d-usa wrote: Maybe if Republicans stop inserting laws that prohibit the ATF from actually enforcing the laws that we do have, we might see a difference.
Maybe if the ATF actually focused on law enforcement instead of selling guns to the cartels and locking up innocent people they wouldn't need the help to make a difference.
They are not allowed to keep actual records on background checks, they are not allowed to keep records on guns used in crimes, they are not allowed to inspect a business more than once a year.
I am almost willing to turn my guns into scrap metal just so I don't have to associate with the stupitidy that is the NRA and the foaming-at-the-mouth gun idiots that are out there.
Who told you that? Cause they're wrong. The ATF keeps meticulous records on dealer sales of it's FFLs and they can inspect you whenever the hell they feel like it. Especially if you deal in Title II or III NFA weapons. It comes down to once a year because with the amount of gun stores in the US plus all the manufacturers, individual title three holders, etc.
Not sure how pestering legal businesses helps anything either.
Meanwhile Texas has taken the opportunity to increase it's population!
"Texas is better than New York, and New York just gave us another excuse to say that," Abbott, a Republican, said on Thursday, after ads extolling Texas appeared on several media websites.
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, signed sweeping gun-control legislation earlier this week expanding the state's ban on assault weapons and putting limits on ammunition capacity in the wake of last month's school shootings in Connecticut.
Abbott, a possible candidate for governor of Texas in next year's election, used campaign money to buy ads on websites of news organizations in New York City and Albany.
One ad says in classic Western script: "WANTED: Law abiding New York gun owners seeking lower taxes and greater opportunities."
d-usa wrote: They are not allowed to keep actual records on background checks, they are not allowed to keep records on guns used in crimes, they are not allowed to inspect a business more than once a year.
I am almost willing to turn my guns into scrap metal just so I don't have to associate with the stupitidy that is the NRA and the foaming-at-the-mouth gun idiots that are out there.
Who told you that? Cause they're wrong. The ATF keeps meticulous records on dealer sales of it's FFLs and they can inspect you whenever the hell they feel like it. Especially if you deal in Title II or III NFA weapons. It comes down to once a year because with the amount of gun stores in the US plus all the manufacturers, individual title three holders, etc.
Not sure how pestering legal businesses helps anything either.
d-usa is correct. Unless there is a specific violation, they can only inspect once per year.
sebster wrote: Exactly. Nonsense conclusions that are the result of debate leaders failing to focus on relevant issues.
And if you think that's not largely restricted to one side of the debate, then you're simply wrong.
We went over this. I demonstrated quite clearly those numbers and their methodology are crazy pants nonsense. Pretending there's any credibility to those numbers is choosing to be ignorant.
You didn't, actually. You demonstrated that you don't believe them, and attacked the methodology of using a survey rather than an FBI reported crimes statistic to document unreported uses of a handgun, but that doesn't make it so.
Both groups are as bad as each other, and both need to be removed from the debate before any sensible solutions can begin to develop.
No, they really aren't. One group's at least in touch with the facts and knowledgeable about current law.
It doesn't reference anything. It's just a made up number passed around certain circles because it has truthiness to them, and lets them pretend the 10,000 firearm murders each year aren't a genuine social issue.
I disagree, and when I've got more time, I'll troll the FBI's numbers, because I know their own claim is around 80%.
Which one of the facts in that article is incorrect?
On second thought, nevermind. Since you perceive it has a liberal bias, you're going to dismiss it out of hand. Fair enough. Stick with conservative media, whenhavetheyeverledyouwrong, right?
No, they really aren't. One group's at least in touch with the facts and knowledgeable about current law.
I assume you mean the side that has yet to be mentioned: lobbyists and public policy groups. They're very good at taking facts and current law, and subsequently drumming up support for their particular agenda; or the agenda of those that contract them.
Ouze wrote: You sure this has actually happened? I know it was considered about a month ago, but I haven't seen anything to indicate they actually passed a ban. If so, it would be very odd, since in these hypothetical home defense or police shooting scenarios they are the safer choice for bystanders and noncombatants.
Why would that matter? You're assuming that the people proposing such legislation know or care about that fact. And are you really suggesting that home defense and police shootings are hypotheticals?
Especially since that first sentence I think would be a rather surprisingly large umbrella. I'm fairly confident a total ban on AR-15s would be constitutional, for example. Not practical, not effective... but constitutional.
I think it'd be ruled constitutional, but I don't believe it would be, no. Not when you understand why the guys who wrote it put the Second in the Bill of Rights.
Grey Templar wrote: I'm going to predict we get a lot of silly answers to that question
"Yeah, I got fully functioning BAR my granddad left me from his days in WW2. Also got about a dozen pistols. And a bunch of unassembled AR-15 and AK-47 parts, not quite sure how many guns I could get if I put them all together though."
Well there is this big thing in the shed my granpappy called a "field howitzer" does that count?
pre-Obama, a piece of history.
Post-Obama, just a piece of "lawn furniture" your gramps left you...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Maybe if Republicans stop inserting laws that prohibit the ATF from actually enforcing the laws that we do have, we might see a difference.
Name one you steeeenking cat worshiper. And have faith the wienies will get you and your little kitty too!*
*Oh we will, it has been foretold that with the coming of the Great Wienie all the monuments to the evil cat god shall be struck down, and their foul minions laid waste. All Praise the Great Wienie!
Seaward wrote: Armor piercing ammo's going to end up translated as, "Anything that can get through Level III."
Welcome back to non-+P 9mm, slow .40 loads, and .45 as your only semiauto options.
If they choose that route, every rifle round will be banned.
I mean we have morons from the MILITARY speaking about how uber powerful the 223 round is.
"I spent a career carrying typically either a M16, and later a M4 carbine," he said. "And a M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters, at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It's designed to do that. That's what our soldiers ought to carry." Said McChrystal, "I personally don't think there's any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we've got to take a serious look -- I understand everybody's desire to have whatever they want -- but we have to protect our children and our police and we have to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that." - Stanley McChrystal
223 is considered to by under powered by several states and it is ILLEGAL to hunt deer with that caliber. His head would swim if he saw what at a 308 does, much less a 7mm Mag. The 223 is used because any idiot off the street (like the General) can fire it fairly accurately without hurting themselves or feeling a little recoil.
