The attempt to refrain the gun control debate

[beretta304]

Funny, but the topic of this thread is not "Beretta's delusions"...


Let's try the OP topic which is "The attempt to refrain gun control". There is a surging public sentiment to re-institute certain bans on certain types of weapons and I'd like to understand any rationale against doing so... I can't get passed the fact that there is no other lawful purpose for them than to kill lots of people very rapidly.

Let's go with your little whine. The ban is on for argument's sake. Do you think he could not have killed as many with 2 handguns?

Let's see anywhere from 8 to maybe 14 or more rounds per clip. Line them up and execute them one by one. There was no one there to stop him.

He would have killed just as many.

You and your ilk are using assault weapons as a cover to try, and I repeat... try to get all guns banned.

It ain't gonna happen. And by the rare chance it does, good luck getting back all the guns already out there and ones that will get smuggled in.


You arm chair activists are a hoot!

 

[Valerie]

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a leading national voice for new gun control laws, said President Barack Obama hasn’t made enough of an effort to ban ownership of assault weapons and restrict gun sales to criminals and mentally ill buyers.

...






“It’s time for the president to stand up and lead and tell this country what we should do -- not go to Congress and say, ‘What do you guys want to do?’”

The president should make good on his 2008 campaign promise to reinstate the 1994 ban on so-called assault weapons, Bloomberg said. That would include the .223-caliber long rifle police say Adam Lanza, 20, used at Newtown’s Sandy Hook Elementary School, he said.

Connecticut’s chief medical examiner, H. Wayne Carver II, said all of the 20 child victims appear to been killed by a “long rifle” Lanza was carrying, and a .223 Bushmaster semiautomatic rifle was one of the weapons police found in the school, the New York Times reported.

In 2012 alone, there were at least seven mass murders -- killings of at least four -- in the U.S. that claimed at least 65 lives total.



“The trouble is that the NRA is just never willing to have any restriction whatsoever, no matter reasonable it is. The Supreme Court, fortunately, was. They said having reasonable restrictions is consistent with the Constitution.”

“Nobody questions the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms, but we don’t think the founding fathers had the idea that every man, woman and child could carry an assault weapon,” Bloomberg said. “The president, through his leadership, could get a bill like that through Congress. But at least he’s got to try. That’s his job.”

Obama's

I applaud Mayor Bloomberg and other leaders who have the courage to take a position.

 

[beretta304]

Funny, but the topic of this thread is not "Beretta's delusions"...


Let's try the OP topic which is "The attempt to refrain gun control". There is a surging public sentiment to re-institute certain bans on certain types of weapons and I'd like to understand any rationale against doing so... I can't get passed the fact that there is no other lawful purpose for them than to kill lots of people very rapidly.

Well when you get past that, let me know. I'll be waiting. If they're delusions then they're concrete ones and no amount of denial on your part will erase them off the thread.


"I can't get passed the fact that there is no other lawful purpose for them than to kill lots of people very rapidly."






Maybe so. Until it's illegal, you'll just have to adjust to the fact that you can't impose your will on those with other views.

It's not like I ever expected a rational response from you, but why would you respond to my posting an article about the assault weapons ban, if you are incapable of taking a position on the assault weapons ban...??? You act as if you object but then apparently disown the objection. Very strange, but evidently that's par for your sniveling course.

Let me ask you, why do I need a position on it in the first place? It makes no difference one way or the other what I support or believe.

Let's say I'm for a ban. What does that do? Make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside, assclown?

You're a tool with a lame premise. As to why I replied.... like you and your pal like to say.... and as you said once in this thread.....it's not my thread however I am free to post until they give you powers to ban me.


You go ahead and advocate banning them and dial me up after the next massacre. How much activist work have you done on the issue...I'd venture to say, zero. You're a dumb bitch (apologies to bitches) with a big stupid mouth who is better left in the Flame Zone.

 

[beretta304]

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a leading national voice for new gun control laws, said President Barack Obama hasn’t made enough of an effort to ban ownership of assault weapons and restrict gun sales to criminals and mentally ill buyers.

...






“It’s time for the president to stand up and lead and tell this country what we should do -- not go to Congress and say, ‘What do you guys want to do?’”

The president should make good on his 2008 campaign promise to reinstate the 1994 ban on so-called assault weapons, Bloomberg said. That would include the .223-caliber long rifle police say Adam Lanza, 20, used at Newtown’s Sandy Hook Elementary School, he said.

Connecticut’s chief medical examiner, H. Wayne Carver II, said all of the 20 child victims appear to been killed by a “long rifle” Lanza was carrying, and a .223 Bushmaster semiautomatic rifle was one of the weapons police found in the school, the New York Times reported.

In 2012 alone, there were at least seven mass murders -- killings of at least four -- in the U.S. that claimed at least 65 lives total.



“The trouble is that the NRA is just never willing to have any restriction whatsoever, no matter reasonable it is. The Supreme Court, fortunately, was. They said having reasonable restrictions is consistent with the Constitution.”

“Nobody questions the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms, but we don’t think the founding fathers had the idea that every man, woman and child could carry an assault weapon,” Bloomberg said. “The president, through his leadership, could get a bill like that through Congress. But at least he’s got to try. That’s his job.”

Obama's

I applaud Mayor Bloomberg and other leaders who have the courage to take a position.

Ban my soda too! Mayor Bloomberg, a real hero with bodyguards 24/7. Here let me applaud him....

 

[beretta304]

Now Valerie, I replied to you at least 4 to 1 and all valid ones, many with links and you haven't said shit.

 

[daveman]

I'd like to see someone articulate a convincing rationale to not re-institute what President Clinton implemented in 1994. Something other than Clint Eastwood and the NRA told me it's for the best...?

I already did. You ignored it, as if that means it doesn't exist.

Look at it again:

I hope they reinstate the ban on assault weapons...

Why? It didn't do any good.

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf

Myth: The 1994 (former) Federal Assault Weapons Ban was effective
Fact: “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.”382
Fact: The ban covered only 1.39% of the models of firearms on the market, so the ban’s effectiveness was automatically limited.
Fact: “The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.”383
Fact: “The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated.”384
Fact: “The ban triggered speculative price increases and ramped-up production of the banned firearms.”385
Fact: “The ban … ramped-up production of the banned firearms prior to the law’s implementation”386 and thus increased the total supply over the following decade.
Fact: The Brady Campaign claims that “After the 1994 ban, there were 18% fewer ‘assault weapons’ traced to crime in the first eight months of 1995 than were traced in the same period in 1994.” However they failed to note (and these are mentioned in the NIJ study) that:
1. “Assault weapons” traces were minimal before the ban (due to their infrequent use in crimes), so an 18% change enters the realm of statistical irrelevancy.
2. Fewer “assault weapons” were available to criminals because collectors bought-up the available supply before the ban.​

The ban didn't work. Only a stupid fucking idiot liberal would point to something that didn't work and insist we need to do it again.

Are you a stupid fucking idiot liberal?

 

[daveman]

Funny, but the topic of this thread is not "Beretta's delusions"...


Let's try the OP topic which is "The attempt to refrain gun control". There is a surging public sentiment to re-institute certain bans on certain types of weapons and I'd like to understand any rationale against doing so... I can't get passed the fact that there is no other lawful purpose for them than to kill lots of people very rapidly.

That's because you lack imagination.

Bans don't work. Period.

Unless you're the only one who knows how to get criminals to obey the law? I keep asking you idiots, and none of you has an answer.

 

[Valerie]

I hope they reinstate the ban on assault weapons...

The only difference that would have made is that he would have had to reload, or switch weapons, more often. The fact is that, if the ban had still been in effect, and the weapons he were using were bought under the ban, he could have accomplished the exact same thing and only had to reload once or twice.

Want to explain why you think it would have made a difference?

There is a rumor and it is unconfirmed, that he never used the rifle. It was found in the trunk of the car and he used only the 2 handguns.

Again...right now, reported but UNCONFIRMED.

And before you make shit up when you see this "Valerie"...I said..TWICE...unconfirmed.

So you lied when you said you already read my posts in this thread? I was right there when Zander posted that as the facts were still being hashed out. SO many of the facts were wrong in this case. The next day I came back and posted a correction, that in fact he DID use a semi-auto rifle as confirmed by the coroner's report.

 

[Valerie]

Funny, but the topic of this thread is not "Beretta's delusions"...


Let's try the OP topic which is "The attempt to refrain gun control". There is a surging public sentiment to re-institute certain bans on certain types of weapons and I'd like to understand any rationale against doing so... I can't get passed the fact that there is no other lawful purpose for them than to kill lots of people very rapidly.

Let's go with your little whine. The ban is on for argument's sake. Do you think he could not have killed as many with 2 handguns?

