994 assault weapons ban included a "sunset clause" providing that the law would be automatically repealed on September 13, 2004. President Bush professed support for renewing the ban, but refused to lobby Congress to pass new legislation. When Congress failed to act to extend the ban, assault weapons again became legal under the provisons of federal law.



During the time of the 1994-2004 ban, I heard that criminals were still able to commit crimes with assault weapons. How was that possible?

The 1994 law includes several loopholes that unscrupulous gun makers and dealers exploited to continue making and selling assault weapons that Congress intended to ban. As a result, many assault weapons remained available.

Some gun companies made inconsequential design changes (like moving a screw or replacing a flash suppressor with a "muzzle brake") and gave the gun a new name. The new name got the gun off of the prohibited list, and the minor change arguably put it out of reach of the law's "copies or duplicates" language. For example, the banned TEC-9 became the legal AB-10.

Also, some gun companies copied assault weapons that were originally made by other manufacturers. For example, Bushmaster's XM15 was a copy of the banned Colt AR-15, with one minor design change. Functionally equivalent in all relevant respects to its banned cousin, the XM15, like innumerable other AR-15 variants, remained legal. The DC-area sniper allegedly used a new Bushmaster XM15 to shoot 13 victims, killing 10.

Finally, because the 1994 law allowed the continued ownership and sale of "pre-ban" assault weapons, those weapons remained available.


Assault Weapons FAQ - Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/268608-poll-what-should-we-do-with-guns-5.html#post6542241

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/us/lessons-in-politics-and-fine-print-in-assault-weapons-ban-of-90s.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

 

[The Rabbi]

Great, so lets put tighter restrictions on which people can possess a firearm. If you are qualified to possess a weapon, own any or as many as you want. But lets, like you suggest, put the restrictions on who can own them. Deal?

OK. if you're an American citizen or green card alien you are qualified to possess a weapon. Says so in the Constitution.

It also says well regulated. Good point.

That refers to the militia. The first clause announces a purpose, not a qualification. See Scalia's opinion in Heller.
Loser.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Common sense laws would involve mandatory hands on training, testing on a regular basis.
Tighter background checks on private sales.
Longer wait times for first time gun buyers.
No tolerance ownership policy for mental illness and convicted felons.

Those sort of laws would make sense in some iteration.

So, in essence, training by a broke despondent govt that engages in endless spying, endless wars, never ending social engineering and other sordid goods. No thanks.

Would you be proud if your son enlisted in the Marines?

Yet another part of "a broke despondent govt that engages in endless spying, endless wars, never ending social engineering and other sordid goods".

No solution will ever be offered up by gun nuts. They are either too unimaginative, or paranoid, or intellectually lazy. What a miserable way to go through life.

Yes, I would be very proud. I'm referring to the govt politicians who have wrecked everything they touch. You're denying that the govt doesn't engage in these activities or that you're proud that they do?

 

[RDD_1210]

OK. if you're an American citizen or green card alien you are qualified to possess a weapon. Says so in the Constitution.

It also says well regulated. Good point.

That refers to the militia. The first clause announces a purpose, not a qualification. See Scalia's opinion in Heller.
Loser.

Oh guns are for those in the militia. Tell us about the militia you belong to.

 

[The Rabbi]

What features make a gun into an assault weapon?

Some assault weapon features, like pistol grips, second handgrips, or barrel shrouds, make the gun easier to hold with two hands. This allows the shooter to spray an area with bullets without taking careful aim, and to control the gun without getting burned as the barrel heats up. Others, like detachable magazines, make it easier to maintain a high rate of fire for an extended period of time. Still others, like flash suppressors, allow the shooter to conceal his position. These features, most of which were specifically designed for the military, are unnecessary for hunting or target shooting.


]

Geezus what a bunch of tripe.
Which one of these is an assault weapon?

 

[The Rabbi]

It also says well regulated. Good point.

That refers to the militia. The first clause announces a purpose, not a qualification. See Scalia's opinion in Heller.
Loser.

Oh guns are for those in the militia. Tell us about the militia you belong to.

You're not very bright or well informed, are you, Sparky?

 

[RDD_1210]

Guns dont create gun violence. People create gun violence.
My solution is tantamount to admitting the obvious: restricting guns when the problem is people is counterproductive and foolish.