I mean we have morons from the MILITARY speaking about how uber powerful the 223 round is.
"I spent a career carrying typically either a M16, and later a M4 carbine," he said. "And a M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters, at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It's designed to do that. That's what our soldiers ought to carry." Said McChrystal, "I personally don't think there's any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we've got to take a serious look -- I understand everybody's desire to have whatever they want -- but we have to protect our children and our police and we have to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that." - Stanley McChrystal
223 is considered to by under powered by several states and it is ILLEGAL to hunt deer with that caliber. His head would swim if he saw what at a 308 does, much less a 7mm Mag. The 223 is used because any idiot off the street (like the General) can fire it fairly accurately without hurting themselves or feeling a little recoil.
I strongly suspect McChrystal has seen exactly what a .308 (which is 7.62 NATO) does, as well as what .50 does and several other rounds. A quick look at his career will show he spent a lot of time at the pointy end of the spear... You can disagree with his politics, but to call him an idiot probably means you don't know much about him.
Edit: for the record, I don't agree with his position/conclusions at all, but he is not an idiot...
KalashnikovMarine wrote: You'd think a general wouldn't be quite as far up his own arse about the boolits his soldiers are using.
Which is surprising when you read his bio:
Graduated West Point 1976
Para Infantry 1976 to 1978
Promoted to Captain
Special Forces Officer 1978 to 1980
Advanced Infantry 1980 to 1981
UN Command 1981 to 1982
Mechanized Infantry 1982 to 1984
Rangers 1984 to 1989
Promoted to Major
Naval War College 1989 to 1990
SOC 1990 to 1993
Para Infantry 1993 to 1994
Rangers 1994 to 1999
General from 2001 on
I guess one could argue that his quick move up in rank and the fact that he spent a lot of his time in training and moving around would mean he rarely fired a rifle. However, I would think that Special Forces would have prevented that. I wouldn't be surprised if he was both never shot at nor ever shot at anyone.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: I strongly suspect McChrystal has seen exactly what a .308 (which is 7.62 NATO) does, as well as what .50 does and several other rounds. A quick look at his career will show he spent a lot of time at the pointy end of the spear... You can disagree with his politics, but to call him an idiot probably means you don't know much about him.
I can still call him an idiot because he is only familiar with military rounds and not the plethora of civilian rounds, the majority of which make military rounds look anemic; yet is making a comment which which makes the 223 sound like an elephant killing round.
The pointy end of the spear is also very generic term of which I think only combat deployed infantry can claim. You have a corporal, sergeant or Lt. who served during an actual conflict and knows something about hunting rounds, I'll pay more attention to him than a person who spent most of his "pointy end of the spear" time operating during peace time and his war time behind a desk or at least not on the front lines. During Desert Storm, he was in the Joint Operations Command as a Major. The JSOC is the "joint headquarters designed to study special operations requirements and techniques; ensure interoperability and equipment standardization; plan and conduct joint special operations exercises and training; and develop joint special operations tactics." For this task, the Joint Communications Unit (JCU) is tasked to ensure compatibility of communications systems and standard operating procedures of the different special operations units. No "pointy end of the spear" there. By 2001 he had become a Brigadier General, so not of the front lines, more like the hand that controls the spear.
d-usa wrote: They are not allowed to keep actual records on background checks, they are not allowed to keep records on guns used in crimes, they are not allowed to inspect a business more than once a year.
I am almost willing to turn my guns into scrap metal just so I don't have to associate with the stupitidy that is the NRA and the foaming-at-the-mouth gun idiots that are out there.
Who told you that? Cause they're wrong. The ATF keeps meticulous records on dealer sales of it's FFLs and they can inspect you whenever the hell they feel like it. Especially if you deal in Title II or III NFA weapons. It comes down to once a year because with the amount of gun stores in the US plus all the manufacturers, individual title three holders, etc.
Not sure how pestering legal businesses helps anything either.
d-usa is correct. Unless there is a specific violation, they can only inspect once per year.
Which one of the facts in that article is incorrect?
On second thought, nevermind. Since you perceive it has a liberal bias, you're going to dismiss it out of hand. Fair enough. Stick with conservative media, whenhavetheyeverledyouwrong, right?
I wasn't commenting on their bias... just the fact that they insinuated that the AFT is so powerless.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: You'd think a general wouldn't be quite as far up his own arse about the boolits his soldiers are using.
Which is surprising when you read his bio:
Graduated West Point 1976
Para Infantry 1976 to 1978
Promoted to Captain
Special Forces Officer 1978 to 1980
Advanced Infantry 1980 to 1981
UN Command 1981 to 1982
Mechanized Infantry 1982 to 1984
Rangers 1984 to 1989
Promoted to Major
Naval War College 1989 to 1990
SOC 1990 to 1993
Para Infantry 1993 to 1994
Rangers 1994 to 1999
General from 2001 on
I guess one could argue that his quick move up in rank and the fact that he spent a lot of his time in training and moving around would mean he rarely fired a rifle. However, I would think that Special Forces would have prevented that. I wouldn't be surprised if he was both never shot at nor ever shot at anyone.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: I strongly suspect McChrystal has seen exactly what a .308 (which is 7.62 NATO) does, as well as what .50 does and several other rounds. A quick look at his career will show he spent a lot of time at the pointy end of the spear... You can disagree with his politics, but to call him an idiot probably means you don't know much about him.
I can still call him an idiot because he is only familiar with military rounds and not the plethora of civilian rounds, the majority of which make military rounds look anemic; yet is making a comment which which makes the 223 sound like an elephant killing round.
