Where's the NRA

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
d712,
In the other thread you posted that the newspaper in new York that posted names addresses and a map of registered gun owners was well within it's 1st amendment rights. As much as it is an invasion of those people's privacy this right is protected. But you don't really seem to like the second amendment much. The problem is the constitution and in particular the bill of rights is the reason we still have a free society. If, over time, we changed our principles in reaction to every abhorrent event, or as a result of perceived hot button issues of the day our society would look much different today than it does now. When you say things like "why does anybody need an assault rifle", it sounds much to me like those people who try to limit free speech. You also sound very hippo critical when you post about first amendment protections but in the next post minimize the second amendment as an outdated idea that has no place in the modern world. That may be your opinion but that amendment was put there for a reason. Also please stop posting about contacting the families of the victims in Newtown. It really serves no purpose here and makes you look like an a**hole. By the way I still think you are a troll.

Members don't see this ad.
 
And what's your argument? That we should enact sweeping change, that will surely only be followed by the law-abiding citizens, to restrict a constitutional right, in an attempt to POSSIBLY limit/reduce the amount of people killed in "mass murder" scenarios......all based on a recent event that is arguably an outlier? I mean come on.

I tend to look at things in a "return on investment" kind of way, what would be a better use of our dollars, especially in this day and age; reducing all cause mortality with improved health care/diet or passing legislation that MAY help save ~30-100 individuals in the next few years, again, at the cost of limiting the rights of millions?

Don't interpret this as me not caring about the tragedy. I think its horrible. And I don't even own a gun. But I think its obvious that the unfortunate error here was with the storage of the gun, and the parenting. Why not increase the punishment for inappropriate storage etc by the gun owner?

And obviously the high fructose corn syrup example was a jest although I'd be ok with it because jujubees suck.

I don't interpret your choices/opinions as not caring. We all care. It's just the means to an end that we disagree on. As for my angle, it's plastered all over SDN. :).
 
d712,
In the other thread you posted that the newspaper in new York that posted names addresses and a map of registered gun owners was well within it's 1st amendment rights. As much as it is an invasion of those people's privacy this right is protected. But you don't really seem to like the second amendment much. The problem is the constitution and in particular the bill of rights is the reason we still have a free society. If, over time, we changed our principles in reaction to every abhorrent event, or as a result of perceived hot button issues of the day our society would look much different today than it does now. When you say things like "why does anybody need an assault rifle", it sounds much to me like those people who try to limit free speech. You also sound very hippo critical when you post about first amendment protections but in the next post minimize the second amendment as an outdated idea that has no place in the modern world. That may be your opinion but that amendment was put there for a reason. Also please stop posting about contacting the families of the victims in Newtown. It really serves no purpose here and makes you look like an a**hole. By the way I still think you are a troll.

A troll because u don't like my opinions. Nice. I've actively participated in clinical, research discussions... oh who gives a ****. Why bother.

D712
 
Members don't see this ad :)
d712,
In the other thread you posted that the newspaper in new York that posted names addresses and a map of registered gun owners was well within it's 1st amendment rights. As much as it is an invasion of those people's privacy this right is protected. But you don't really seem to like the second amendment much. The problem is the constitution and in particular the bill of rights is the reason we still have a free society. If, over time, we changed our principles in reaction to every abhorrent event, or as a result of perceived hot button issues of the day our society would look much different today than it does now. When you say things like "why does anybody need an assault rifle", it sounds much to me like those people who try to limit free speech. You also sound very hippo critical when you post about first amendment protections but in the next post minimize the second amendment as an outdated idea that has no place in the modern world. That may be your opinion but that amendment was put there for a reason. Also please stop posting about contacting the families of the victims in Newtown. It really serves no purpose here and makes you look like an a**hole. By the way I still think you are a troll.

-The word "privacy" does not appear in the constituion. It is inferred.

"The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments."

Interestingly it is the Scalias and Thomass and Borks of the world that deny the constitutional right to privacy. The same types of judges that the strong supporters of the second amendment tend to prefer.

D712 is right on the money on this one. Freedom means the right to make choices that you don't agree with. I have the right to carry a gun or stockpile lots of guns and ammunition. Many question why I would do this. Many don't like that I have this right. That I choose to is a sufficient answer. So it is with this newspaper. They don't like my motives or choices or beliefs. I don't like theirs.
 
