The attempt to refrain the gun control debate

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

Done

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

The CDC admitted it didnt work. They are hardly pro-gun. But the facts are obvious. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.
But libs are not swayed by reason.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

You are correct dave crime went up and stayed up until two years before the ban was allowed to die in the sunset.

 

[Valerie]

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.

No shit, criminals don't obey the law. Care to prove that negative..? "it didn't work"

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

 

[daveman]

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.

The CDC admitted it didnt work. They are hardly pro-gun. But the facts are obvious. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.
But libs are not swayed by reason.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.

 

[daveman]

No shit, criminals don't obey the law.

Then why are you insisting on more laws?

Care to prove that negative..? "it didn't work"

Saying something didn't work isn't proving a negative.

Meanwhile, back in reality:

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.​

I'll bet you don't know how often "assault weapons" are used in crime.

Myth: Assault weapons are favored by criminals
Fact: Only 6% of criminals use anything that is classified (even incorrectly) as an “assault weapon,”374 though less than 2.5% claimed to use these firearms when committing crimes.375
Fact: Criminals are over five times more likely to carry single shot handguns as they are to carry “assault weapons.”376
Fact: “Assault rifles have never been an issue in law enforcement. I have been on this job for 25 years and I haven’t seen a drug dealer carry one. They are not used in crimes, they are not used against police officers.”377
Fact: “Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that ‘assault weapons’ are/were used in an underwhelming 0.026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey. This means that my officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets.”378
Thoughts: “Assault weapons” are large and unwieldy. Even misclassified handguns tend to be bigger than practical for concealed carry. Criminals (who, incidentally, disregard concealed carry laws) are unlikely to carry “assault weapons.”
370​

Banning big scary black rifles may make liberals feel good, but it has almost zero effect on crime.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Let me see, you went from no country with strict gun control laws has mass shootings to Australia hasn't had a shooting incident since 1996. Too bad you are still wrong.

Monash University shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I said it before, I will say it again, name a country that has strict gun control laws and I will find a shooting.

 

[beretta304]

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.

Let me see, you went from no country with strict gun control laws has mass shootings to Australia hasn't had a shooting incident since 1996. Too bad you are still wrong.

Monash University shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I said it before, I will say it again, name a country that has strict gun control laws and I will find a shooting.

Which keeps taking us back to the issue in it's simplest and most cliche form...guns don't kill, people do.

It really is that simple when you listen to all the various arguments and angles.

The only way the gun kills is if someone picks it up and decides to kill with it.


It's just common sense which is why liberal, left-wing, agenda-driven Dems don't want to " get it".

 

[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.

Move your god damn ass there bitch.

Why should I do that when we can fix THIS country. You guys lost the election, you'll keep losign elections, and even Machin and Scarborough are talking about finally growing a pair of balls and standing up to the bullies at the NRA.

 

[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.

Let me see, you went from no country with strict gun control laws has mass shootings to Australia hasn't had a shooting incident since 1996. Too bad you are still wrong.

Monash University shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I said it before, I will say it again, name a country that has strict gun control laws and I will find a shooting.

Wow. Two people killed compared to 28. Because he was limited in what kinds of guns he could have. Thanks for making my point.

Will you eliminate all shootings? Probably not.

Will you serverely reduce the number of them and the severity by getting MILITARY GRADE weapons out of the hands of civilians? Probably.

 

[beretta304]

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.

Why should I do that when we can fix THIS country. You guys lost the election, you'll keep losign elections, and even Machin and Scarborough are talking about finally growing a pair of balls and standing up to the bullies at the NRA.

Scarborough is still in office and relevant?

 

[JoeB131]

Move your god damn ass there bitch.

Why should I do that when we can fix THIS country. You guys lost the election, you'll keep losign elections, and even Machin and Scarborough are talking about finally growing a pair of balls and standing up to the bullies at the NRA.

Scarborough is still in office and relevant?

All the NRA"s supporters are running for the high grass.

We are going to get real gun control, soon. Learn to deal.

 

[jtpr312]

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.

You got the nut part right in your screen name that's for sure.

 

[beretta304]

Why should I do that when we can fix THIS country. You guys lost the election, you'll keep losign elections, and even Machin and Scarborough are talking about finally growing a pair of balls and standing up to the bullies at the NRA.

Scarborough is still in office and relevant?

All the NRA"s supporters are running for the high grass.

We are going to get real gun control, soon. Learn to deal.

Whatever you say deranged one...whatever you say. You are just the ultimate authority on everything. Now you've added the power to foresee the future to your repertoire.

 

[beretta304]

MSNBC’s Ed Schultz Talks Gun ‘Confiscation’

Liberals always say they don’t want to take away guns. But give them an awful tragedy like the Newtown, Conn. shooting and they get bolder and more honest. MSNBC host Ed Schultz showed a rare bout of such honesty during a brief Twitter exchange Saturday. Schultz asked “Why should anyone own an assault rifle ?” and followed it up by saying “it's the confiscation of these types of weapons that counts and will have an impact.”