The pointy end of the spear is also very generic term of which I think only combat deployed infantry can claim. You have a corporal, sergeant or Lt. who served during an actual conflict and knows something about hunting rounds, I'll pay more attention to him than a person who spent most of his "pointy end of the spear" time operating during peace time and his war time behind a desk or at least not on the front lines. During Desert Storm, he was in the Joint Operations Command as a Major. The JSOC is the "joint headquarters designed to study special operations requirements and techniques; ensure interoperability and equipment standardization; plan and conduct joint special operations exercises and training; and develop joint special operations tactics." For this task, the Joint Communications Unit (JCU) is tasked to ensure compatibility of communications systems and standard operating procedures of the different special operations units. No "pointy end of the spear" there. By 2001 he had become a Brigadier General, so not of the front lines, more like the hand that controls the spear.
Well, seeing as you pegged exactly what JSOC does, I'll bow out of the argument.
yet is making a comment which which makes the 223 sound like an elephant killing round.
Or he could know quite well, and simply be playing the ignorance of the crowd to suit his politics. Wouldn't be the first time some cop or soldier has done this.
Though I doubt they will make a concerted attempt at banning anything capable of penetrating a 3A vest.....quite simply it would piss off Elmer Fudd`s Legions, and that's something they've been very careful to avoid...at least until they manage to get public opinion to jump from "No one has a legitimate need for an assault weapon!" to "No one even needs a sniper rifle!"
I'm fairly confident a total ban on AR-15s would be constitutional, for example. Not practical, not effective... but constitutional.
Given the "In common use" language in DC vs. Heller, and the absolute explosion in sales and ownership of AR patterned rifles and 10+ round magazines since 2004, I don't think Id be too quick on that one.
I strongly suspect McChrystal has seen exactly what a .308 (which is 7.62 NATO) does, as well as what .50 does and several other rounds. A quick look at his career will show he spent a lot of time at the pointy end of the spear... You can disagree with his politics, but to call him an idiot probably means you don't know much about him.
Edit: for the record, I don't agree with his position/conclusions at all, but he is not an idiot...
I don't doubt his bona fides as a leader of men in the slightest, but a general wouldn't be my first stop for firsthand accounts of terminal ballistics, even one who did a couple years as an ODA leader.
I'd be interested to hear his former 18Bs' opinions, though.
Barfolomew wrote: The 223 is used because any idiot off the street (like the General) can fire it fairly accurately without hurting themselves or feeling a little recoil.
Are we really calling Stanley McChystal "any idiot off the street"? That's an interesting position.
At any rate, 5.56 NATO is used for a number of reasons, not just ease of training. The same low recoil that enables people to quickly take to the round also enables good accuracy in controlled bursts, which is extremely important in squad combat scenarios. There's also an element of institutional standardization and, of course, net cost; which is important when you use 1.8 billion rounds of small arms ammunition in a year of military action.
At any rate, what makes 5.56 NATO a useful military cartridge has little to do with civilian applications; different situations call for different capabilities. What the General is doing here is falling into the trap of assuming that military weapons are automatically superior to civilian weapons, even when placed in civilian circumstances; which is simply not the case.
223 is considered to by under powered by several states and it is ILLEGAL to hunt deer with that caliber.
Many states also don't allow deer hunting with 9mm. As I said above, different application entail different ideal specifications, so bringing out what states will permit in the course of deer hunting really isn't appropriate.
Meanwhile my local Sheriff adds his voice to the fight!
Spoiler:
Gun Control: A Superficial Approach to a Complex Problem
By
Sheriff Terry Maketa, El Paso County Sheriff, Colorado Springs, CO
Most citizens throughout El Paso County are well aware of my second amendment stance. I have recently received several emails asking my position on this subject as well as my position on gun control and weapons bans. In response, I felt obligated to take a few minutes and reaffirm my position on firearms ownership and offer a few of my concerns with the wrongful approach I see championed and pushed upon us by elected leaders at the State and Federal level. First and foremost, I absolutely believe in and stand firmly against, any effort that infringes on the rights of law abiding citizens to own and posses firearms of their choice. Furthermore, I will actively oppose any effort that infringes upon your second amendment rights.
Like every elected official in the state, I took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Colorado. This means all rights. Prior to being elected as Sheriff, I took the same oath as a Deputy Sheriff and prior to my law enforcement career, I was a firearms enthusiast and sportsman. I am among the millions of Americans who chooses to exercise their right to bear arms and I avoid judgment of those who choose not to. Today and everyday into the future, I will continue to not only exercise this right but insure that our law abiding citizens’ right to bear arms is protected. I personally believe this right among others is non-negotiable. Some have suggested this is a political issue or a right and left issue. I strongly oppose that suggestion. This is a constitutional rights issue and we should all stand by this document which is the foundation of this nation.
It is very disturbing to witness so many that have taken the same oath I have, to now flip flop and use tragedies such as the Sandy Hook school shooting to further their personal agenda and very flawed thought process. Bans such as those that have been discussed and proposed in this state and other states will not make our schools any safer. Emotionally labeling “scary looking” weapons as assault weapons and banning them will not make our schools and communities any safer. Sadly enough, those who propose these restrictions never would or could guarantee that by imposing such restrictions will ensure the safety of our communities. It does however, target law abiding citizens and chips away at our constitutional rights. The flawed thinking that the criminal or an individual intending harm will obey these laws is unrealistic and statistics have proven this year after year. The notion that restricting ammunition or requiring any form of registration is factually illogical and emotionally driven to achieve one agenda and that agenda is control. This is precisely why our forefathers had elected to give every law abiding citizen these absolute rights and why they restricted the power and authority of the government.
We as a civilized society should focus our collective efforts on the real factors contributing to the violence against children. The silent issue that society and our elected delegation refuse to address at the national and local level is how mental illness is affecting our society and the lack of resources available to address these illnesses. We should be sharing information concerning those diagnosed individuals who demonstrate violent or homicidal ideations. We should insure our mental health systems are available to all those afflicted with disorders or illnesses.
We also need to be focusing on our children and the influences they are exposed to and who and what is shaping their conceptual and analytical skills. They should be exposed to positive role models that increase their respect and appreciation for human life. They should not be consumed with influences or activities that devalue a human life. A seven or eight year old child should never be consumed with graphic and destructive video games that measure the player’s success by how many people or things they can kill. This is an element that did not exist 30 years ago. Thirty years ago children played outside in the fresh air; today they sit with a remote, a mouse or toggle in their hand. They have become desensitized from constant stimulus and don’t comprehend the value of human life or the finality of the loss of it.
Instead of the Federal Government, mainly Congress, continuing to engage in activities of which they have no authority and erodes our constitutional rights, we should focus on criminals and those who are most likely to commit acts of violence and not target the law abiding patriots of our nation.
"Texas is better than New York, and New York just gave us another excuse to say that," Abbott, a Republican, said on Thursday, after ads extolling Texas appeared on several media websites.
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, signed sweeping gun-control legislation earlier this week expanding the state's ban on assault weapons and putting limits on ammunition capacity in the wake of last month's school shootings in Connecticut.
Abbott, a possible candidate for governor of Texas in next year's election, used campaign money to buy ads on websites of news organizations in New York City and Albany.
One ad says in classic Western script: "WANTED: Law abiding New York gun owners seeking lower taxes and greater opportunities."
Classy Texas. But what else would I expect from the only place in the US that is actually MORE obnoxious about where they're from than NYC people.
"Texas is better than New York, and New York just gave us another excuse to say that," Abbott, a Republican, said on Thursday, after ads extolling Texas appeared on several media websites.
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, signed sweeping gun-control legislation earlier this week expanding the state's ban on assault weapons and putting limits on ammunition capacity in the wake of last month's school shootings in Connecticut.
Abbott, a possible candidate for governor of Texas in next year's election, used campaign money to buy ads on websites of news organizations in New York City and Albany.
One ad says in classic Western script: "WANTED: Law abiding New York gun owners seeking lower taxes and greater opportunities."
Classy Texas. But what else would I expect from the only place in the US that is actually MORE obnoxious about where they're from than NYC people.
I'm thinking it might actually sell guns in New York, confused people seeking the lower taxes bit purchasing firearms then calling any texas state government number they can find "Okay I have my gun, how do I file for immigration to this land of not being brutally mugged by the state regularly?"
Yep, zero pot use in TX due to fear of the high penalties.
Seriously? All I was commenting on was the high penalties. Much like there's zero murders there because of the death penalty right?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Texas went out of its way to criticize my state saying how its a bastion of freedom due to lax gun laws and I point out the hypocrisy of not being able to grow a plant and I'm wrong somehow? Please explain that one.
Yep, zero pot use in TX due to fear of the high penalties.
Seriously? All I was commenting on was the high penalties. Much like there's zero murders there because of the death penalty right?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Texas went out of its way to criticize my state saying how its a bastion of freedom due to lax gun laws and I point out the hypocrisy of not being able to grow a plant and I'm wrong somehow? Please explain that one.
You can't grow a plant in New York either, so we could say that Texas is freerer then NY, making their statement mostly true.
Except anything under an oz is decriminalized, not a felony like in Texas. So no, you're wrong. But thats another topic of how the government loves to gak on our freedoms.
Also medical is soon to be up for debate in NY so.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Or I could add untill 2000 sodomy was illegal in TX. How is that freedom again?
You can't grow a plant in New York either, so we could say that Texas is freerer then NY, making their statement mostly true.
It is a matter of fact that taxes are lower in Texas than they are in New York, at least if we refer only to state taxes. However, what constitutes "greater opportunities" is subjective.
The statement was "mostly true" only in the sense that part of it was factual, and the other part was just short of an advertising slogan.
I would call saying one state is better than the other is arrogance more than an advertising slogan.
All politicians say their state is the bestest but to go out of your way to criticize another while having so many glaring errors in your own is just pompous.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: I would call saying one state is better than the other is arrogance more than an advertising slogan.
All politicians say their state is the bestest but to go out of your way to criticize another while having so many glaring errors in your own is just pompous.
Advertising slogans are built on pomp, circumstance, and arrogance.
I highly doubt people from NY have such thin skins its more that many of us did not support this legislation and had zero say in it before it was passed. It has little to do with being rankled at another politician, at least in my case.
Or maybe you're right, and its just salt in a stupid wound that I don't like.
I just find it interesting that when it comes to territorial pride NYC and TX folk are much closer than the Pace salsa commercials would have you believe. Both think the entire world revolves around their small segment of the universe.
Barfolomew wrote: The 223 is used because any idiot off the street (like the General) can fire it fairly accurately without hurting themselves or feeling a little recoil.
Are we really calling Stanley McChystal "any idiot off the street"? That's an interesting position.
At any rate, 5.56 NATO is used for a number of reasons, not just ease of training. The same low recoil that enables people to quickly take to the round also enables good accuracy in controlled bursts, which is extremely important in squad combat scenarios. There's also an element of institutional standardization and, of course, net cost; which is important when you use 1.8 billion rounds of small arms ammunition in a year of military action.
At any rate, what makes 5.56 NATO a useful military cartridge has little to do with civilian applications; different situations call for different capabilities. What the General is doing here is falling into the trap of assuming that military weapons are automatically superior to civilian weapons, even when placed in civilian circumstances; which is simply not the case.
223 is considered to by under powered by several states and it is ILLEGAL to hunt deer with that caliber.
Many states also don't allow deer hunting with 9mm. As I said above, different application entail different ideal specifications, so bringing out what states will permit in the course of deer hunting really isn't appropriate.
5.56 was chosen primarily because it's light. Ammo is heavy. Its terminal ballistic performance is "good enough," essentially, but it's by no means the monster cartridge that the general was making it out to be. It'd be like saying 9mm's a round that needs to go away because it's what the military primarily carries, despite the fact that 9mm ball is not at all what anyone would consider an impressive round.
I think this was a political statement more than anything, though it's certainly possible that, when it comes to terminal ballistics, the general very well could be an idiot off the street. He hasn't been in anything that could remotely be considered a pipehitting billet for decades.
5.56mm is the standard NATO round and is used by pretty much all western aligned countries and others such as Peru and Indonesia.
It would be shockingly expensive to replace stocks of rifles and ammunition throughout.
7.62mm is still used in medium machine guns for longer range shooting, and troops also have access to vehicle mounted weapons and artillery, helicopters, etc.
