Gun Control Bill

[BanginJimmy]

is now cleared for debate. I am happy to see Senate GOP went along with getting it out of committee and into the full Senate. It isnt going to be passed anywhere near its current form, if at all. Even if it did, it has zero chance of passing in the House. I think this is the smartest thing the Senate GOP has done in a few years. There are 3 or 4 Senate dems in pro gun rights states that I am sure are dreading having to pick which side to support. Do they side with their party and risk backlash from voters, or do they side with voters and risk backlash, and possibly a primary challenge, from their party?

[David88vert]

This bill is nothing more than posturing, and is a waste of our tax dollars. Congress should be putting its efforts into developing legislation that can pass, and that is based on logic and reason, rather than emotion. If Congress would simply review and remove a lot of the legislation that no longer has merit, and simplify the legal and tax codes, that would be a far better use of our tax dollars.

The Federal Register is the main source of regulations for U.S. government agencies. In 1936, the number of pages in the Federal Register was about 2,600. Today, the Federal Register is over 80,000 pages long.

[bu villain]

Congress should be putting its efforts into developing legislation that can pass, and that is based on logic and reason, rather than emotion.

What is the contents of this mythical legislation you speak of? haha...cry

Btw, I would love for congress to spend 50% of their time removing legislation that no longer makes sense.

[BanginJimmy]

What is the contents of this mythical legislation you speak of? haha...cry

Btw, I would love for congress to spend 50% of their time removing legislation that no longer makes sense.

I would love to see that. They can start with the tax code.

My idea is quite simple, therefore, impossible to move beyond IA.

A progressive flat tax with the following rates. Using this years poverty line for a family of 4 as the lowest bracket.

0-23,550 0%

23,551 - 47000 2.5%

47001 - 80000 5%

80001 - 120k 8%

120,001 - 150k 10%

150,001 - 250k 15%

250k - 500K 20%

500K+ 25%


No deductions, no credits, no nothing. Which also means no loopholes and no special favors to friends. The only exemptions from reportable income would be dedicated retirement accounts which cannot be drawn upon until age 65.

[David88vert]

What is the contents of this mythical legislation you speak of? haha...cry

Btw, I would love for congress to spend 50% of their time removing legislation that no longer makes sense.

Simplify the tax code, comprehensive immigration reform, tort reform, long term planning for federal infrastructure projects, studying real cost reductions to actually pass a real plan that will reduce the federal deficit, etc. - stuff that actually will make a difference in the majority of American's lives, rather than just political posturing.

Over 40,000 laws were passed last year across the country, but the 112th Congress only got 219 signed by Obama. That's the most unproductive Congress since the 1940s - including the 104th Congress. Congress was more worried about truckers on cell phones than the big federal issues. At least 40 bills, including ones awaiting Obama's signature, concerned the renaming of post offices or other public buildings. Another six dealt with commemorative coins.

When I say Congress, I don't mean just the Democrats. The Republicans are to blame just as much. 115 times the Republican minority has held up a bill's passage by threatening to filibuster it. House Republicans have also held votes to repeal Obamacare more than 30 times since gaining control of the chamber in 2011, despite the fact that such a measure has no chance of passing the Democratically controlled Senate or being signed by Obama.

[bu villain]

I would love to see that. They can start with the tax code.

My idea is quite simple, therefore, impossible to move beyond IA.

A progressive flat tax with the following rates. Using this years poverty line for a family of 4 as the lowest bracket.


Not perfect but I would definitely take it over our current tax code.

[bu villain]

Simplify the tax code, comprehensive immigration reform, tort reform, long term planning for federal infrastructure projects, studying real cost reductions to actually pass a real plan that will reduce the federal deficit, etc. - stuff that actually will make a difference in the majority of American's lives, rather than just political posturing.

Yeah I was joking about how it's almost impossible for anything to pass right now no matter how logical it is. It would be hard to pass a resolution that says "kittens are cute" in this congress.

[.blank cd]

I would love to see that. They can start with the tax code.

My idea is quite simple, therefore, impossible to move beyond IA.

A progressive flat tax with the following rates. Using this years poverty line for a family of 4 as the lowest bracket.

[/B]0-23,550 0%.[/b]

Fox News Headline: MORE THAN HALF OF AMERICANS PAY NO INCOME TAX. IS THIS THE KIND OF SOCIALIST WORLD YOU WANT TO LIVE IN? OBAMA SAYS YES.

[David88vert]

Yeah I was joking about how it's almost impossible for anything to pass right now no matter how logical it is. It would be hard to pass a resolution that says "kittens are cute" in this congress.

Definitely true. Kick them all out and start over.

[Sinfix_15]

Dont support anything in any gun control bill.

[BanginJimmy]

Definitely true. Kick them all out and start over.

Come the mid-terms, I have decided to again vote against any and all incumbents. We need real leadership at all levels of govt, all we have now are hacks looking to score political points and add to their own power base.

[BanginJimmy]

Dont support anything in any gun control bill.

You dont know whats in it so how could you say you do or dont support it? You may have seen the outlines from one biased source or another, but you havent seen an actual bill yet. The bill doesnt exist, they havent even set a date to start debate yet.



BTW, I am all for expanding background checks to private sales. I am absolutely positive the dems will screw it up by over reaching in same way though. because of that, there is no possible way this bill would ever get 60 votes and pass in the Senate, never mind the House.

[Sinfix_15]

You dont know whats in it so how could you say you do or dont support it? You may have seen the outlines from one biased source or another, but you havent seen an actual bill yet. The bill doesnt exist, they havent even set a date to start debate yet.



BTW, I am all for expanding background checks to private sales. I am absolutely positive the dems will screw it up by over reaching in same way though. because of that, there is no possible way this bill would ever get 60 votes and pass in the Senate, never mind the House.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s649/text

[BanginJimmy]

Text of S. 649: Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013 (Placed on Calendar in the Senate version) - GovTrack.us (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s649/text)

I dont know how I missed this. All I could find was the summary from committee.



Anyways, what specific parts are you against and why?

[bu villain]

I would like to know if Sinflix thinks we should have any laws at all related to guns.

[Sinfix_15]

I dont know how I missed this. All I could find was the summary from committee.



Anyways, what specific parts are you against and why?

Yep, just one of the many times you jump to conclusions about my understanding of things.

[.blank cd]

Yep, just one of the many times you jump to conclusions about my understanding of things.

Didnt sound like he was jumping to conclusions to me. What parts of that bill did you disagree with and why?

[Sinfix_15]

Didnt sound like he was jumping to conclusions to me. What parts of that bill did you disagree with and why?

You have a habit of thinking anyone who disagrees with you is misinformed. I am aware of current events, my opinion of them is simply different from your own.

A gun is my private property. My private property and what i do with it is none of your business. I've been saying "why" for a pretty good while now.... i feel like there's a 60 page thread somewhere around here discussing this issue.

I do not support universal background checks. I do not support my doctor inquiring about my private property. I am perfectly fine with gun culture in america. I dont see a need to reduce gun or ammunition sales by 1 gun or a single bullet. I am offended even by the name of this bill "safe communities, safe schools act" its nothing more than political posturing so during the next debate they can say "republicans voted against safe schools".... i've said that before.... a dozen times. I posted a video of a constitutional lawyer reviewing this bill...... but you all swiftly disregard my posts.

I read over this bill a couple days ago and got annoyed with it........ i dont care to do it again right this moment. Some time over the weekend i will take the time to specifically highlight my issues with it for the sake of having a "real debate"

[Sinfix_15]

I would like to know if Sinflix thinks we should have any laws at all related to guns.

Regarding the limitation of or ability to exchange them between law abiding citizens, no. I see no reason for the federal government to have an inventory of my gun collection or how and where i acquired them. When i commit a crime, punish me. A felon purchasing a gun is against the law, when a felon victimizes me by purchasing one of my guns, punish him.

[.blank cd]

You have a habit of thinking anyone who disagrees with you is misinformed. I am aware of current events, my opinion of them is simply different from your own.I don't have and have never offered an opinion on the matter, the question that was asked was what parts of the bill did you disagree with and why? It couldn't be any simpler.


A gun is my private property. My private property and what i do with it is none of your business. Thats fine. Is your car or your brand new bike your private property, and do you feel like what you do with it is your business?

Do you disagree with licensing and registering said car and or bike?


I do not support universal background checks. I do not support my doctor inquiring about my private property. I am perfectly fine with gun culture in america.So you feel like the amount of violent crime with guns is at an acceptable level and there's nothing we should do about it?