Schultz has a murky history with guns. In early December, he said the NFL should tell players not to have guns: “I don't think it's out of the realm that the NFL should be asking players or demanding or making su-, don't own firearms. Just, don't, all that is is trouble. All that is is trouble.”

However, he seemed unmoved when his producer James “Holmy” Holm talked about putting a gun to CEOs to force them to spend back in 2011. “The president is going to speak with business leaders that are sitting on $1.9 trillion dollars -- $1.9 trillion dollars. Maybe what we should do is put a gun to their head and just say, give us that $1.9 trillion dollars, you don't need to read anything, just hand it to us!” he told listeners to Schultz’s radio program.






MSNBC

 

[JoeB131]

Scarborough is still in office and relevant?

All the NRA"s supporters are running for the high grass.

We are going to get real gun control, soon. Learn to deal.

Whatever you say deranged one...whatever you say. You are just the ultimate authority on everything. Now you've added the power to foresee the future to your repertoire.

Well, I did predict Obama would win when you nutters were all claiming Romney would.. so there's that.

But the real sign that we are finally going to get some action. All the ladies in the office could talk about yesterday was how unacceptable this was. This isn't Faux outrage like Benghazi... this is real stuff real people are upset about.

 

[beretta304]

All the NRA"s supporters are running for the high grass.

We are going to get real gun control, soon. Learn to deal.

Whatever you say deranged one...whatever you say. You are just the ultimate authority on everything. Now you've added the power to foresee the future to your repertoire.

Well, I did predict Obama would win when you nutters were all claiming Romney would.. so there's that.

But the real sign that we are finally going to get some action. All the ladies in the office could talk about yesterday was how unacceptable this was. This isn't Faux outrage like Benghazi...[B] this is real stuff real people are upset about.[/B]

You particularly are hardly indicative of real people. I'd love to see you say, "This isn't Faux outrage like Benghazi." to the relatives of the deceased. I'd pay to be there. Maybe I can lend a hand and break your fall when one of them knocks you out.



"Well, I did predict Obama would win"
You really went out on a limb on that one, didn't you?

 

[JoeB131]

[

You particularly are hardly indicative of real people. I'd love to see you say, "This isn't Faux outrage like Benghazi." to the relatives of the deceased. I'd pay to be there. Maybe I can lend a hand and break your fall when one of them knocks you out.

From what I've heard, Ambassador Stevens' family is offended by the way the Republicans have tried to turn his death into a political football.

Other than Faux News watchers, nobody gives a shit about Benghazi. They know the Middle East is dangerous and that Obama didn't make it that way.

On the other hand, the ladies at work all have kids, and they don't want some crazy person with military grade weapons walking into their kid's school because the NRA panders to crazy fools like you.

 

[beretta304]

[

You particularly are hardly indicative of real people. I'd love to see you say, "This isn't Faux outrage like Benghazi." to the relatives of the deceased. I'd pay to be there. Maybe I can lend a hand and break your fall when one of them knocks you out.

From what I've heard, Ambassador Stevens' family is offended by the way the Republicans have tried to turn his death into a political football.

Other than Faux News watchers, nobody gives a shit about Benghazi. They know the Middle East is dangerous and that Obama didn't make it that way.

On the other hand, the ladies at work all have kids, and they don't want some crazy person with military grade weapons walking into their kid's school because the NRA panders to crazy fools like you.

"On the other hand, the ladies at work all have kids, and they don't want some crazy person with military grade weapons walking into their kid's school because the NRA panders to crazy fools like you."
What's my position on gun control and the banning of assault weapons?

 

[The Rabbi]

MSNBC’s Ed Schultz Talks Gun ‘Confiscation’

Liberals always say they don’t want to take away guns. But give them an awful tragedy like the Newtown, Conn. shooting and they get bolder and more honest. MSNBC host Ed Schultz showed a rare bout of such honesty during a brief Twitter exchange Saturday. Schultz asked “Why should anyone own an assault rifle ?” and followed it up by saying “it's the confiscation of these types of weapons that counts and will have an impact.”


Schultz has a murky history with guns. In early December, he said the NFL should tell players not to have guns: “I don't think it's out of the realm that the NFL should be asking players or demanding or making su-, don't own firearms. Just, don't, all that is is trouble. All that is is trouble.”

However, he seemed unmoved when his producer James “Holmy” Holm talked about putting a gun to CEOs to force them to spend back in 2011. “The president is going to speak with business leaders that are sitting on $1.9 trillion dollars -- $1.9 trillion dollars. Maybe what we should do is put a gun to their head and just say, give us that $1.9 trillion dollars, you don't need to read anything, just hand it to us!” he told listeners to Schultz’s radio program.






MSNBC

It's at least honest. Never mind it wouldn't pass the 4th Amendment test.