Kilkrazy wrote: 5.56mm is the standard NATO round and is used by pretty much all western aligned countries and others such as Peru and Indonesia.
It would be shockingly expensive to replace stocks of rifles and ammunition throughout.
7.62mm is still used in medium machine guns for longer range shooting, and troops also have access to vehicle mounted weapons and artillery, helicopters, etc.
Seaward wrote: And if you think that's not largely restricted to one side of the debate, then you're simply wrong.
And now, once again, we get to the point where it becomes very obvious that you just aren't reading what I am saying.
Both sides are failing to focus on the most important parts of the issue. Both sides. Yes, both are to blame. I've said it probably a dozen times in this thread. And yet here you are, responding to me completely oblivious to that.
Pathetic.
You didn't, actually. You demonstrated that you don't believe them, and attacked the methodology of using a survey rather than an FBI reported crimes statistic to document unreported uses of a handgun, but that doesn't make it so.
It was demonstrated very fething clearly through the government link I provided. That explained quite clearly that any random phone poll asking about an event with a very small incident rate will be swamped with false positives. And which then pointed out the cited figures simply made no sense at all (reporting that the number of rapes stopped by firearms was actually greater than the total number of rapes and attempted rapes that occurred that year).
You ignored this, because it didn't fit into your little set of beliefs. And the only facts that Seaward will dare let into his brain are the ones that agree with whatever political positions he already holds.
I disagree, and when I've got more time, I'll troll the FBI's numbers, because I know their own claim is around 80%.
Read the link I already posted. fething learn something.
sebster wrote: And now, once again, we get to the point where it becomes very obvious that you just aren't reading what I am saying.
Both sides are failing to focus on the most important parts of the issue. Both sides. Yes, both are to blame. I've said it probably a dozen times in this thread. And yet here you are, responding to me completely oblivious to that.
Pathetic.
You have yet to learn, apparently, that repetition doesn't make you correct. But hey, keep trying.
It was demonstrated very fething clearly through the government link I provided. That explained quite clearly that any random phone poll asking about an event with a very small incident rate will be swamped with false positives. And which then pointed out the cited figures simply made no sense at all (reporting that the number of rapes stopped by firearms was actually greater than the total number of rapes and attempted rapes that occurred that year)
Look, if you're unable to figure this out on your own, I'm not sure why I'm bothering. You don't understand how numbers work? That's fine. But quit pretending like you do, and then getting all nerd-ragey when someone points it out.
How could a number of crimes stopped by a firearm be higher than the number of attempts reported? Because most DGUs aren't reported to the cops, as we've told you about a thousand times now. There's no incentive to do so, on either side of the crime.
Seaward wrote: You have yet to learn, apparently, that repetition doesn't make you correct. But hey, keep trying.
That reply doesn't even make any sense. I explained a bunch of times that both sides need to improve a lot. You responded by saying that applies to both sides.
And then to my comment that you didn't even read my post... you respond by talking about repetition... making it clear you're still not reading this. Unbelievable. Why do you even bother? You don't think about what you type, you don't read other posts... you just turn up, spam your bs and if someone responds you spam more bs without actually reading the reply.
What in the hell do you get out of posting here?
Look, if you're unable to figure this out on your own, I'm not sure why I'm bothering. You don't understand how numbers work? That's fine. But quit pretending like you do, and then getting all nerd-ragey when someone points it out.
How could a number of crimes stopped by a firearm be higher than the number of attempts reported? Because most DGUs aren't reported to the cops, as we've told you about a thousand times now. There's no incentive to do so, on either side of the crime.
Uh, instances of rape include estimates of unreported rapes. Even if it didn't, the number is so stupidly high as to be immediately dismissed as ludicrous. But we've been through all this the last time I pointed out how stupid that statistic was.
In the bitter cold Saturday afternoon, the crowd at the Utah Capitol was mostly packing heat and defiantly daring the federal government to try to take away any gun rights.
They also discovered they had picked up two allies — a newly elected Utah state lawmaker and the Utah Sheriffs’ Association.
Republican Brian Greene drew some of the biggest cheers from the 1,500-strong crowd, saying he would unveil legislation next week giving local sheriffs the power to arrest any federal agent attempting to seize firearms from Utah residents.
The Utah Sheriffs’ Association also pushed back on President Barack Obama’s proposal last week seeking to restrict the size of magazines, reinstitute the assault weapons ban and provide tougher background checks on gun buyers.
"No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights — in particular our Amendment II — has given them," the association’s letter dated Jan. 17 read. "We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation."
Especially with 50+ Sheriffs on the books (not counting the State Sheriff's Associations for New Mexico and Utah) standing up and formally flipping the bird towards DC.
You can't grow a plant in New York either, so we could say that Texas is freerer then NY, making their statement mostly true.
It is a matter of fact that taxes are lower in Texas than they are in New York, at least if we refer only to state taxes. However, what constitutes "greater opportunities" is subjective.
The statement was "mostly true" only in the sense that part of it was factual, and the other part was just short of an advertising slogan.
I'll put our economy against theirs any time any day.
Bring it NY. WE have our own air force, battleship, and Tex Mex. You have...pizza.
JOHNSON COUNTY, Mo (KMOX) – As President Barack Obama continues to push gun control proposals in Washington D.C., Sheriff Charles M. Heiss, R-Johnson County is asking fellow law enforcers to sign and send this letter to the president.
The letter expresses concern with the Obama administration and the president’s gun control laws he laid out before Congress last week.
“It appears to me and many Americans that there is a genuine desire on the part of your administration to restrict the Second Amendment rights of law abiding American citizens in the interest of curbing gun violence in our nation,” Heiss wrote. “Any attempt to restrict these Second Amendment rights through executive order is unconstitutional and tantamount to an all-out assault on the United States Constitution.”
In the letter Heiss tells the president that he has a duty to protect his constituents from incidents of crime, and has the responsibility to protect and preserve their rights and liberties.
Newly elected Sheriff Michael Dixon, R-Osage County is one of about a dozen sheriffs in Missouri to have signed and sent Heiss’ letter.
“On the same day the President is taking his oath to uphold the Constitution, he continues to attack our 2nd Amendment rights,” Dixon said. “As Osage County Sheriff, I also took an Oath to the Constitution; but unlike Obama, I intend to uphold mine.”
Dixon also announced his support of Missouri house bill (HB 170). The bill, introduced last week, would make criminals of any law enforcement official, local, state or federal, who tried to enforce any of President Obama’s gun control initiatives, whether executive orders or passed by Congress.
“President Obama should quit his attempts to take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens and instead focus on stopping the criminals that will get them no matter what. It is imperative we strengthen the penalty for criminals who use weapons in the commission of a crime or to cause bodily harm.”
Dixon said his office will not enforce any gun control proposals that Obama passes if they violate the Constitution and points to gun control efforts and crime statistics as proof gun bans do not work.
“The President comes from Chicago, the city with the strictest gun laws and worst gun violence in the country. It has been proven time and time again that taking guns from law abiding citizens only emboldens thugs, thieves, and rapists, not stop them from committing crimes,” Dixon said.
whembly wrote: Newly elected Sheriff Michael Dixon, R-Osage County
What are the odds that all the politicians, sorry, Sheriffs, that signed the letter have 'R- location' at the end of the name? It is almost as if it might be a partisan political maneuver. Almost.
whembly wrote: Newly elected Sheriff Michael Dixon, R-Osage County
What are the odds that all the politicians, sorry, Sheriffs, that signed the letter have 'R- location' at the end of the name? It is almost as if it might be a partisan political maneuver. Almost.
And why would that in any way effect its legitimacy?
Grey Templar wrote: A person who supports gun freedom is more likely to be a Republican(or a Libertarian) than a Democrat. Just sayin
'Gun freedom' is a nonsensical, loaded phrase. Republican's are more likely to pander to people who think that unfettered access to all weapons. Libertarians are more likely to actually want unfettered access to all weapons. Democrats are more likely to want to see some gun regulation. Only the fringe, which has no real political power, wants an outright ban on weapons.
Grey Templar wrote: A person who supports gun freedom is more likely to be a Republican(or a Libertarian) than a Democrat. Just sayin
'Gun freedom' is a nonsensical, loaded phrase. Republican's are more likely to pander to people who think that unfettered access to all weapons. Libertarians are more likely to actually want unfettered access to all weapons. Democrats are more likely to want to see some gun regulation. Only the fringe, which has no real political power, wants an outright ban on weapons.
We already have some gun regulation. Some states have a lot more than some.
Obama and many other Democrats favor an assault weapons ban based on what mostly boils down to aesthetic features, but I wouldn't say that those Democrats are part of a fringe with no real political power.
Grey Templar wrote: A person who supports gun freedom is more likely to be a Republican(or a Libertarian) than a Democrat. Just sayin
I support the ability of American citizens to access firearms by way of legal purchase, but I also support regulations on what constitutes a legal purchase. Do I support "gun freedom"?
I'm just not surprised that the idiots that cry about unconstitutional laws are either ignorant of the constitution or are willfully ignoring it to pander to other igorant idiots by pretending that any of this has any legal backbone. States cannot stop federal agents from doing their jobs. Pretty damn simple really and pretty well established.
But hey, it's okay to wipe their behinds with the very constitution that they pretend to worship when it suits their goals as long as it gets them elected. I would not be surprised if this is the same crap that was spewed when women got the right to vote, slavery was outlawed, and segregation became outlawed as well.
Grey Templar wrote: A person who supports gun freedom is more likely to be a Republican(or a Libertarian) than a Democrat. Just sayin
I support the ability of American citizens to access firearms by way of legal purchase, but I also support regulations on what constitutes a legal purchase. Do I support "gun freedom"?
Hordini wrote: but I wouldn't say that those Democrats are part of a fringe with no real political power.
Neither would I, which is why I didn't refer to the Democrats as being on the fringe. People who want a complete ban on guns are the ones that are out in the field. Dems aren't calling for a total ban either.
I agree that 'assault weapon ban' is to vague to be much use, and titled as such to be more of an appeal to emotion then to reason.
d-usa wrote: I'm just not surprised that the idiots that cry about unconstitutional laws are either ignorant of the constitution or are willfully ignoring it to pander to other igorant idiots by pretending that any of this has any legal backbone. States cannot stop federal agents from doing their jobs. Pretty damn simple really and pretty well established.
But hey, it's okay to wipe their behinds with the very constitution that they pretend to worship when it suits their goals as long as it gets them elected. I would not be surprised if this is the same crap that was spewed when women got the right to vote, slavery was outlawed, and segregation became outlawed as well.
Fething idiots.
er... this happens all the time man... keep up!
Have you not seen what CO and WA has done recently?
d-usa wrote: I'm just not surprised that the idiots that cry about unconstitutional laws are either ignorant of the constitution or are willfully ignoring it to pander to other igorant idiots by pretending that any of this has any legal backbone. States cannot stop federal agents from doing their jobs. Pretty damn simple really and pretty well established.
But hey, it's okay to wipe their behinds with the very constitution that they pretend to worship when it suits their goals as long as it gets them elected. I would not be surprised if this is the same crap that was spewed when women got the right to vote, slavery was outlawed, and segregation became outlawed as well.
Fething idiots.
er... this happens all the time man... keep up!
Have you not seen what CO and WA has done recently?
Yes I have, and unless you are willfully ignorant of what actually happened then you do as well. it's a shame when pot-heads are smarter than self-proclaimed constitutional experts.
d-usa wrote: I'm just not surprised that the idiots that cry about unconstitutional laws are either ignorant of the constitution or are willfully ignoring it to pander to other igorant idiots by pretending that any of this has any legal backbone. States cannot stop federal agents from doing their jobs. Pretty damn simple really and pretty well established.
But hey, it's okay to wipe their behinds with the very constitution that they pretend to worship when it suits their goals as long as it gets them elected. I would not be surprised if this is the same crap that was spewed when women got the right to vote, slavery was outlawed, and segregation became outlawed as well.
Fething idiots.
er... this happens all the time man... keep up!
Have you not seen what CO and WA has done recently?