[.blank cd]

Regarding the limitation of or ability to exchange them between law abiding citizens, no. I see no reason for the federal government to have an inventory of my gun collection or how and where i acquired them. When i commit a crime, punish me. A felon purchasing a gun is against the law, when a felon victimizes me by purchasing one of my guns, punish him.
Do you feel like gun retailers are being punished by being required to do a background check?

[Sinfix_15]

Thats fine. Is your car or your brand new bike your private property, and do you feel like what you do with it is your business?
Yes, they are my private property. I can buy 5000 motorcycles and park them in a warehouse in my backyard if i want to without registering any of them. I can also take them to track without registering them or use them privately on my own property. Registering them is a condition of using the public roads. I can have 500 handguns in my closet if i want to.... but if i want to carry one in public i need a permit.


Do you disagree with licensing and registering said car and or bike? Nope... there's no punishment for not registering either and i am free to use both on my own property.


So you feel like the amount of violent crime with guns is at an acceptable level and there's nothing we should do about it?

The mistake you're making is in associating crime and guns. Guns do not commit crimes, criminals do. We can do plenty about criminals....

[.blank cd]

The mistake you're making is in associating crime and guns. Guns do not commit crimes, criminals do. We can do plenty about criminals....Ahhhh....

So you believe that a gun is a tool, and that fact makes it indistinguishable from a fork or a car or a baseball bat, correct?

[Sinfix_15]

Ahhhh....

So you believe that a gun is a tool, and that fact makes it indistinguishable from a fork or a car or a baseball bat, correct?

Pretty much. Evil people had no problem being evil long before the gun ever came around. Guns might be the most significant tool in the history of humanity. We could sit here and talk for days about all of the great accomplishments that were made possible because of guns or how much better our lives are because of guns. Maybe we should take that turn and steer away from all this negativity.

[Sinfix_15]

anyways, i dont want to spam Jimmy's thread. I'll post up my review of the bill when i find the time to do it.

[David88vert]

Ahhhh....

So you believe that a gun is a tool, and that fact makes it indistinguishable from a fork or a car or a baseball bat, correct?

Let me put it in a way that you can understand.
I own a camera. The importation of them is regulated, and sales tax has to be paid when I purchase it.
I can shoot it as much as I like on my own property. I do not have to register it.
If I get paid to shoot it, I have to pay taxes. If I shoot it for a living, I need a business license.
If I want to sell it, I can do just that. I do not have to check to see if the buyer is legally allowed to purchase it. I do not need to get their name, address, phone number, or anything else.
If they take the camera and shoot it where it is not allowed, they get punished. I do not get punished, as I have committed no crime.

Now, change "camera" to "assault-style weapon".

[.blank cd]

Now, change "camera" to "assault-style weapon".Ok. If I'm a felon, am I allowed to have a camera?

And if I'm a felon, can I go buy a camera at at best buy with no background check?

[David88vert]

Ok. If I'm a felon, am I allowed to have a camera?

And if I'm a felon, can I go buy a camera at at best buy with no background check?

Now, change "camera" to "assault-style weapon".

There are laws already in place to cover felons. Are you a felon? If not, then your questions above do not apply to you.

[.blank cd]

Now, change "camera" to "assault-style weapon".

There are laws already in place to cover felons. Are you a felon? If not, then your questions above do not apply to you.

So there is already laws to stop the transfer of "assault style weapons" to felons?

[BanginJimmy]

A gun is my private property. My private property and what i do with it is none of your business. I've been saying "why" for a pretty good while now.... i feel like there's a 60 page thread somewhere around here discussing this issue.

I do not support universal background checks. I do not support my doctor inquiring about my private property. I am perfectly fine with gun culture in america. I dont see a need to reduce gun or ammunition sales by 1 gun or a single bullet. I am offended even by the name of this bill "safe communities, safe schools act" its nothing more than political posturing so during the next debate they can say "republicans voted against safe schools".... i've said that before.... a dozen times. I posted a video of a constitutional lawyer reviewing this bill......

A gun is private property. You can do whatever you wish with it on your own property (provided you have enough property to use it safely). If you want to sell that weapon to another individual, I dont think it is unreasonable to ask the seller and buyer to do a simple background check to make sure the buyer is legally allowed to own a firearm.

The real question, and one I have a hard time answering is, is this even enforceable without 1005 gun registry? I dont know that it is.

As for doctors asking about weapons, there is absolutely no reason they shouldnt be able to ask, especially if they can articulate a specific reasoning to believe you ma hurt yourself or others. At the same time, there is no reason you should be compelled to answer if you dont want to.



but you all swiftly disregard my posts.

Because you post some much BS it gets tiresome sifting through it to find a reasonable post.



Regarding the limitation of or ability to exchange them between law abiding citizens, no. I see no reason for the federal government to have an inventory of my gun collection or how and where i acquired them. When i commit a crime, punish me. A felon purchasing a gun is against the law, when a felon victimizes me by purchasing one of my guns, punish him.

Enforceability?



So you feel like the amount of violent crime with guns is at an acceptable level and there's nothing we should do about it?

There are absolutely zero links between legal gun ownership and gun crime.


There are laws already in place to cover felons. Are you a felon? If not, then your questions above do not apply to you.

The strange thing about felons is that they have a hard time abiding by the law.



I get why people would be against background checks and I get why people want them. Until the question of enforceability is answered though, I just dont know how much good it can do.

[BanginJimmy]

So there is already laws to stop the transfer of "assault style weapons" to felons?

Yes there are, but it requires felons to be on the honor system when dealing with private sales.


I have sold 1 weapon to a private individual. I still have the bill of sale and a copy of the buyers concealed carry permit. I wouldnt sell to someone without a carry permit without doing a background check. Not because of the law, but because I believe it is the responsibility of a gun owner to do everything reasonable to prevent a felon from getting a weapon.

[David88vert]

Yes there are, but it requires felons to be on the honor system when dealing with private sales.


I have sold 1 weapon to a private individual. I still have the bill of sale and a copy of the buyers concealed carry permit. I wouldnt sell to someone without a carry permit without doing a background check. Not because of the law, but because I believe it is the responsibility of a gun owner to do everything reasonable to prevent a felon from getting a weapon.

And, as a private seller, you have the choice to restrict your sale based upon conditions. The key there is you are not required by law to do that, and you cannot face criminal charges yourself for not doing a check. If the law is changes to where every private sale has to go through a background check, there had better be a really robust and privacy-sensitive system in place; otherwise, there will simply be a push for a national gun registration, which we have seen in history how that plays out.

[BanginJimmy]

And, as a private seller, you have the choice to restrict your sale based upon conditions. The key there is you are not required by law to do that, and you cannot face criminal charges yourself for not doing a check. If the law is changes to where every private sale has to go through a background check, there had better be a really robust and privacy-sensitive system in place; otherwise, there will simply be a push for a national gun registration, which we have seen in history how that plays out.

I get you and I am completely against a national registry. Just look at the recent case in NY where the state tried to take a guy's guns away.

[bu villain]

Regarding the limitation of or ability to exchange them between law abiding citizens, no. I see no reason for the federal government to have an inventory of my gun collection or how and where i acquired them. When i commit a crime, punish me. A felon purchasing a gun is against the law, when a felon victimizes me by purchasing one of my guns, punish him.

I'm really asking about all gun laws, not just the new ones being proposed. What laws should we have regarding gun ownership if any? Are the laws we have now perfect? Would you remove, add, or modify some? It would help to understand where you are coming from if I knew where you thought we should be.

[Sinfix_15]

I'm really asking about all gun laws, not just the new ones being proposed. What laws should we have regarding gun ownership if any? Are the laws we have now perfect? Would you remove, add, or modify some? It would help to understand where you are coming from if I knew where you thought we should be.

I support laws regarding the safe use of guns. Nothing else...... no limitations to law abiding citizens.

A felon owning a gun isnt safe, we already have laws against it, enforce them. You dont ticket someone for buying a corvette, you ticket them if they speed. Quit assuming that because people can sell a gun to a criminal, that they are, and punish people when they do. "innocent until proven guilty"..... that's the foundation of our legal system.... abide by it.... even when it's difficult. Yes, it's difficult to control guns..... but our way of life is more important than streamlining the system for our government. The constitution didnt guarantee your safety and it didnt guarantee that police officers would have an easy job. We're free people..... unfortunately with freedom comes the freedom to do evil things, when people do evil things.... punish them.

