Torrence wrote:
we just don't think that automatic assault rifles make sense for today's civilian activities.
Automatic weapons are, by in large, illegal for civilian ownership. I assume you mean semi-automatic.
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- A firearm question for you Lefties
A firearm question for you LeftiesFollow
Automatic weapons are, by in large, illegal for civilian ownership. I assume you mean semi-automatic.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
Pretend you have no position on gun ownership and look at the data.
Edited, Feb 8th 2013 12:19pm by lolgaxe
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Putting Clackamas and good execution in the same sentence is a red flag by itself.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
someproteinguy wrote:
Putting Clackamas and good execution in the same sentence is a red flag by itself.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
lolgaxe wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Putting Clackamas and good execution in the same sentence is a red flag by itself.
I'm sure he's special in many ways.
So are these people.
Quote:
In the past decade, Clackamas River has burned through six general and interim managers and, because of recurring accusations of mismanagement, submitted to three expensive special audits and a half-dozen ethics and workplace complaints. Currently, the water district is entrenched in six lawsuits and an FBI inquiry.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Jophiel wrote:
Torrence wrote:
we just don't think that automatic assault rifles make sense for today's civilian activities.
Automatic weapons are, by in large, illegal for civilian ownership. I assume you mean semi-automatic.
After 86 they stopped producing them for the civilian market but you can still legally own any fully automatic rifles produced before then.
But you are right, I was specifically thinking of the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle that was used in Newtown when I posted that. Still way too much firepower for any civilian to reasonably need access to for protection and hunting.
But you are right, I was specifically thinking of the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle that was used in Newtown when I posted that. Still way too much firepower for any civilian to reasonably need access to for protection and hunting.
Also, takes about 15 minutes and a vague understanding of tools to convert to full auto.
Also, takes about 15 minutes and a vague understanding of tools to convert to full auto.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
An AR-15? Ha, easier just to build a machine gun from scratch.
Edited, Feb 8th 2013 2:24pm by lolgaxe
Edited, Feb 8th 2013 2:24pm by lolgaxe
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
I'd like to point out that non homicidal gun deaths, e.g. suicides and accidental shooting deaths, are also worthy of prevention too.
Torrence wrote:
I was specifically thinking of the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle that was used in Newtown
Possession and use are separate ******* things.
Quote:
I'd like to point out that non homicidal gun deaths, e.g. suicides and accidental shooting deaths, are also worthy of prevention too.
I disagree. If someone wants to off themselves, hey, more soylent green for me.
BrownDuck wrote:
Torrence wrote:
I was specifically thinking of the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle that was used in Newtown
Possession and use are separate @#%^ing things.
Not really sure what you are trying to say. The conversation around the country is about what firearms are reasonable for the average citizen to own. That rifle is currently one of them, and if it hadn't been, it's doubtful that Nancy Lanza would have had it since she did have all her firearms registered properly. If she hadn't possessed it, her son couldn't have used it to murder almost thirty people.
If she hadn't left it in the fridge next to the sandwiches her son couldn't have used it to murder almost thirty people, either.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Torrence wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Torrence wrote:
I was specifically thinking of the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle that was used in Newtown
Possession and use are separate @#%^ing things.
Not really sure what you are trying to say. The conversation around the country is about what firearms are reasonable for the average citizen to own. That rifle is currently one of them, and if it hadn't been, it's doubtful that Nancy Lanza would have had it since she did have all her firearms registered properly. If she hadn't possessed it, her son couldn't have used it to murder almost thirty people.
I assumed BD was talking about the controversy over whether the Newtown whack job actully used that particular rifle or if it was just in the trunk of the car. I have heard conflicting stories and I am not sure what the final consensus was. Some have said there were two rifles, and the one in the car was a spare.
Edited, Feb 8th 2013 3:24pm by Belkira
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Remember when I said you were making points irrelevant to the argument? You're doing it again. That's why people are wondering where you're getting these gun-free zones/concealment laws. It's because you're bypassing the overall concerns expressed by the people and arguing your points that are irrelevant to the subject.
Huh? I'd wager that 8 out of the 10 pages of this thread have consisted of me arguing for elimination of gun free zones and broadening of concealed carry, and several other people arguing against me. That's hardly "irrelevant". It's what this thread has largely been about. It's only been in the last page that someone piped up with the whole "but that's not what anyone's arguing about". Um... It's what I'm arguing about. I don't really care what you think other people want to argue over.
Edited, Feb 7th 2013 4:20pm by gbaji
I'd wager that 8 of 10 pages of this forum, people were wondering why you were bringing up irrelevant points. You might as well talk about immigration reform. All you're doing is intentionally avoiding the topic by scapegoating everything that avoids actually involving implementing gun control.
Torrence wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Torrence wrote:
we just don't think that automatic assault rifles make sense for today's civilian activities.
Automatic weapons are, by in large, illegal for civilian ownership. I assume you mean semi-automatic.
After 86 they stopped producing them for the civilian market but you can still legally own any fully automatic rifles produced before then.
But you are right, I was specifically thinking of the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle that was used in Newtown when I posted that. Still way too much firepower for any civilian to reasonably need access to for protection and hunting.
You might want to check your facts. Fully automatic weapons were pretty much outlawed in 1934 for civilian ownership unless you had a Class III or higher FFL.
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam
Sedao
Sedao
Kastigir wrote:
You might want to check your facts. Fully automatic weapons were pretty much outlawed in 1934 for civilian ownership unless you had a Class III or higher FFL.
What part of my statement was factually inaccurate? Civilians can own machine guns that were manufactured before 86. I didn't say it was easy to register one - you have to have an FBI background check, fingerprints, letters from law officials and other stuff - I just said they could.