Yes I have, and unless you are willfully ignorant of what actually happened then you do as well. it's a shame when pot-heads are smarter than self-proclaimed constitutional experts.
Are you implying that I'm a "self-proclaimed constitutional expert"? I did stay at the Holiday Inn Express recently... but I wouldn't go that far.
My point being is that conflicts between States vs Federal happens all the time... and this is just another one of those. Again, referring to what CO/WA passed, the local authoritiy won't enforce the federal laws... same thing with this.
d-usa wrote: I'm just not surprised that the idiots that cry about unconstitutional laws are either ignorant of the constitution or are willfully ignoring it to pander to other igorant idiots by pretending that any of this has any legal backbone. States cannot stop federal agents from doing their jobs. Pretty damn simple really and pretty well established.
But hey, it's okay to wipe their behinds with the very constitution that they pretend to worship when it suits their goals as long as it gets them elected. I would not be surprised if this is the same crap that was spewed when women got the right to vote, slavery was outlawed, and segregation became outlawed as well.
Fething idiots.
er... this happens all the time man... keep up!
Have you not seen what CO and WA has done recently?
Yes I have, and unless you are willfully ignorant of what actually happened then you do as well. it's a shame when pot-heads are smarter than self-proclaimed constitutional experts.
Are you implying that I'm a "self-proclaimed constitutional expert"? I did stay at the Holiday Inn Express recently... but I wouldn't go that far.
My point being is that conflicts between States vs Federal happens all the time... and this is just another one of those. Again, referring to what CO/WA passed, the local authoritiy won't enforce the federal laws... same thing with this.
Are you saying you are not educated enough on the issues to recognize the difference between the CO/WA laws and the laws being considered now?
d-usa wrote: I'm just not surprised that the idiots that cry about unconstitutional laws are either ignorant of the constitution or are willfully ignoring it to pander to other igorant idiots by pretending that any of this has any legal backbone. States cannot stop federal agents from doing their jobs. Pretty damn simple really and pretty well established.
But hey, it's okay to wipe their behinds with the very constitution that they pretend to worship when it suits their goals as long as it gets them elected. I would not be surprised if this is the same crap that was spewed when women got the right to vote, slavery was outlawed, and segregation became outlawed as well.
Fething idiots.
er... this happens all the time man... keep up!
Have you not seen what CO and WA has done recently?
Yes I have, and unless you are willfully ignorant of what actually happened then you do as well. it's a shame when pot-heads are smarter than self-proclaimed constitutional experts.
Are you implying that I'm a "self-proclaimed constitutional expert"? I did stay at the Holiday Inn Express recently... but I wouldn't go that far.
My point being is that conflicts between States vs Federal happens all the time... and this is just another one of those. Again, referring to what CO/WA passed, the local authoritiy won't enforce the federal laws... same thing with this.
Are you saying you are not educated enough on the issues to recognize the difference between the CO/WA laws and the laws being considered now?
Of course they're not the same thing... but, you're missing my point.
States do challenge the Feds on laws... like in this case. That's all I was pointing out.
d-usa wrote: There is a minor difference between a state not enforcing federal laws, and a state threatening to arrest federal agents for enforcing federal laws.
But I am sure you already know that.
Oh yeah... the OP... right (I thought we was on different track, my bad).
I'd like to see them try it.
Then, the Feds ought to cut ALL federal stuff in that state. That'll shape 'em up.
Grey Templar wrote: I really didn't know about how much money Wyoming gets or anything. I was just asking, no need for the flamebait.
I'm not flamebaiting you. Just commenting that you post a lot of things that are factually incorrect. Haven't you noticed how many posts I've spent correcting you on stuff?
No, you seem mostly to go around being a jerk. And I see nothing where I was factually incorrect. in my previous post you were talking about. I was asking a question.
Grey Templar wrote: Ok, I was wrong on that. I did phrase it in a form that made it clear I was unsure. Now are we done nitpicking people's statements?
Grey Templar wrote: No, you seem mostly to go around being a jerk. And I see nothing where I was factually incorrect. in my previous post you were talking about. I was asking a question.
No-one reading your previous statement would think you were asking a question. And you know you weren't asking a question.
And I'm sorry you find me to be a jerk. I don't think the same of you. I think you come to discussions with a fairly honest attitude. It's just that you have a lot of misconceptions in your head (I don't know why, perhaps its the sources you follow?)
Sorry if me pointing that out offended you, but seriously, there's no point pretending it isn't a thing. I mean, while this conversation has gone on you made another factually incorrect claim in the other gun thread (stating that all tyrants immediately banned weapons).
Hordini wrote: but I wouldn't say that those Democrats are part of a fringe with no real political power.
Neither would I, which is why I didn't refer to the Democrats as being on the fringe. People who want a complete ban on guns are the ones that are out in the field. Dems aren't calling for a total ban either.
I agree that 'assault weapon ban' is to vague to be much use, and titled as such to be more of an appeal to emotion then to reason.
Spoiler:
There are plenty of democrats that would love a ban, Dianne Feinstein being one.
There are plenty of democrats that would love a ban, Dianne Feinstein being one.
There are elements of the fringe in any party, but they don't control the agenda. She has been there for how long and how many bills proposing a total gun ban has she gotten passed?
There are plenty of democrats that would love a ban, Dianne Feinstein being one.
There are elements of the fringe in any party, but they don't control the agenda. She has been there for how long and how many bills proposing a total gun ban has she gotten passed?
Diane Feinstein is not "fringe." She's one of the ranking members of the Senate. Her first gun ban was enacted in 1994.
Since you seemed to assume that CA relies on federal money, when it is in fact a donor state.
Its a statistical misnomer. California has 43% of all welfare monies or something. In the game of statistics, you can make it whatever you want it to be. Thats why numbers are great!
California could have 98% of all welfare cases, that doesn't change the fact that the money that California sends to the federal government covers all it's federal spending and still has money left over to support the red states.
Frazzled wrote: Diane Feinstein is not "fringe." She's one of the ranking members of the Senate. Her first gun ban was enacted in 1994.
That was a limited ban on certain weapons, of which even they couldn't well define, and that was not renewed. That is not the same thing as a total ban on all guns, which is what was said. Banning all firearms is a fringe movement. One can be a ranking member and still have untenable ideas that will never get full party support, Republicans have a lot guys like that as well. Most Democrats do not call for a total ban on all firearms, if they did, the Assault Weapons Ban would have been renewed before this point.
d-usa wrote: California could have 98% of all welfare cases, that doesn't change the fact that the money that California sends to the federal government covers all it's federal spending and still has money left over to support the red states.
The point is the statistic can be made up. Depending on the numbers you use California is a net importer or exporter of federal money, and what year.
Frankly I don't care. I just don't want any more Californians coming to Austin trying to make it San Francisco II.
Frazzled wrote: Diane Feinstein is not "fringe." She's one of the ranking members of the Senate. Her first gun ban was enacted in 1994.
That was a limited ban on certain weapons, of which even they couldn't well define, and that was not renewed. That is not the same thing as a total ban on all guns, which is what was said. Banning all firearms is a fringe movement. One can be a ranking member and still have untenable ideas that will never get full party support, Republicans have a lot guys like that as well. Most Democrats do not call for a total ban on all firearms, if they did, the Assault Weapons Ban would have been renewed before this point.
Its also the same exact law she is reintroducing tomorrow.
Ahtman wrote: That was a limited ban on certain weapons, of which even they couldn't well define, and that was not renewed. That is not the same thing as a total ban on all guns, which is what was said. Banning all firearms is a fringe movement. One can be a ranking member and still have untenable ideas that will never get full party support, Republicans have a lot guys like that as well. Most Democrats do not call for a total ban on all firearms, if they did, the Assault Weapons Ban would have been renewed before this point.
I think you're missing the point, Ahtman.
The first AWB was always thought of as a first step by the anti-gun policy shops who helped write it, like the VPC and the idiots at the Brady Campaign. You cannot go straight from A to Z, you have to take a lot of little steps along the way. New York's a good example. From no mag cap limit to a 10 mag cap limit now to a 7 mag cap limit. Think that'll be the last bill we see on the issue? I don't.
I liken the whole thing a lot to abortion, the more I think about it. Abortion proponents react forcefully to even "common sense" legislation proposals like parental notification laws because they know the ultimate goal of them all is to try and make abortion functionally unavailable, one step at a time. The same is absolutely true with firearm supporters and opponents.
I understand incrementalism, but I don't think the vast majority of Americans are for complete disarmament, but that many aren't opposed to some common sense legislation in the firearm realm. Not every bit of legislation is a slippery slope, and crying tyranny at every step and refusing to compromise doesn't make for a very reasonable position. I'm not up for bans for the most part, though I am against people owning Grenade Launchers and the like, but believe in better background checks, more restrictions on the free-for-alls that are traveling gun shows. It is to easy and to tempting to get away with goofy gak at a gun show that you could not do at a FLGS. I don't like gun shows, tbh, and think we should be supporting brick and mortar stores more. The ones that are more like conventions then traveling carnivals I don't have that much of an issue with, like the buying and trading at Knob Creek.
Ahtman wrote: I understand incrementalism, but I don't think the vast majority of Americans are for complete disarmament, but that many aren't opposed to some common sense legislation in the firearm realm.
Again, we could say the exact same thing about abortion bans. I'm not sure why those on the liberal side of the aisle aren't attacking Planned Parenthood for being uncompromising. Of course this whole thing is about incrementalism. It has to be, because the sort of firearm overwhelmingly used to commit homicide isn't being touched by any of this stuff these people are coming up with.
Not every bit of legislation is a slippery slope, and crying tyranny at every step and refusing to compromise doesn't make for a very reasonable position. I'm not up for bans for the most part, though I am against people owning Grenade Launchers and the like, but believe in better background checks, more restrictions on the free-for-alls that are traveling gun shows. It is to easy and to tempting to get away with goofy gak at a gun show that you could not do at a FLGS. I don't like gun shows, tbh, and think we should be supporting brick and mortar stores more. The ones that are more like conventions then traveling carnivals I don't have that much of an issue with, like the buying and trading at Knob Creek.
That's great. You should probably write your legislators and let them know that. Biden has said we don't have the time to do the whole background check thing currently, which is why we need to focus on new laws, so I'd recommend starting with him and advising that we start enforcing current law before feeling the need to draft new ones.
Ahtman wrote: I understand incrementalism, but I don't think the vast majority of Americans are for complete disarmament, but that many aren't opposed to some common sense legislation in the firearm realm. Not every bit of legislation is a slippery slope, and crying tyranny at every step and refusing to compromise doesn't make for a very reasonable position. I'm not up for bans for the most part, though I am against people owning Grenade Launchers and the like, but believe in better background checks, more restrictions on the free-for-alls that are traveling gun shows. It is to easy and to tempting to get away with goofy gak at a gun show that you could not do at a FLGS. I don't like gun shows, tbh, and think we should be supporting brick and mortar stores more. The ones that are more like conventions then traveling carnivals I don't have that much of an issue with, like the buying and trading at Knob Creek.
So why don't the congress critters follow these simple steps:
1. Explain the goal
2. Explain how the proposed legislation will allow the goal to be met
3. Explain the costs of enacting the legislation
Then allow us to decide how we feel about it and we can contact our congress critters to tell them how to vote.
I would love to see this applied to the proposed new assault weapon ban. What is 'reasonable' about it? It places a ban on a commonly owned class of fire arm, one which is VERY rarely used to commit a crime. What is the goal of this legislation?
Frazzled wrote: Diane Feinstein is not "fringe." She's one of the ranking members of the Senate. Her first gun ban was enacted in 1994.
Her views on gun control are. There is little popular or political support for a total ban on guns, and pretending that it might happen in spite of that is playing imaginary games.
Its a statistical misnomer. California has 43% of all welfare monies or something. In the game of statistics, you can make it whatever you want it to be. Thats why numbers are great!
"Some stats are fictional or misleading, therefore I choose to think of that stat as fictional and ignore it in order to carry on believing what I want to believe" is weak as piss.