I do not want universal background checks or any "inventory-like" system regarding guns.... i hope the government assumes that there's 35 AR15s in everyone's basement..... i dont want them to know...... The government should fear it's people. Fear is healthy in some relationships. At no point in the history of humanity did the consolidation of power work out in favor of those giving up power.

Our government has a problem with symbolism over substance. These proposed new laws will have zero effect on any of the recent tragedies. Assault rifles are being used as a martyr. The dishonesty on display by these politicians gives even more reason to speculate about their intentions.

The 2nd amendment had nothing to do with duck hunting. It had nothing to do with safety..... Freedom is dangerous, they said that from the beginning.

[bu villain]

I support laws regarding the safe use of guns. Nothing else...... no limitations to law abiding citizens.

A felon owning a gun isnt safe, we already have laws against it, enforce them. You dont ticket someone for buying a corvette, you ticket them if they speed....

Well you started to answer my question and then went off on a rant. Can you be more specific about what laws support the safe use of guns (a very vague notion) in addition to felons not being allowed to own them? I'm not trying to trick you or anything. I just want a comprehensive list of laws you think are appropriate, not a list of laws that are NOT appropriate.

FYI, you spelled Barack wrong in your sig.

[Sinfix_15]

Well you started to answer my question and then went off on a rant. Can you be more specific about what laws support the safe use of guns (a very vague notion) in addition to felons not being allowed to own them? I'm not trying to trick you or anything. I just want a comprehensive list of laws you think are appropriate, not a list of laws that are NOT appropriate.

FYI, you spelled Barack wrong in your sig.

My list of gun laws is very short.

Dont use them for criminal activity. Dont allow criminals to have them.

[bu villain]

My list of gun laws is very short.

Dont use them for criminal activity. Dont allow criminals to have them.

Those aren't laws, those are vague notions. Crimes are crimes whether you use a gun or not. Are you saying their should be a law that provides harsher punishment for a crime when it is commited with a gun rather than another weapon?

Don't allow criminals to have them? Is that limited to felons or to any record whatsoever? Do you support any laws for enforcement of that (e.g., background checks) or just to punish them after the fact?

[Sinfix_15]

Those aren't laws, those are vague notions. Crimes are crimes whether you use a gun or not. Are you saying their should be a law that provides harsher punishment for a crime when it is commited with a gun rather than another weapon?

Don't allow criminals to have them? Is that limited to felons or to any record whatsoever? Do you support any laws for enforcement of that (e.g., background checks) or just to punish them after the fact?

Stricter punishments for existing crimes when a gun is used.

Felons. Punish them after the fact. No i do not support universal background checks.

[bu villain]

Stricter punishments for existing crimes when a gun is used.

Felons. Punish them after the fact. No i do not support universal background checks.

Ok so those are the only two gun related laws you would support. Am I correct in then concluding that you do not want any restriction on what weapons a normal citizen can have all the way up to rocket launchers, tanks, nukes, etc? What about age restrictions, should a child be allowed to own any such weapon as well? You say you don't support universal background checks but are there any background checks you do support? Sorry for all the questions I'm just trying to figure out exactly how far you want to go on liberalizing guns.

[Sinfix_15]

Ok so those are the only two gun related laws you would support. Am I correct in then concluding that you do not want any restriction on what weapons a normal citizen can have all the way up to rocket launchers, tanks, nukes, etc? What about age restrictions, should a child be allowed to own any such weapon as well? You say you don't support universal background checks but are there any background checks you do support? Sorry for all the questions I'm just trying to figure out exactly how far you want to go on liberalizing guns.

A child own a gun?
http://heartland.ehclients.com/images/boys-hunting.jpg

I am satisfied with the limitation imposed by the constitution. "unusual weapons" .... anything i can use to kill a single target is not unusual. Rocket launcher, tank, nukes.... they cant differentiate between a civilian and an enemy.... something our government often overlooks.

I support background checks on "unusual weapons".... background check me prior to my tank or nuclear bomb purchase.

[.blank cd]

..anything i can use to kill a single target is not unusual. Rocket launcher, tank, nukes.... they cant differentiate between a civilian and an enemy.... something our government often overlooks.
Can a bullet tell the difference between a civilian and an enemy?

[Sinfix_15]

Can a bullet tell the difference between a civilian and an enemy?

Yes it can.

[.blank cd]

Yes it can.

So whenever a civilian is shot with a bullet, it always deviates course or falls immediately to the ground? Is this what you're suggesting?

I thought you mentioned a weapon is only as capable as the person that's using it? Is it or is it not? Could I not fire a rocket launcher at a group of enemy soldiers?

[Sinfix_15]

So whenever a civilian is shot with a bullet, it always deviates course or falls immediately to the ground? Is this what you're suggesting?

I thought you mentioned a weapon is only as capable as the person that's using it? Is it or is it not? Could I not fire a rocket launcher at a group of enemy soldiers?

My argument was specific and intentional. Killing a "SINGLE TARGET" is not unusual. The bullet cant determine that target, the person wielding the gun does.

[David88vert]

Can a bullet tell the difference between a civilian and an enemy?

Of course not. Its an inanimate object and has no ability to do anything on its own.

The person who pulls the trigger can.

[.blank cd]

My argument was specific and intentional. Killing a "SINGLE TARGET" is not unusual. The bullet cant determine that target, the person wielding the gun does.

Ok, so the person wielding the rocket launcher can lob one at a lone enemy soldier, right?

[David88vert]

Ok, so the person wielding the rocket launcher can lob one at a lone enemy soldier, right?

Why on earth are you going off on a tangent? Rocket launchers are already illegal as explosive weapons.

[Sinfix_15]

Ok, so the person wielding the rocket launcher can lob one at a lone enemy soldier, right?

A rocket cannot decide to only hit 1 person. The circumstance doesnt change that fact. If only 1 person was on an island, then i could hit 1 person with a nuclear bomb.... that doesnt mean it's designed to hit one person. Explosions cannot be aimed with direct intent. There is an uncontrollable aspect of an explosive device..... making it.... "unusual"

[.blank cd]

Thank you! Im glad you asked that! Your critical thinking skills are improving!

[RandomGuy]

http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/9910/130583188687.jpg

[/thread]

[David88vert]

So, we are getting bombarded with commercials from DemandAction.org telling us that we need to prevent the Newtown tragedy from happening again, and to do so that we need to contact our Senators and tell them to support comprehensive background checks. They are playing these commercials pretty much non-stop on Pandora.
Here's the thing though - Lanza did not purchase the guns that he used. He didn't exploit any loopholes. Nothing he did would have gone through a background check under the current proposal. So how exactly are these comprehensive background checks supposed to stop a tragedy like Newtown from happening?

Oh, and the Luntz poll that you hear them quote - "90% of gun owners support stronger background checks" - that was a poll of 945 people, in May 2012, of which Luntz has not been willing to release the verbiage of the actual questions used.

[.blank cd]

And another poll...

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Bloompoll.pdf

And another...

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

"How does this law prevent another Newtown from happening"

It doesn't, because, while it may have been prompted by Newtown, its not intended to.

[David88vert]

...

"How does this law prevent another Newtown from happening"

It doesn't, because, while it may have been prompted by Newtown, its not intended to.

So, it is a solution in search of a problem....

Why even invoke the tragedy of Newtown then, other than to attempt to exploit a tragedy to push an agenda? Oh wait, that's what Obama did with the kids on stage with him.....

[.blank cd]

So, it is a solution in search of a problem...No, it is a proactive solution.


Why even invoke the tragedy of Newtown then, other than to attempt to exploit a tragedy to push an agenda? Oh wait, that's what Obama did with the kids on stage with him.....TBH, the discussion was prompted way before Newtown.

[David88vert]

No, it is a proactive solution.

TBH, the discussion was prompted way before Newtown.

Should we attempt to legislate for all possible criminal activity? Just ban any tool that might be used for the commission of a crime? Should we just assume that all people are potential criminals, and subject everyone to background checks for all activities, tools, services, and products, that might be used in criminal behavior? Where should the line be drawn, and who should be the ones drawing that legal line? Since baseball bats have been shown to be used repeatedly for murder, should we just ban aluminum bats, and leave the older style wooden ones alone? Perhaps it's the sport of baseball itself that causes baseball bat violence? Should we just proactively ban the sport of baseball in the efforts to stop these senseless killings? Didn't Obama say, "If we can save but one life, we have to try?"

As I have shown before, rifles are used rarely for murder. Assault style rifles are a subset of rifles,, which means less than 17 murders happen per year in GA since before you were old enough to legally own a firearm. Even if assault style weapons were fully banned, that does not begin to be proactive, as it is unlikely that the murders would have just given up on killing their victims - they would have just used a different weapon.