Torrence wrote:
Kastigir wrote:
You might want to check your facts. Fully automatic weapons were pretty much outlawed in 1934 for civilian ownership unless you had a Class III or higher FFL.
What part of my statement was factually inaccurate? Civilians can own machine guns that were manufactured before 86. I didn't say it was easy to register one - you have to have an FBI background check, fingerprints, letters from law officials and other stuff - I just said they could.
I guess "factually" you're correct, but your statement made it seem "trivially easy" to own an automatic weapon.
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam
Sedao
Sedao
Belkira wrote:
Torrence wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Torrence wrote:
I was specifically thinking of the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle that was used in Newtown
Possession and use are separate @#%^ing things.
Not really sure what you are trying to say. The conversation around the country is about what firearms are reasonable for the average citizen to own. That rifle is currently one of them, and if it hadn't been, it's doubtful that Nancy Lanza would have had it since she did have all her firearms registered properly. If she hadn't possessed it, her son couldn't have used it to murder almost thirty people.
I assumed BD was talking about the controversy over whether the Newtown whack job actully used that particular rifle or if it was just in the trunk of the car. I have heard conflicting stories and I am not sure what the final consensus was. Some have said there were two rifles, and the one in the car was a spare.
This, but more so, the official police report stated that only the two pistols were fired at the school. I heard conflicting reports about which weapon was used to kill his mother, but the evidence released makes it pretty clear that the rifle remained in the car during the school assault. People like to keep throwing it out there because it makes the story more sensational, but it's blatantly false information.
Smasharoo wrote:
The hundreds of thousands used in "non mass" homicides are unimportant, clearly.
Clearly. If they were important to the Obama administration, then why wait for a mass shooting to push for changes to the small vendor loophole?
Torrence wrote:
Quote:
Why do you really oppose gun ownership?
Many of us don't oppose it at all, we just don't think that automatic assault rifles make sense for today's civilian activities.
Good thing those have been illegal for civilian activities since the 1930s then!
Quote:
There's guns designed for hunting and protection, and others designed to just kill as many people with as little effort in a short a time as possible. That latter type of gun only belongs in the hands of trained military or police personnel - not strapped to Joe the Bookkeeper's back.
Do you see why some of us on the right have a hard time taking that position seriously when you insist on associating those other weapons with the phrase "automatic assault rifles"? You'd sound a lot more reasonable if you stopped doing that.
Quote:
As far as you wanting to expand concealed carry because it would help to deter such crimes - not sure that would help. Expanding open carry might, because when 20 year old 130lbs soaking wet psycho #93849 looks around and sees four or five tough looking guys with a handguns on their hips, he might think twice about taking that AR-15 out from under his trench coat and opening fire into the crowd.
No. If concealed carry is not allowed, but open carry is, he'll just find a place where he doesn't see people with openly carried handguns on their hips and open fire. If concealed carry is allowed, then he can't know if someone in the crowd has a firearm and can't therefore pick a time and location where he can maximize the body count. This might deter him or might not, but it will certainly increase the odds that someone will be in the immediate vicinity of the shooting with the ability to actually do something about it.
Quote:
Then again, he might not. It still seems like it would be better to just take that AR-15 out of the equation entirely.
Except you can't. Well, you can ban the "AR-15", but then he'll just use some other weapon. Taking the AR-15 out of the equation would not have stopped the Virginia Tech shooter. You're chasing the wrong end of the equation. Banning the current weapon of choice will just make something else become the weapon of choice. That's a never ending process that can only end in banning of all firearms, which everyone claims is not really the objective. So if we don't want to ban all firearms, then we should maybe come up with an idea that can't work unless we do just that.
Edited, Feb 8th 2013 5:16pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Like, say, much heavier restrictions on firearms without banning them?
I'm sure that's never been tried anywhere before. Uganda, maybe.
I'm sure that's never been tried anywhere before. Uganda, maybe.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Smasharoo wrote:
But you are right, I was specifically thinking of the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle that was used in Newtown when I posted that. Still way too much firepower for any civilian to reasonably need access to for protection and hunting.
Also, takes about 15 minutes and a vague understanding of tools to convert to full auto.
Also, takes about 15 minutes and a vague understanding of tools to convert to full auto.
Strange that the Newtown shooter didn't take the time to do that. Nor the Colorado Theater shooter. Nor either of the mall shooters mentioned earlier. Or the Columbine shooters. So what was your point again?
Oh. And how many of those "hundreds of thousands" of gun crimes are committed with such modified weapons? It's a scary myth told to people who don't know any better.
Edited, Feb 8th 2013 5:18pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Jophiel wrote:
Like, say, much heavier restrictions on firearms without banning them?
What restrictions would meet the desired criteria but would not require a ban of sufficient breadth that it could not be passed under the 2nd amendment? We're talking about window dressing here Joph. It's pablum to soothe the angry and ignorant masses. But when the next shooting still occurs despite whatever regulations are passed, what then? When do we realize that this approach wont work and actually look at the ones that will have a measurable benefit?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Ah, here you were saying "Nothing will work without banning all guns!" and then the response to "We don't need to ban all guns" is apparently "That won't work! MORE GUNS!!!"
Right. Well, keep tootin' that horn.
Right. Well, keep tootin' that horn.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Ah, here you were saying "Nothing will work without banning all guns!" and then the response to "We don't need to ban all guns" is apparently "That won't work! MORE GUNS!!!"
And yet, when I asked what restrictions on firearms (short of banning to the point of violation of the 2nd amendment) would be effective at preventing these kinds of shootings, you didn't give me an answer.
Edited, Feb 8th 2013 5:47pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Recent Visitors: 291
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (291)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- A firearm question for you Lefties
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC