Gun Control Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bu villain

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

..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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

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

---

Yes it can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

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"

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

http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/9...0583188687.jpg

[/thread]

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

...

"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.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

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

---

No, it is a proactive solution.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

I said the discussion was prompted before Newtown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

404: Logic not found

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

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....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

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??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Did we not go over this already??

---

Do you know where and when we went over this?

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.

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

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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?