If you want proactive legislation, you should focus on the source of the problem, not the tools used. Wouldn't it be better to focus efforts on people, and their mental state, rather than inanimate tools?

The President and Congress did not address any gun control legislation until Newtown. They were very open about using it to promote their political agenda.

[.blank cd]

Should we attempt to legislate for all possible criminal activity? Just ban any tool that might be used for the commission of a crime? Should we just assume that all people are potential criminals, and subject everyone to background checks for all activities, tools, services, and products, that might be used in criminal behavior? Where should the line be drawn, and who should be the ones drawing that legal line? Since baseball bats have been shown to be used repeatedly for murder, should we just ban aluminum bats, and leave the older style wooden ones alone? Perhaps it's the sport of baseball itself that causes baseball bat violence? Should we just proactively ban the sport of baseball in the efforts to stop these senseless killings? Didn't Obama say, "If we can save but one life, we have to try?"Not wasting time on this straw man.


As I have shown before, rifles are used rarely for murder. Assault style rifles are a subset of rifles,, which means less than 17 murders happen per year in GA since before you were old enough to legally own a firearm. Even if assault style weapons were fully banned, that does not begin to be proactive, as it is unlikely that the murders would have just given up on killing their victims - they would have just used a different weapon.

If you want proactive legislation, you should focus on the source of the problem, not the tools used. Wouldn't it be better to focus efforts on people, and their mental state, rather than inanimate tools?Lets get specific. What are you referring to specifically that you have an issue with? There is the entire idea of increased gun legislation, lets not group it all together, lest it confuses everyone.


The President and Congress did not address any gun control legislation until Newtown. They were very open about using it to promote their political agenda.Pretty sure this happened before Newtown. I'm not a professional calendar maker, so don't quote me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting

[David88vert]

Not wasting time on this straw man.

Lets get specific. What are you referring to specifically that you have an issue with? There is the entire idea of increased gun legislation, lets not group it all together, lest it confuses everyone.

Pretty sure this happened before Newtown. I'm not a professional calendar maker, so don't quote me.

2012 Aurora shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting)

Straw man? I'm just trying to get you to use some critical thinking. There's nothing wrong with that, right?
Why do you run away from such as simple discussion?

Who said that I have an issue with any of the possible legislation? Can you show me where I said that I have a specific issue with the current proposal?

Your link supports my statement that no gun control legislation was addressed until after Newtown. Not sure why you wanted to place that link here, but thanks. As per your calendar comment, January 24, 2013 comes after 2012.
"On January 24, Senator Feinstein introduced the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, a bill to stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devices." - Assault Weapons - United States Senator Dianne Feinstein (http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons)

[.blank cd]

Straw man? I'm just trying to get you to use some critical thinking. There's nothing wrong with that, right?
Why do you run away from such as simple discussion?Im not trying to discuss why we should or should not regulate baseball bats because it has nothing to do with the gun control issue.


Your link supports my statement that no gun control legislation was addressed until after Newtown. Not sure why you wanted to place that link here, but thanks. As per your calendar comment, January 24, 2013 comes after 2012.
"On January 24, Senator Feinstein introduced the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, a bill to stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devices." - Assault Weapons - United States Senator Dianne Feinstein (http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons)I said the discussion was prompted before Newtown.

[David88vert]

Im not trying to discuss why we should or should not regulate baseball bats because it has nothing to do with the gun control issue.

I said the discussion was prompted before Newtown.

So, we shouldn't be proactive on baseball bat control to protect people from being murdered using baseball bats, but we should be proactive on gun control to protect people from being murdered using rifles? Even though more people get murdered with aluminum baseball bats than AK-47s? Does this seem logical or reasonable to you?

And it is clear that gun control legislation did not even have a realm of possibility to be introduced before the Newtown tragedy, and that the proposed legislation does nothing to begin to address preventing a tragedy, even though it has been carefully and strategically marketed using Newtown as a promoter.

[.blank cd]

So, we shouldn't be proactive on baseball bat control to protect people from being murdered using baseball bats, but we should be proactive on gun control to protect people from being murdered using rifles? Even though more people get murdered with aluminum baseball bats than AK-47s? Does this seem logical or reasonable to you?If you want to talk about baseball bats, fine. Lol.

What do you propose we should do about the ease of access to baseball bats? Because I believe it's incredibly easy for a child to get his hands on one. I'm open to discuss any ideas you might have. I'll even help you find your congressman's number so you can propose your ideas to him.


And it is clear that gun control legislation did not even have a realm of possibility to be introduced before the Newtown tragedy, and that the proposed legislation does nothing to begin to address preventing a tragedy, even though it has been carefully and strategically marketed using Newtown as a promoter.The recent discussion on assault style weapons was prompted as a result of the Aurora shootings. Theres no question or debate about this, unless you happened to be under a rock during that period of time. Newtown may have bolstered the discussion.That's all I said. Don't look any deeper into it than that.

[Sinfix_15]

So, we shouldn't be proactive on baseball bat control to protect people from being murdered using baseball bats, but we should be proactive on gun control to protect people from being murdered using rifles? Even though more people get murdered with aluminum baseball bats than AK-47s? Does this seem logical or reasonable to you?

And it is clear that gun control legislation did not even have a realm of possibility to be introduced before the Newtown tragedy, and that the proposed legislation does nothing to begin to address preventing a tragedy, even though it has been carefully and strategically marketed using Newtown as a promoter.

Careful David...... This excessive use of logic could overload Blank's sense of reality and cause irreversible damage. Bring him back too reality slowly.... baby steps.

[.blank cd]

Careful David...... This excessive use of logic could overload Blank's sense of reality and cause irreversible damage. Bring him back too reality slowly.... baby steps.

404: Logic not found

[Sinfix_15]

404: Logic not found

You're going to have to accept the truth for the healing process to begin.

[David88vert]

If you want to talk about baseball bats, fine. Lol.

What do you propose we should do about the ease of access to baseball bats? Because I believe it's incredibly easy for a child to get his hands on one. I'm open to discuss any ideas you might have. I'll even help you find your congressman's number so you can propose your ideas to him.

The recent discussion on assault style weapons was prompted as a result of the Aurora shootings. Theres no question or debate about this, unless you happened to be under a rock during that period of time. Newtown may have bolstered the discussion.That's all I said. Don't look any deeper into it than that.

Baseball bats don't need to be restricted, and no additional restrictions need to be placed on assault style rifles either. The statistics show that baseball bats are used to murder as many people as assault style rifles. My point is that no one mentions them, because that is not politically correct. The gun control discussion is not about public safety - if it were, they would be discussing handguns, not assault style rifles. Obviously, this simple concept is too complex for your intellect.

[David88vert]

404: Logic not found

We've already seen that you have a problem finding logic all the time. We don't need you to confirm it.

[David88vert]

You're going to have to accept the truth for the healing process to begin.

He has no intention of accepting the truth or reality.

[.blank cd]

He has no intention of accepting the truth or reality.

Or you both have a problem presenting the truth and reality. I'm gonna go with that.

[.blank cd]

Baseball bats don't need to be restricted, and no additional restrictions need to be placed on assault style rifles either. The statistics show that baseball bats are used to murder as many people as assault style rifles. My point is that no one mentions them, because that is not politically correct. The gun control discussion is not about public safety - if it were, they would be discussing handguns, not assault style rifles. Obviously, this simple concept is too complex for your intellect.

Facepalm.

They are discussing regulations to handguns. Are you not aware of this? I think you are....

[David88vert]

Or you both have a problem presenting the truth and reality. I'm gonna go with that.

So you deny all of the facts and statistics that I have presented to you? You don't believe that the FBI, DOJ, etc produced those statistics? Or do you not believe what Feinstein's own site states? How about Feinsteins own words? Do you think that history is faked? That's all that I have been presenting to you - verifiable facts and statistics. You have not presented any to support your own claims though, so that makes me wonder if you can even recognized truth or reality. You certainly haven't shown that you can yet.

[.blank cd]

So you deny all of the facts and statistics that I have presented to you? You don't believe that the FBI, DOJ, etc produced those statistics? Or do you not believe what Feinstein's own site states? How about Feinsteins own words? Do you think that history is faked? That's all that I have been presenting to you - verifiable facts and statistics. You have not presented any to support your own claims though, so that makes me wonder if you can even recognized truth or reality. You certainly haven't shown that you can yet.