Let's see anywhere from 8 to maybe 14 or more rounds per clip. Line then up and execute them one by one. There was no one there to stop him.

He would have killed just as many.

You and your ilk are using assault weapons as a cover to try, and I repeat... try to get all guns banned.

It ain't gonna happen. And by the rare chance it does, good luck getting back all the guns already out there and ones that will get smuggled in.


You arm chair activists are a hoot!

The assault weapons ban has nothing to do with me personally, "other lawful purposes" is the legal precedent, but you knew that already, riiight? The real hoot is pro-gun NRA "arm-chair activists" as you put it, wetting their beds over the US Government conspiring to overpower them, imagining they MUST have assault weapons to defend themselves against tyranny! We even have dimwit politicians speaking openly of 2nd amendment solutions and fomenting talk of a coming revolution... And viola, here you are repeating the LIE that anyone is conspiring to take away 2nd amendment rights. The rabble is roused, bravo. I'd laugh, but it's so sad really, that people actually fall for that tripe...

 

[Valerie]

I'd like to see someone articulate a convincing rationale to not re-institute what President Clinton implemented in 1994. Something other than Clint Eastwood and the NRA told me it's for the best...?

I already did. You ignored it, as if that means it doesn't exist.

Look at it again:

I hope they reinstate the ban on assault weapons...

Why? It didn't do any good.

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf

Myth: The 1994 (former) Federal Assault Weapons Ban was effective
Fact: “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.”382
Fact: The ban covered only 1.39% of the models of firearms on the market, so the ban’s effectiveness was automatically limited.
Fact: “The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.”383
Fact: “The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated.”384
Fact: “The ban triggered speculative price increases and ramped-up production of the banned firearms.”385
Fact: “The ban … ramped-up production of the banned firearms prior to the law’s implementation”386 and thus increased the total supply over the following decade.
Fact: The Brady Campaign claims that “After the 1994 ban, there were 18% fewer ‘assault weapons’ traced to crime in the first eight months of 1995 than were traced in the same period in 1994.” However they failed to note (and these are mentioned in the NIJ study) that:
1. “Assault weapons” traces were minimal before the ban (due to their infrequent use in crimes), so an 18% change enters the realm of statistical irrelevancy.
2. Fewer “assault weapons” were available to criminals because collectors bought-up the available supply before the ban.​

The ban didn't work. Only a stupid fucking idiot liberal would point to something that didn't work and insist we need to do it again.

Are you a stupid fucking idiot liberal?

Aww getting testy, tough guy? The argument is that the ten year time span was not enough time to see the long-term effects such a ban would have, could have, SHOULD HAVE taken...

 

[beretta304]

Funny, but the topic of this thread is not "Beretta's delusions"...


Let's try the OP topic which is "The attempt to refrain gun control". There is a surging public sentiment to re-institute certain bans on certain types of weapons and I'd like to understand any rationale against doing so... I can't get passed the fact that there is no other lawful purpose for them than to kill lots of people very rapidly.

Let's go with your little whine. The ban is on for argument's sake. Do you think he could not have killed as many with 2 handguns?

Let's see anywhere from 8 to maybe 14 or more rounds per clip. Line then up and execute them one by one. There was no one there to stop him.

He would have killed just as many.

You and your ilk are using assault weapons as a cover to try, and I repeat... try to get all guns banned.

It ain't gonna happen. And by the rare chance it does, good luck getting back all the guns already out there and ones that will get smuggled in.


You arm chair activists are a hoot!

The assault weapons ban has nothing to do with me personally, "other lawful purposes" is the legal precedent, but you knew that already, riiight? The real hoot is pro-gun NRA "arm-chair activists" as you put it, wetting their beds over the US Government conspiring to overpower them, imagining they MUST have assault weapons to defend themselves against tyranny! We even have dimwit politicians speaking openly of 2nd amendment solutions and fomenting talk of a coming revolution... And viola, here you are repeating the LIE that anyone is conspiring to take away 2nd amendment rights. The rabble is roused, bravo. I'd laugh, but it's so sad really, that people actually fall for that tripe...

When you are capable of making sense let me know. All you're doing is making allegations and painting with a broad stroke.... anyone who isn't a gun control lunatic. Or for that matter anyone who doesn't want to re-instate a ban that doesn't work just for the sake of doing it.

 

[beretta304]

I'd like to see someone articulate a convincing rationale to not re-institute what President Clinton implemented in 1994. Something other than Clint Eastwood and the NRA told me it's for the best...?