I agree with you, that was my point. D712 seems to be very interested in the first amendment but seems to think its ok to pick and choose what he likes as far as the bill of rights goes. When I mentioned privacy above I was saying it was well within the rights of the paper to publish those names and addresses because of the first amendment. Personally I think that it is an invasion of privacy for those whose names were published but as you stated that right is not protected. The point of my post was that d712 seems to like the protection the bill of rights affords us but only when he agrees with what it is protecting.
 
A troll because u don't like my opinions. Nice. I've actively participated in clinical, research discussions... oh who gives a ****. Why bother.

D712

Your opinions don't really matter to me. It's your sanctimonious tone and the fact that most of your posts seem to ba a challenge for anybody to disagree with you. Believe me, I get the call for changes in gun regulation. I think some positive steps could be taken to keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them. But you seem to like to badger the people on this board who are the most adamant 2nd amendment supporters. I have news for you, you aren't going to change their minds. I think you know that, I think you just like to have a soap box to stand on.
 
I agree with you, that was my point. D712 seems to be very interested in the first amendment but seems to think its ok to pick and choose what he likes as far as the bill of rights goes. When I mentioned privacy above I was saying it was well within the rights of the paper to publish those names and addresses because of the first amendment. Personally I think that it is an invasion of privacy for those whose names were published but as you stated that right is not protected. The point of my post was that d712 seems to like the protection the bill of rights affords us but only when he agrees with what it is protecting.

Please show me when (not in a mocking way) I support first amendment rights and do not support second amendment rights? Please.

My stance has been the same here on SDN since I started posting, and I've stated and supported it time and again: EVERY RIGHT has its limits. Period. I will agree that I think certain rights should be more limited, simply because they can do more immediate and deadly damage. (guns). I am an avid supporter of the Schenck case (I think that was the name, haven't read cases in a while, but it rings a bell), and other cases that limit freedom of speech when appropriate. I've never really argued that I have a problem with censorship because I don't really feel -- as a working television writer - that I have ever been unduly censored. If I want to say **** **** **** on television, then why would I sign a contract with NBC as they don't allow those words. I'm not a hypocrite at all. If I write for HBO, then I use wording appropriate with off-network viewers and S&P.

You're just picking on a writer and labeling me a first amendment nut. Not the case. Really.

D712
 
Last edited:
Freedom means the right to make choices that you don't agree with. I have the right to carry a gun or stockpile lots of guns and ammunition. Many question why I would do this. Many don't like that I have this right. That I choose to is a sufficient answer. So it is with this newspaper. They don't like my motives or choices or beliefs. I don't like theirs.

Precisely.

D712
 
Your opinions don't really matter to me. It's your sanctimonious tone and the fact that most of your posts seem to ba a challenge for anybody to disagree with you. Believe me, I get the call for changes in gun regulation. I think some positive steps could be taken to keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them. But you seem to like to badger the people on this board who are the most adamant 2nd amendment supporters. I have news for you, you aren't going to change their minds. I think you know that, I think you just like to have a soap box to stand on.

Yeah, I'm the only one with the tone on this thread and the other one. Okeeeeey doooookey.

I'm aware that I won't change their minds. It's sad.

Can you now scold PGG, JWK and Blade for standing on their soapboxes?

D712
 
Home / Issues / Assault Weapons







Stopping the spread of deadly assault weapons



Stay informed

In January, Senator Feinstein will introduce a bill to stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devices.

To receive updates on this legislation, click here.




Press releases
Feinstein to Introduce Updated Assault Weapons Bill in New Congress, December 17, 2012
Feinstein Statement on Connecticut School Shooting, December 14, 2012



Summary of 2013 legislation

Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:
Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
120 specifically-named firearms;
Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and
Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;
Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test; and
Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.
Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and
Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.
Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
Background check of owner and any transferee;
Type and serial number of the firearm;
Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.

A pdf of the bill summary is available here.