Why did you waste your time on any of that. Nothing you've presented to me is new information. My opinion changes with new, legitimate information.

[David88vert]

Facepalm.

They are discussing regulations to handguns. Are you not aware of this? I think you are....

Feinstein proposed a list that included some handguns and shotguns. The majority of handguns were AK-47 derivatives though - not what you see in the majority of crimes committed with a handgun.

Here's her list of "handguns" - as you can see, they aren't your typical Saturday night specials, or even your normal Glocks, Rugers, S&W's, etc. In fact, quite a few of the ones listed are from her old 1994 ban, when you had drug dealers using MAC-10's and similar. Some of these listed haven't even been around on shelves for years.
Pistols:
All AK–47 types, including the following: Centurion 39 AK pistol, Draco AK–47 pistol, HCR AK–47 pistol, IO Inc. Hellpup AK–47 pistol, Krinkov pistol, Mini Draco AK–47 pistol, Yugo Krebs Krink pistol;
All AR–15 types, including the following: American Spirit AR–15 pistol, Bushmaster Carbon 15 pistol, DoubleStar Corporation AR pistol, DPMS AR–15 pistol, Olympic Arms AR–15 pistol, Rock River Arms LAR 15 pistol; Calico Liberty pistols; DSA SA58 PKP FAL pistol; Encom MP–9 and MP–45; Heckler & Koch model SP-89 pistol; Intratec AB–10, TEC–22 Scorpion, TEC–9, and TEC–DC9; Kel-Tec PLR 16 pistol;
The following MAC types: MAC–10, MAC–11; Masterpiece Arms MPA A930 Mini Pistol, MPA460 Pistol, MPA Tactical Pistol, and MPA Mini Tactical Pistol; Military Armament Corp. Ingram M–11, Velocity Arms VMAC; Sig Sauer P556 pistol; Sites Spectre;
All Thompson types, including the following: Thompson TA510D, Thompson TA5;
All UZI types, including: Micro-UZI.

[David88vert]

Why did you waste your time on any of that. Nothing you've presented to me is new information. My opinion changes with new, legitimate information.

So, you were aware that the assault style rifles were not used in as many murders as other weapons, but still think that is what we need to focus upon?

[.blank cd]

So, you were aware that the assault style rifles were not used in as many murders as other weapons, but still think that is what we need to focus upon?

Did we not go over this already??

[David88vert]

Did we not go over this already??

Do you know where and when we went over this?

[David88vert]

Have you read, “The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles” by Edward J. Erler, Ph.D - printed in Hillsdale College Imprimis magazine, Vol. 42, #3, March 2013?

Here is an excerpt:

“most gun crimes are committed with stolen or illegally obtained weapons, and the formula to decrease crime is clear: Increase the number of responsible gun owners and prosecute to the greatest extent possible under the law those who commit gun-related crimes or possess weapons illegally.”

Another excerpt:

“The shooters in Arizona, Colorado, and Newtown were mentally ill persons who, by all accounts, should have been incarcerated. Even the Los Angeles Times admits that ‘there is a connection between mental illness and mass murder.’

But the same progressives who advocate gun control also oppose the involuntary incarceration of mentally ill people who, in the case of these mass shootings, posed obvious dangers to society before they committed their horrendous acts of violence. From the point of view of the progressives who oppose involuntary incarceration of the mentally ill — you can thank the ACLU and like-minded organizations — it is better to disarm the entire population, and deprive them of their constitutional freedoms, than to incarcerate a few mentally ill persons who are prone to engage in violent crimes.”

If you haven't seen it yet, there is a new article from someone with a doctorate. He might actually know something.

[Sinfix_15]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BIBzIpSCcAAxxxh.jpg:large

[Vteckidd]

Still going on?

If you think banning guns solves everything I will propose to you what i did before:

I will give you ANY gun control law you want passed, but Obama must relinquish and disband the Secret Service , or at the minimum, remove all firearms from his security protocol. Same goes for all law makers.

His kids will no longer have armed escorts.

Its a stupid shit bag argument that doesnt have 1 shred of proof or truth to it. Banning assault rifles does nothing, and would not have prevented any shooting.

As we saw monday, you dont need guns to kill people. Should be close the PRESSURE COOKER loop hole at all Home and Garden shows now?

[David88vert]

Obama still wants to link gun control legislation to Newtown, even though none of these laws would have prevented either.
Obama: "Unimaginable" That Congress Would "Defy" Americans And Not Pass Gun Control | RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/04/16/obama_unimaginable_that_congress_would_defy_americ ans_and_not_pass_gun_control.html)

[.blank cd]

Still going on?

If you think banning guns solves everything I will propose to you what i did before:

I will give you ANY gun control law you want passed, but Obama must relinquish and disband the Secret Service , or at the minimum, remove all firearms from his security protocol. Same goes for all law makers.

His kids will no longer have armed escorts.

Its a stupid shit bag argument that doesnt have 1 shred of proof or truth to it. Banning assault rifles does nothing, and would not have prevented any shooting.

As we saw monday, you dont need guns to kill people. Should be close the PRESSURE COOKER loop hole at all Home and Garden shows now?Im just trying to understand something. It's very critical, as I was kind of young during the last one, I only have a couple yes or no questions....

Did the last assault weapons BAN prevent anyone from buying an assault weapon? Meaning: Could a non felon US citizen who is in perfect mental health still acquire an assault weapon through a legal channel, provided there was one to buy and it was sitting right in front of his face, after the 94 ban was passed, yes or no?

[David88vert]

Im just trying to understand something. It's very critical, as I was kind of young during the last one, I only have a couple yes or no questions....

Did the last assault weapons BAN prevent anyone from buying an assault weapon? Meaning: Could a non felon US citizen who is in perfect mental health still acquire an assault weapon through a legal channel, provided there was one to buy and it was sitting right in front of his face, after the 94 ban was passed, yes or no?

The last assault weapons ban did not prevent non-felons from buying existing new stock from FFL dealers, or from purchasing used assault style weapons. It did not lower crime, or prevent felons from landing their hands on them either. You still haven't grasped this? I have told you the same thing over and over again.

[.blank cd]

The last assault weapons ban did not prevent non-felons from buying existing new stock from FFL dealers, or from purchasing used assault style weapons.
Ok. So the last bill indeed did not prevent anyone from legally obtaining firearms. That the piece of information I wasn't clear on.

One more thing Im not clear on. Help me out...
I didnt read the entire thing, but Is there something in this new proposed bill i missed that prevents that same exact citizen from purchasing that same exact assault weapon, legally? Yes or no?

[David88vert]

Ok. So the last bill indeed did not prevent anyone from legally obtaining firearms. That the piece of information I wasn't clear on.

One more thing Im not clear on. Help me out...
I didnt read the entire thing, but Is there something in this new proposed bill i missed that prevents that same exact citizen from purchasing that same exact assault weapon, legally? Yes or no?

The first assault weapons ban was termed to be a 10-year ban, with a decision to be determined at the end of the term deciding if it should be extended. It was not extended, and sales of assault style weapons were resumed.

The new proposal removed that term limitation of 10 years, making it a permanent ban, therefore impacting future generations ability to obtain these same objects in the future.

If you even read Feinstein's summary once, which I have posted several times, you would already know that.

[Vteckidd]

Columbine HAPPENED during the last AW ban FYI

[.blank cd]

The first assault weapons ban was termed to be a 10-year ban, with a decision to be determined at the end of the term deciding if it should be extended. It was not extended, and sales of assault style weapons were resumed.

The new proposal removed that term limitation of 10 years, making it a permanent ban, therefore impacting future generations ability to obtain these same objects in the future.

Ok. So the last bill didnt prevent anyone from legally buying an AR, and the NEW bill doesn't prevent anyone from buying an AR, and proposes no term limit. So, if all are true...

1. Why do people pretend like the new bill is going to prevent anyone from buying an AR?

2. If both are true, and bill one had a negligible impact on crime, then bill two may have a negligible impact on crime. Is it then possible that bill one and bill two have motives OTHER THAN preventing crime? Don't focus on rhetoric. I don't want to know what he said or she said. We all know that politicians say things to get things passed.
Is it possible both bills have underlying goals other than preventing crime?

[Sinfix_15]

Columbine HAPPENED during the last AW ban FYI

I doubt there's any quantifiable data supporting this gut feeling.....

but i feel like there's a significant increase in crazy that coincides with the government strengthening it's grip on people's lives/freedom.

[.blank cd]

Columbine HAPPENED during the last AW ban FYI

I know this.