I already did. You ignored it, as if that means it doesn't exist.

Look at it again:

Why? It didn't do any good.

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf

Myth: The 1994 (former) Federal Assault Weapons Ban was effective
Fact: “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.”382
Fact: The ban covered only 1.39% of the models of firearms on the market, so the ban’s effectiveness was automatically limited.
Fact: “The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.”383
Fact: “The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated.”384
Fact: “The ban triggered speculative price increases and ramped-up production of the banned firearms.”385
Fact: “The ban … ramped-up production of the banned firearms prior to the law’s implementation”386 and thus increased the total supply over the following decade.
Fact: The Brady Campaign claims that “After the 1994 ban, there were 18% fewer ‘assault weapons’ traced to crime in the first eight months of 1995 than were traced in the same period in 1994.” However they failed to note (and these are mentioned in the NIJ study) that:
1. “Assault weapons” traces were minimal before the ban (due to their infrequent use in crimes), so an 18% change enters the realm of statistical irrelevancy.
2. Fewer “assault weapons” were available to criminals because collectors bought-up the available supply before the ban.​

The ban didn't work. Only a stupid fucking idiot liberal would point to something that didn't work and insist we need to do it again.

Are you a stupid fucking idiot liberal?

Aww getting testy, tough guy? The argument is that the ten year time span was not enough time to see the long-term effects such a ban would have, could have, SHOULD HAVE taken...

Ten years wasn't enough? Let's try a 100 year ban they way maybe all the guns will rust too? That's sounds like something a lib would propose with a serious face. Dave is right you are a liberal idiot who can't see that bans of just about anything...never work.

 

[daveman]

I'd like to see someone articulate a convincing rationale to not re-institute what President Clinton implemented in 1994. Something other than Clint Eastwood and the NRA told me it's for the best...?

I already did. You ignored it, as if that means it doesn't exist.

Look at it again:

Why? It didn't do any good.

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf

Myth: The 1994 (former) Federal Assault Weapons Ban was effective
Fact: “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.”382
Fact: The ban covered only 1.39% of the models of firearms on the market, so the ban’s effectiveness was automatically limited.
Fact: “The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.”383
Fact: “The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated.”384
Fact: “The ban triggered speculative price increases and ramped-up production of the banned firearms.”385
Fact: “The ban … ramped-up production of the banned firearms prior to the law’s implementation”386 and thus increased the total supply over the following decade.
Fact: The Brady Campaign claims that “After the 1994 ban, there were 18% fewer ‘assault weapons’ traced to crime in the first eight months of 1995 than were traced in the same period in 1994.” However they failed to note (and these are mentioned in the NIJ study) that:
1. “Assault weapons” traces were minimal before the ban (due to their infrequent use in crimes), so an 18% change enters the realm of statistical irrelevancy.
2. Fewer “assault weapons” were available to criminals because collectors bought-up the available supply before the ban.​

The ban didn't work. Only a stupid fucking idiot liberal would point to something that didn't work and insist we need to do it again.

Are you a stupid fucking idiot liberal?

Aww getting testy, tough guy? The argument is that the ten year time span was not enough time to see the long-term effects such a ban would have, could have, SHOULD HAVE taken...

Oh, horseshit. It didn't work.

And since liberalism embraces and rewards failure, you want to do it again.

Meanwhile, you have yet to address the fatal flaw in gun control:

CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY THE LAW.

 

[beretta304]

I already did. You ignored it, as if that means it doesn't exist.

Look at it again:

​

The ban didn't work. Only a stupid fucking idiot liberal would point to something that didn't work and insist we need to do it again.

Are you a stupid fucking idiot liberal?

Aww getting testy, tough guy? The argument is that the ten year time span was not enough time to see the long-term effects such a ban would have, could have, SHOULD HAVE taken...

Oh, horseshit. It didn't work.

And since liberalism embraces and rewards failure, you want to do it again.

Meanwhile, you have yet to address the fatal flaw in gun control:

CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY THE LAW.

It's absolutely utterly amazing to mind-boggling... that they can't grasp this. The fact that they are only disarming the law abiding citizens.

The "crazies" who are hellbent intent on murder by gun are going to find away to get one. It's all part of their planning phase of what they intend to do. This is a sick game to them with an end that they only know the reasons for.

 

[Valerie]

Aww getting testy, tough guy? The argument is that the ten year time span was not enough time to see the long-term effects such a ban would have, could have, SHOULD HAVE taken...