Great, so lets put tighter restrictions on which people can possess a firearm. If you are qualified to possess a weapon, own any or as many as you want. But lets, like you suggest, put the restrictions on who can own them. Deal?

OK. if you're an American citizen or green card alien you are qualified to possess a weapon. Says so in the Constitution.

But I thought you said the problem is people? Now you are ok with all citizens being able to own a gun? How does that address the problem that you've pointed out?

 

[RDD_1210]

That refers to the militia. The first clause announces a purpose, not a qualification. See Scalia's opinion in Heller.
Loser.

Oh guns are for those in the militia. Tell us about the militia you belong to.

You're not very bright or well informed, are you, Sparky?

So you're not in a Militia? As per the constitution, you should not have a gun. Yet another reason you shouldn't be allowed to have a firearm.

 

[Valerie]

When President Bill Clinton signed the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act into law in 1994 as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, the measure was popular and enjoyed broad public support and the blessing of law enforcement. The ban on semiautomatic pistols, rifles and shotguns expired in 2004 under the Bush administration due to a sunset provision in the law.

Since that time, the gun control debate has subsided, and numerous attempts to reinstate the ban in Congress have failed. Typically, the proposals have failed to get out of committee due to the lack of political will among Democrats and Republicans alike.

Further, in 2011, following the assassination attempt on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona, the Justice Department developed a list of measures to expand background checks to reduce the risk of criminals and the mentally ill obtaining guns. The proposals also called for enhanced sentences for people who act as straw purchasers for those who cannot pass a background check. But the department shelved the proposals as the 2012 election campaign season approached, and the Republican-controlled Congress began investigating the Operation Fast and Furious gun trafficking case.

This resistance to enacting even the most modest gun control reforms is the result of the power and influence of the pro-gun lobby in U.S. politics, and its ability to frame the terms of the debate. Gun control advocates have lost control of the narrative because their advocates in Congress fear retaliation from the National Rifle Association, or the NRA.

Backed by conservative lawmakers and judges, the NRA has succeeded in promoting an uncompromising interpretation of the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms.

How the assault weapons ban has been assaulted | theGrio

 

[Bush92]

The federal authoritarian state cannot be trusted with the power to disarm a public whose rights are grounded upon the principles of liberty.

 

[The Rabbi]

Great, so lets put tighter restrictions on which people can possess a firearm. If you are qualified to possess a weapon, own any or as many as you want. But lets, like you suggest, put the restrictions on who can own them. Deal?

OK. if you're an American citizen or green card alien you are qualified to possess a weapon. Says so in the Constitution.

But I thought you said the problem is people? Now you are ok with all citizens being able to own a gun? How does that address the problem that you've pointed out?

What problem? The only problem is nanny staters wanting to restrict the rights of lawful people.
At this point, after nearly 10 years in the gun business Im fine with repealing all restritctions. They do absolutely nothing to "keep guns out of the hands of criminals." That is just tripe. Totally ineffective.

 

[The Rabbi]

Oh guns are for those in the militia. Tell us about the militia you belong to.

You're not very bright or well informed, are you, Sparky?

So you're not in a Militia? As per the constitution, you should not have a gun. Yet another reason you shouldn't be allowed to have a firearm.

^^^^Doubles down on stupid

 

[Nosmo King]

So, in essence, training by a broke despondent govt that engages in endless spying, endless wars, never ending social engineering and other sordid goods. No thanks.

Would you be proud if your son enlisted in the Marines?

Yet another part of "a broke despondent govt that engages in endless spying, endless wars, never ending social engineering and other sordid goods".

No solution will ever be offered up by gun nuts. They are either too unimaginative, or paranoid, or intellectually lazy. What a miserable way to go through life.

Yes, I would be very proud. I'm referring to the govt politicians who have wrecked everything they touch. You're denying that the govt doesn't engage in these activities or that you're proud that they do?

Neither. I'm wondering why first you want to deflect the argument into the swamp like world of anti-government paranoids. And I'm wondering if you think the government is corrupt and incompetent, why would there be an exception for the military?

 

[boedicca]

We know who has the guns, you buy bullets. In that case, if you didn't turn them in, we blow your house up. See ya.

Dang. This moron got pinked before I could neg him.