[Vteckidd]

Im just trying to understand something. It's very critical, as I was kind of young during the last one, I only have a couple yes or no questions....

Did the last assault weapons BAN prevent anyone from buying an assault weapon? Meaning: Could a non felon US citizen who is in perfect mental health still acquire an assault weapon through a legal channel, provided there was one to buy and it was sitting right in front of his face, after the 94 ban was passed, yes or no?

wasnt singling you out per se. Just a general statement.

Banning weapons doesnt stop someone from setting off a pipe bomb to kill someone which is just as easy, if not easier to make. Hell i can drive my car into a pile of people and kill more than Newtown did.

[Sinfix_15]

Ok. So the last bill didnt prevent anyone from legally buying an AR, and the NEW bill doesn't prevent anyone from buying an AR, and proposes no term limit. So, if all are true...

1. Why do people pretend like the new bill is going to prevent anyone from buying an AR?

2. If both are true, and bill one had a negligible impact on crime, then bill two may have a negligible impact on crime. Is it then possible that bill one and bill two have motives OTHER THAN preventing crime? Don't focus on rhetoric. I don't want to know what he said or she said. We all know that politicians say things to get things passed.
Is it possible both bills have underlying goals other than preventing crime?

The goal is to eventually seek a full gun ban.

[Vteckidd]

I know this.

AW ban= School Shooting
No AW Ban= School Shooting

Conclusion: Evil Exists, nothing you can do to stop it.

References: See 9/11 and Boston Marathon bombing and Alfred P Murrah

[.blank cd]

I doubt there's any quantifiable data supporting this gut feeling.....

but i feel like there's a significant increase in crazy that coincides with the government strengthening it's grip on people's lives/freedom.

Sinfix. I have one question for you. I want you to think about it hard, and I want a dead serious answer.

IS IT POSSIBLE, for the government, and the administration, in any situation, to have positive intentions, rather than only negative ones?

[.blank cd]

The goal is to eventually seek a full gun ban.

This isn't a rational answer.

[Sinfix_15]

Sinfix. I have one question for you. I want you to think about it hard, and I want a dead serious answer.

IS IT POSSIBLE, for the government, and the administration, in any situation, to have positive intentions, rather than only negative ones?

The increase of power tends to corrupt one's ability to have positive intentions. The foundation of our government was based on limiting the power of our government. Our current government seeks to remove all of the limitations that made us the country we are today. Deciding their intentions were positive wouldnt make them any less foolish. I dont doubt that the government thinks they know what's best for me and possibly has good/positive intentions.... that doesnt make it right. The people who created our government told us not to trust our government. They understood how power corrupts, they experienced it and overcame it.

[Sinfix_15]

This isn't a rational answer.

You thinking this isnt a rational answer.

[.blank cd]

The increase of power tends to corrupt one's ability to have positive intentions. The foundation of our government was based on limiting the power of our government. Our current government seeks to remove all of the limitations that made us the country we are today. Deciding their intentions were positive wouldnt make them any less foolish. I dont doubt that the government thinks they know what's best for me and possibly has good/positive intentions.... that doesnt make it right. The people who created our government told us not to trust our government. They understood how power corrupts, they experienced it and overcame it.So yes, it is possible that they have good intentions, instead of always bad ones

What makes you believe our current administration seeks to remove the limitations that makes this country what it is today? What makes you believe this is possible?

[Sinfix_15]

So yes, it is possible that they have good intentions, instead of always bad ones

What makes you believe our current administration seeks to remove the limitations that makes this country what it is today? What makes you believe this is possible?

It doesnt matter what their intentions are, they are fools.

What makes me believe it's possible? that theyre trying to remove our ability to stop it.

[Vteckidd]

So yes, it is possible that they have good intentions, instead of always bad ones

What makes you believe our current administration seeks to remove the limitations that makes this country what it is today? What makes you believe this is possible?

IMO its not possible because the GOP owns the house, no gun ban legislation will get passed. Now the DEMS win the House in 2014, all bets are off.

Senior Democratic leaders have made it known they want national registration, and guns removed from households and citizens. Its not like hes making it up.

Obama himself said that Obamacare was a first step toward single payer, so its not irrational to say "Obama wants socialized medicine".

[Sinfix_15]

Well, that's that. It's a great day for america..... freedom has prevailed.... for now. Maybe democrats will get to work on something constructive now and quit trying to push their radical agenda.

[Sinfix_15]

Video: Grassley-Cruz-Graham-Coats Press Conference On Alternative Gun Bill (http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/04/17/Video-Grassley-Cruz-Graham-Coats-Press-Conference-On-Alternative-Gun-Bill?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)

[Sinfix_15]

Senate defeats background checks for guns - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/17/senate-defeats-background-checks-guns/)

[Sinfix_15]

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/s689.pdf

[BanginJimmy]

To all the people complaining about Senate GOP allowing a vote, this is why they wanted it. They knew there was no possible chance to pass it and they wanted to get Senate dems on record. It was the Senate dems that didn't want a vote.

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk 2.

[David88vert]

Ok. So the last bill didnt prevent anyone from legally buying an AR, and the NEW bill doesn't prevent anyone from buying an AR, and proposes no term limit. So, if all are true...

1. Why do people pretend like the new bill is going to prevent anyone from buying an AR?

2. If both are true, and bill one had a negligible impact on crime, then bill two may have a negligible impact on crime. Is it then possible that bill one and bill two have motives OTHER THAN preventing crime? Don't focus on rhetoric. I don't want to know what he said or she said. We all know that politicians say things to get things passed.
Is it possible both bills have underlying goals other than preventing crime?

1. - Eventually, new AR15's would not be able to be purchased by legal citizens, once stock had run out. These citizens have done nothing illegal, and the government's attempts to remove these items from them is suspect.

2. Absolutely. The most obvious one is to chip away at the availability of "highly capable weapons" - as you would put it.

[David88vert]

Sinfix. I have one question for you. I want you to think about it hard, and I want a dead serious answer.

IS IT POSSIBLE, for the government, and the administration, in any situation, to have positive intentions, rather than only negative ones?

Yes, they are POSITIVE that they do not want citizens to have "highly capable weapons".

[.blank cd]

It doesnt matter what their intentions are, they are fools.

What makes me believe it's possible? that theyre trying to remove our ability to stop it.

Circular reasoning at its finest. Lol.

[Sinfix_15]

Circular reasoning at its finest. Lol.

Senate agrees with me. Reality saved a spot for you, you're welcome to come sit beside me anytime you wish.

[.blank cd]

1. - Eventually, new AR15's would not be able to be purchased by legal citizens, once stock had run out. These citizens have done nothing illegal, and the government's attempts to remove these items from them is suspect.So, if the ban stopped the manufacture of the AR15 for civilian purposes, and all AR15s get sold out...
1. What happens to all the other AR15s already in circulation?
2. What happens to the manufacturers existing stock? Does the price go up or down?
3. Does that stop you from being able to defend yourself?



2. Absolutely. The most obvious one is to chip away at the availability of "highly capable weapons" - as you would put it.Fair enough.

[.blank cd]

Senate agrees with me. Reality saved a spot for you, you're welcome to come sit beside me anytime you wish.

LOL. You really didnt read any of the articles did you? Or did you just take away what you wanted from it.

[Sinfix_15]

So, if the ban stopped the manufacture of the AR15 for civilian purposes, and all AR15s get sold out...
1. What happens to all the other AR15s already in circulation?
2. What happens to the manufacturers existing stock? Does the price go up or down?
3. Does that stop you from being able to defend yourself?


Fair enough.

yes.

[Sinfix_15]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BIFi7UpCQAEUNTr.jpg:large

[David88vert]

So, if the ban stopped the manufacture of the AR15 for civilian purposes, and all AR15s get sold out...
1. What happens to all the other AR15s already in circulation?
2. What happens to the manufacturers existing stock? Does the price go up or down?
3. Does that stop you from being able to defend yourself?


1. Previously sold AR15s would stay in circulation until they no longer worked, and parts were not available for them anymore, due to the ban on manufacturing and importation. Some might also end up out of legal circulation due to theft, fire, etc.

2. At the discussion of a possible ban, the price of existing stock has already risen. As supply availability to legal citizens decreases, prices should increase on what would be left.

3. It does not stop me from defending myself, as I do not own an assault style weapon. It does take away a possible tool of defense away from law abiding citizens though, and does not prevent criminals from obtaining them. This should have an impact in the future to put law abiding citizens at an increased risk of being unable to resist a criminal. Is that what you think that gun control should do?