Oh, horseshit. It didn't work.

And since liberalism embraces and rewards failure, you want to do it again.

Meanwhile, you have yet to address the fatal flaw in gun control:

CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY THE LAW.

It's absolutely utterly amazing to mind-boggling... that they can't grasp this. The fact that they are only disarming the law abiding citizens.

The "crazies" who are hellbent intent on murder by gun are going to find away to get one. It's all part of their planning phase of what they intend to do. This is a sick game to them with an end that they only know the reasons for.

IF you had already read my previous posts to this morning, you would already know that I absolutely already do grasp all the talking points you cling to. This morning I posted an article about the cry to re-institute the ban and YOU have since put words into MY mouth and continue to project about what you think I know or don't know, think or don't think.


At least you have an excuse, as opposed to Dave and the Dominatrix...

 

[beretta304]

Oh, horseshit. It didn't work.

And since liberalism embraces and rewards failure, you want to do it again.

Meanwhile, you have yet to address the fatal flaw in gun control:

CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY THE LAW.

It's absolutely utterly amazing to mind-boggling... that they can't grasp this. The fact that they are only disarming the law abiding citizens.

The "crazies" who are hellbent intent on murder by gun are going to find away to get one. It's all part of their planning phase of what they intend to do. This is a sick game to them with an end that they only know the reasons for.

IF you had already read my previous posts to this morning, you would already know that I absolutely already do grasp all the talking points you cling to. This morning I posted an article about the cry to re-institute the ban and YOU have since put words into MY mouth and continue to project about what you think I know or don't know, think or don't think.


At least you have an excuse, as opposed to Dave and the Dominatrix...

All I'm trying to say is that the ban hasn't worked and bans seldom do. I did not put any words into anyone's mouth and if you thought that I did you certainly did indeed respond so that's just not altogether upfront complaining now.

And who was with the "So you mean.... this and that routine"? Want me to link back?


Leave it where it is. We don't agree. Period.

 

[JoeB131]

You're not going to cut down on anything. This kind of behavior isn't driven by the availablity of guns. It's driven by emotional distress. If not a gun another method.

It's just an excuse for people like you who want to control what others can and can not do.


It's called being a Liberal Leftwing Democrat or a make-believe Eisenhower Republican.

When Australia had it's last mass shooting in 1996, they instituted EXACTLY the kind of tough rules we should.

They haven't had one since.

Also, the murder and suicide rates dropped dramatically.

You don't need a miltiary grade weapon. There's no good reason for you to have one.

Now, since you want to talk about Ike, Ike would be ashamed of the modern Republican Party. So would Reagan, for that matter.

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, I didn't leave the GOP, the GOP left me.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I have been listening to the pundits talk about the need to get guns out of the hands of crazy people, and how happy they are that Obama said something needs to be done to stop tragedies like the one today. What, exactly, are the alternatives? We have no way to determine if someone is going to flip out and go on a shooting spree. Even if we did, what are we going to do? If we put them in a database that prevents them from buying a gun what is to stop them from stealing one? Should we require everyone to be tested, and lock everyone who the tests identify as a danger up? Do we really want to create a society that locks people up because they might do something?

The way I see it is we have two choices, either deny everyone freedom, or accept the fact that crazy people are going to do crazy things. If anyone has an actual alternative to those options I would love to hear it.

Asshole. Scum.

you just pissed on the parents who lost their children today.

there's a special place in hell for the NRA and Wayne LaPierre.

I bet you are pro abortion aren't you?

 

[KissMy]

Sign The Arm The Teachers Petition! 7,269 signed so far.

The state of Utah has always allowed teachers to carry guns in class & has never had an incident. Why can't we all have that?

Texas School District Will Let Teachers Carry Guns

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You're not going to cut down on anything. This kind of behavior isn't driven by the availablity of guns. It's driven by emotional distress. If not a gun another method.

It's just an excuse for people like you who want to control what others can and can not do.


It's called being a Liberal Leftwing Democrat or a make-believe Eisenhower Republican.

When Australia had it's last mass shooting in 1996, they instituted EXACTLY the kind of tough rules we should.

They haven't had one since.

Also, the murder and suicide rates dropped dramatically.

You don't need a miltiary grade weapon. There's no good reason for you to have one.

Now, since you want to talk about Ike, Ike would be ashamed of the modern Republican Party. So would Reagan, for that matter.

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, I didn't leave the GOP, the GOP left me.

Move your god damn ass there bitch.