[Sinfix_15]

BREAKING: Dianne Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban Officially, Overwhelmingly DEAD (http://gunssavelives.net/blog/gun-laws/breaking-dianne-feinsteins-assault-weapons-ban-officially-overwhelmingly-dead/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed)

this calls for a beer.

[Sinfix_15]

Obama Throws a Tantrum Over Gun Control Defeat (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/17/Obama-Throws-a-Tantrum-Over-Gun-Control-Defeat)

This calls for another beer...... maybe a few.

[Sinfix_15]

" WE DESERVE A VOTE "...

ok, you got it.... now STFU

[David88vert]

So, the Senators decided that exactly what I have been saying is probably correct? And blank thinks that I'm the one that doesn't understand the issues? LOL

[Sinfix_15]

So, the Senators decided that exactly what I have been saying is probably correct? And blank thinks that I'm the one that doesn't understand the issues? LOL

Reality will find blank one day...... i look forward to seeing what he can accomplish when he starts devoting his intellectual capacity to the real world and not his imaginary one.

[Elbow]

OK someone help me out, why was the gun bill not passed and what was the big deal? Was it not just for more strict background checks?

[.blank cd]

1. Previously sold AR15s would stay in circulation until they no longer worked, and parts were not available for them anymore, due to the ban on manufacturing and importation. Some might also end up out of legal circulation due to theft, fire, etc.

2. At the discussion of a possible ban, the price of existing stock has already risen. As supply availability to legal citizens decreases, prices should increase on what would be left.

3. It does not stop me from defending myself, as I do not own an assault style weapon.Thank you. All I needed to know


It does take away a possible tool of defense away from law abiding citizens though, and does not prevent criminals from obtaining them. This should have an impact in the future to put law abiding citizens at an increased risk of being unable to resist a criminal. Is that what you think that gun control should do?Do you see yet where you're going in a circle with this?

[.blank cd]

Reality will find blank one day...... i look forward to seeing what he can accomplish when he starts devoting his intellectual capacity to the real world and not his imaginary one.

If reality mean believing in your gun control fairy tales, I hope I never see that day.

[.blank cd]

OK someone help me out, why was the gun bill not passed and what was the big deal? Was it not just for more strict background checks?

I'm waiting to see if they figure it out.

They meaning Sinfix. He posted a link from some gun nut website, so it may take a little longer.

[Sinfix_15]

If reality mean believing in your gun control fairy tales, I hope I never see that day.

My "fairy tale" is the world as it is.... and always has been. This country wasnt founded based on your vision for what it should be.

[David88vert]

Thank you. All I needed to know

Do you see yet where you're going in a circle with this?

You ignore what you do not want to know. That's not the sign of an intellectual person - or one that studies science.

[.blank cd]

You ignore what you do not want to know. That's not the sign of an intellectual person - or one that studies science.Didnt ignore anything. Just pointing out that the highlighted part was all I needed to know.

Did you notice where you going in a circle?

[David88vert]

Didnt ignore anything. Just pointing out that the highlighted part was all I needed to know.

Did you notice where you going in a circle?
I wasn't going in a circle. I gave you your requested information and some relevant observations. I then posed a question, which you ignored answering.

[.blank cd]

I wasn't going in a circle. I gave you your requested information and some relevant observations. I then posed a question, which you ignored answering.

A question I already answered.

[David88vert]

A question I already answered.

I don't believe that I asked that question to you before. Additionally, you said you were confused, perhaps your opinion could have changed with your confusion?

Here's a different question though that I know you haven't answered before.

Look at the video of Obama's news conference from today. Look at Biden in the background. Doesn't he look just like Jeff Dunham's character, Walter?

Someone asks why we need gun control.
I can see Biden saying it now - "Shut the hell up!", then wait a second, "Dumbass."

http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/7tQRKR5hmyPNHf5EvJyThQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zMzU7cT04NTt3PTUxMg--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2013-04-17T223248Z_1984094133_GM1E94I0I2C01_RTRMADP_3_USA-GUNS-OBAMA-STATEMENT.JPG
http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Breitbart-TV/2013/04/17/ObamaLecture.jpg

http://www.rankopedia.com/CandidatePix/82019.gif

[Echonova]

I like that purple tie.

[BanginJimmy]

I love Walter. He is who I hope to be at his age.


Another question. Who is that big SOB behind Obama? I dont think I wanna mess with him. He looks violent.

[Vteckidd]

OK someone help me out, why was the gun bill not passed and what was the big deal? Was it not just for more strict background checks?

The reason why it didnt pass was because DEMOCRATS didnt want it. Remember the DEMS OWN the Senate. THe measure was not about background checks SOLELY, it was about banning certain assualt weapons which is a non starter.

If 90% of americans truly supported Gun Control like Obama claims, then this is an EASY bill to pass. But again, hes wrong, and quotes 1 poll out of 100 that show otherwise.

[Vteckidd]

The other thing i find funny is how they parade the 1 guy who is from newtown that is for gun control, but completely ignore the 10s of others that came out AGAINST gun control.

They act like that 1 guy is the voice for all the victims.

[David88vert]

I love Walter. He is who I hope to be at his age.


You want to be a puppet with some guys hand up your rear end, and with someone else talking for you?

[Sinfix_15]

I love Walter. He is who I hope to be at his age.


Another question. Who is that big SOB behind Obama? I dont think I wanna mess with him. He looks violent.

They called for blackup to help show how angry they were, as if Biden's over exaggerated facial expressions didnt do the trick.

[David88vert]

The reason why it didnt pass was because DEMOCRATS didnt want it. Remember the DEMS OWN the Senate. THe measure was not about background checks SOLELY, it was about banning certain assualt weapons which is a non starter.

4 Republicans voted for the background check bill. 4 Democrats voted against it. If all 4 of those Democrats had voted with the rest of the party, they would have been only 58-42, still not enough votes to get it out of the Senate. They needed 6 Republicans and all of the Democrats to send it to the House - just like with any other bill on any other subject.


If 90% of americans truly supported Gun Control like Obama claims, then this is an EASY bill to pass. But again, hes wrong, and quotes 1 poll out of 100 that show otherwise.

Bing - any bill that has 90%of the public support it will easily pass, everytime. It's funny how we don't see 90% of people supporting it on any of the forums, FB, etc. - if anything, its the exact opposite on this forum. Do you really believe that all of the older people who aren't on the internet are 100% for banning these rifles - you know, the old ones that actually grew up shooting rifles?

Obama is right, someone has been willfully lying - but that is his own administration that has been putting forth a lot of lies.

[Boosted FC]

I don't believe that I asked that question to you before. Additionally, you said you were confused, perhaps your opinion could have changed with your confusion?

Here's a different question though that I know you haven't answered before.

Look at the video of Obama's news conference from today. Look at Biden in the background. Doesn't he look just like Jeff Dunham's character, Walter?

Someone asks why we need gun control.
I can see Biden saying it now - "Shut the hell up!", then wait a second, "Dumbass."

http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/7tQRKR5hmyPNHf5EvJyThQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zMzU7cT04NTt3PTUxMg--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2013-04-17T223248Z_1984094133_GM1E94I0I2C01_RTRMADP_3_USA-GUNS-OBAMA-STATEMENT.JPG
http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Breitbart-TV/2013/04/17/ObamaLecture.jpg

http://www.rankopedia.com/CandidatePix/82019.gif

I cannot stop laughing.....:lmfao:

[Sinfix_15]

Biden: 'The President Is Already Lining Up Some Additional Executive Actions' for Guns | Defend Gun Rights (http://defendgunrights.com/articles/biden-the-president-is-already-lining-up-some-additional-executive-actions-for-guns)

[Elbow]

Biden: 'The President Is Already Lining Up Some Additional Executive Actions' for Guns | Defend Gun Rights (http://defendgunrights.com/articles/biden-the-president-is-already-lining-up-some-additional-executive-actions-for-guns)

Good.

[Sinfix_15]

Good.

I agree...... let the tyrants reveal themselves to the world.

[David88vert]

I wonder ... which Watertown residents feel safer right now.....

the ones that have legal assault style weapons, or the ones without ....

considering that a bomber with a gun could try to enter any house around there right now ....

and considering that they aren't allowed to leave the area right now, and are possibly on lockdown with the madman....


Even with 9,000 officers in the Watertown area, the residents still are the line of defense for their own families. I hope that all of the residents are prepared to defend themselves, and I hope that it does not come to that.

[.blank cd]

I wonder ... which Watertown residents feel safer right now.....

the ones that have legal assault style weapons, or the ones without ....

considering that a bomber with a gun could try to enter any house around there right now ...

I think it's also fair to say that in the event of a break in, an assault style weapon probably wouldn't be the first, or even best choice of defense in this case.

[Sinfix_15]

I think it's also fair to say that in the event of a break in, an assault style weapon probably wouldn't be the first, or even best choice of defense in this case.

If you told me a bomb carrying terrorist is running on the loose in my neighborhood, im probably gonna have my AR15 within reach.

[David88vert]

I think it's also fair to say that in the event of a break in, an assault style weapon probably wouldn't be the first, or even best choice of defense in this case.

Feinstein has shotguns that hold more than 5 shells listed as assault weapons. A shotgun is generally the best choice for home defense, per Biden. Are you suggesting that the less shells that you have, and the slower that they are to reload, the safe you are? If so, why does LEOs all pack rapid load weapons, and more than 5 shells?

[.blank cd]

If you told me a bomb carrying terrorist is running on the loose in my neighborhood, im probably gonna have my AR15 within reach.

Maybe. Everyone might not have it in reach, could be taken apart in a safe.

But if your AR and a 45 caliber pistol is in front of you, what do you think would be more effective?

Do you think I could just as effectively mitigate a situation like this with only the .45?

[Sinfix_15]

Theoretical scenario...........

I look out my window to see a armed man who fits the description of a terrorist attempting to break into my shed.....

i can either....

A: Open my back door, potentially alarming the suspect who may fire on me, and then attempt to return fire with a pistol that is accurate at about 10 yards.

B: crack open the kitchen window and put 2 shots in his kneecaps with surgical precision.

[David88vert]

Theoretical scenario...........

I look out my window to see a armed man who fits the description of a terrorist attempting to break into my shed.....

i can either....

A: Open my back door, potentially alarming the suspect who may fire on me, and then attempt to return fire with a pistol that is accurate at about 10 yards.

B: crack open the kitchen window and put 2 shots in his kneecaps with surgical precision.

Theoretical ending - you go to jail for shooting him outside your house.

[.blank cd]

Theoretical scenario...........

I look out my window to see a armed man who fits the description of a terrorist attempting to break into my shed.....

i can either....

A: Open my back door, potentially alarming the suspect who may fire on me, and then attempt to return fire with a pistol that is accurate at about 10 yards.

B: crack open the kitchen window and put 2 shots in his kneecaps with surgical precision.

I could do B with a .22 and a decent scope.

And, yes, assuming that breaking into your shed while you're in the house is a threat to your life I guess.

[eraser4g63]

I could do B with a .22 and a decent scope.

No you couldn't, your assuming the .22lr would penetrate heavy clothing. In may or may not.

[Sinfix_15]

Theoretical ending - you go to jail for shooting him outside your house.

He pointed his gun at me.

[Sinfix_15]

I could do B with a .22 and a decent scope.

And, yes, assuming that breaking into your shed while you're in the house is a threat to your life I guess.

He pointed a gun at me and screamed " death to america ", pretty sure the cops would believe my story.

[.blank cd]

No you couldn't, your assuming the .22lr would penetrate heavy clothing. In may or may not.

I'm gonna need some solid evidence that it won't. I've seen it penetrate Kevlar shot through a rifle barrel (dunno if you assumed this or not since I mentioned a scope, and Sinfix said out of a window), so I'm gonna guess that denim shouldn't be an issue.

[.blank cd]

He pointed a gun at me and screamed " death to america ", pretty sure the cops would believe my story.

Path of the bullet shows it entered in the back of the knee

That'd be jail time.

[eraser4g63]

22lr has been know not to penetrate a leather jacket. Actually if you do an open records report in the city of Atlanta for a certain criminal case my real name shows up as the attending Paramedic. 19y/o male shot in the forehead with a 22lr pistol. No outward signs of trauma other than a bruise in the middle of his forehead. Perp was apprehended 30 mins later with the pistol. 22lr is notorious for being a non-penetrating round. For oy to say any different proves your ignorance of firearms and their components. Which makes your a prime candidate to legislate against them, Congrats!

[David88vert]

Your guy was using the wrong .22LR rounds then.

He probably had a cheap 40 gr round, only does around 1,000 ft/sec.

[.blank cd]

22lr has been know not to penetrate a leather jacket. Actually if you do an open records report in the city of Atlanta for a certain criminal case my real name shows up as the attending Paramedic. 19y/o male shot in the forehead with a 22lr pistol. No outward signs of trauma other than a bruise in the middle of his forehead. Perp was apprehended 30 mins later with the pistol. 22lr is notorious for being a non-penetrating round. For oy to say any different proves your ignorance of firearms and their components. Which makes your a prime candidate to legislate against them, Congrats!

I said .22lr didn't I?

Oh that's right. I didnt.

I said a pistol too, right?

...no?

Please. Continue to poke holes in my "leather jacket argument" with your ".22lr rebuttles." LOL

[eraser4g63]

Well considering that there are only a couple different .22 caliber rounds and the most prevalent is .22lr I thought that would be the easiest to talk about. I used a pistol as a direct reference because that is what my case involved. So before you puff out your chest and walk around victorious I used the most common .22 caliber round and a case I had personal experience with. I was trying to avoid you calling something a "straw man" argument. However I guess arguments or examples that don't line up with your view is either straw man or not what you ment , huh imagine that.

[David88vert]

Well considering that there are only a couple different .22 caliber rounds and the most prevalent is .22lr I thought that would be the easiest to talk about. I used a pistol as a direct reference because that is what my case involved. So before you puff out your chest and walk around victorious I used the most common .22 caliber round and a case I had personal experience with. I was trying to avoid you calling something a "straw man" argument. However I guess arguments or examples that don't line up with your view is either straw man or not what you ment , huh imagine that.

A 40 gr solid is reasonably common, so is a 30, 31, and 32 gr copper .22 LR. The lower grains have a LOT more velocity, up to about 1,700 ft/sec. That's a big difference, and you probably won't see many 40 gr .22 LR as most knowledgeable people will go for the higher velocity.

[eraser4g63]

Don't get me wrong I own several .22 caliber firearms, and love them. I however have seen and had experience with them not penetrating and lacking knock down. I would hesitate to rely on one to protect my life or my family. And when they are shot from a pistol they are horrible about penetration. And by rounds I was ref 22lr, 22mag, 22sr.

[David88vert]

Don't get me wrong I own several .22 caliber firearms, and love them. I however have seen and had experience with them not penetrating and lacking knock down. I would hesitate to rely on one to protect my life or my family. And when they are shot from a pistol they are horrible about penetration. And by rounds I was ref 22lr, 22mag, 22sr.

.22 LR is available in the sizes that I mentioned. I was not referring to short or magnum rounds. It is quite possible that you got a low velocity 40 gr, or that you had a deflected round that had lost velocity.

A .22 projectile is just the mass, in order to calculate the force, you have to have the velocity. There are a lot of factors that come into play, muzzle velocity is just one of them. If a hollow point 32 gr .22 LR is shot directly at a person's head, within 100 yards, it is almost a certainty that it will pierce it.

[.blank cd]

Well considering that there are only a couple different .22 caliber rounds and the most prevalent is .22lr I thought that would be the easiest to talk about. I used a pistol as a direct reference because that is what my case involved. So before you puff out your chest and walk around victorious I used the most common .22 caliber round and a case I had personal experience with. I was trying to avoid you calling something a "straw man" argument. However I guess arguments or examples that don't line up with your view is either straw man or not what you ment , huh imagine that.

Yes. My view is that there are different types of .22 rounds, and multiple weapons to fire them from. The discussion was about shooting an AR out of a window, I said it could be done with a .22, You interjected that it wasn't possible, and used different circumstances to support your claim. You tried to make me look like I didn't know what I was talking about by changing the variables, and you failed. Lol

Imagine that shit.

[BanginJimmy]

The reason why it didnt pass was because DEMOCRATS didnt want it. Remember the DEMS OWN the Senate. THe measure was not about background checks SOLELY, it was about banning certain assualt weapons which is a non starter.


Dems wanted GOP to filibuster and prevent a vote. That way they could attack them on it without consequence. Because the smarter Senate GOP allowed a vote, they forced Reid to put his caucus on the record. Because politicians are only out for themselves, 4 dems voted in favor of their own political survival. With the 4 dems breaking rank and voting down the bill, Reid will not allow this to come up again.