Effectiveness of 1994-2004 Assault Weapons Ban

Following are studies that have been conducted on the 1994-2004 Assault Weapons Ban:
In a Department of Justice study (pdf), Jeffrey Roth and Christopher Koper find that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was responsible for a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders, holding all other factors equal. They write: “Assault weapons are disproportionately involved in murders with multiple victims, multiple wounds per victim, and police officers as victims.”
Original source (page 2): Jeffrey A. Roth & Christopher S. Koper, “Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994,” The Urban Institute (March 1997).
In a University of Pennsylvania study (pdf), Christopher Koper reports that the use of assault weapons in crime declined by more than two-thirds by about nine years after 1994 Assault Weapons Ban took effect.
Original source (page 46): Christopher S. Koper, “An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003” (June 2004).
In a Washington Post story, reporters David Fallis and James Grimaldi write that the percentage of firearms seized by police in Virginia with high-capacity magazines dropped significantly during the Assault Weapons Ban. That figure has doubled since the ban expired.
Original source: In Virginia, high-yield clip seizures rise. By David S. Fallis and James V. Grimaldi, Washington Post.
In a letter to the editor in the American Journal of Public Health (pdf), Douglas Weil and Rebecca Knox explain that when Maryland imposed a more stringent ban on assault pistols and high-capacity magazines in 1994, it led to a 55 percent drop in assault pistols recovered by the Baltimore Police Department.
Original source (pages 297-298): Douglas S. Weil & Rebecca C. Knox, "Letter to the Editor, The Maryland Ban on the Sale of Assault Pistols and High-Capacity Magazines: Estimating the Impact in Baltimore," 87 American Journal of Public Health 2, Feb. 1997, at 297-98.
A recent study by the Violence Policy Center finds that between 2005 and 2007, one in four law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty was killed with an assault weapon.
Original source (pages 6-7): Violence Policy Center, "Target: Law Enforcement—Assault Weapons in the News," (Feb. 2010).
A report by the Police Executive Research Forum finds that 37 percent of police departments reported seeing a noticeable increase in criminals’ use of assault weapons since the Assault Weapons Ban expired.
Original source (page 2): Police Executive Research Forum, "Guns and Crime: Breaking New Ground by Focusing on the Local Impact," (May 2010).



Assault weapons in the news
NRA misleads on assault weapons (Salon, Dec. 26, 2012)
"Dems to push for more sweeping assault weapons ban" (Washington Post, Dec. 20, 2012)
"A conservative case for an assault weapons ban" (Los Angeles Times, Dec. 20, 2012)
"Obama Vows Fast Action in New Push for Gun Control" (New York Times, Dec. 19, 2012)
"Trying, again, to ban assault weapons" (Los Angeles Times, Dec. 17, 2012)
"Stop the sale of assault weapons" (San Francisco Chronicle, Dec. 17, 2012)
"Reason to Hope After the Newtown Rampage" (New York Times, Dec. 17, 2012)
 
Some reading and food for thought...an op-ed by a NYC Medical Doctor...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/opinion/at-the-er-bearing-witness-to-gun-violence.html?_r=2&

Not re-opening debate, just an important read with a few interesting stats. Not sure this was the best OP-ED the NYTimes has ever published, but I'm glad they did.

D712

+1

I don't have any axes to grind in the gun control debate, except for that I firmly oppose the status quo. If you're not going to control guns, tell me what you are going to do.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
doctor712 said:
Not re-opening debate, just an important read with a few interesting stats. Not sure this was the best OP-ED the NYTimes has ever published, but I'm glad they did.

D712
Well of course you are.

Let's remember that this editorial comes out of New York, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and yet these tragedies still happen. Ditto for Chicago - tight gun laws there but more than 500 murders in 2012. Yeah, those gun laws are REALLY helping.

+1

I don't have any axes to grind in the gun control debate, except ...

Of course you do.

Before we enact more laws that aren't going to make a difference, like an "assault weapon" ban (BTW, D712, I'm still waiting for you to define an "assault weapon" for me) how about we start enforcing the laws that are already on the books? You realize that gun prosecutions at the federal level are down significantly since Barry took office, right?
 
Before we enact more laws that aren't going to make a difference, like an "assault weapon" ban (BTW, D712, I'm still waiting for you to define an "assault weapon" for me) how about we start enforcing the laws that are already on the books?

Ok, so your solution is stricter enforcement of currently-existing laws. That might work.

It occurred to me to ask, though: if we're so bad at enforcement of current laws, why are all the gun-rights people so terrified of new laws? Wouldn't past experience suggest that we wouldn't enforce the new laws, either?
 
Also, if "Barry" refuses to enforce gun laws, how come all the pro-gun folks don't support people like "Barry" who will leave them and their guns alone?

I hear two things all the time that don't seem to cohere: "Obama wants to take my guns away" and "Obama won't prosecute anyone for gun violations."
 
Ok, so your solution is stricter enforcement of currently-existing laws. That might work.

It occurred to me to ask, though: if we're so bad at enforcement of current laws, why are all the gun-rights people so terrified of new laws? Wouldn't past experience suggest that we wouldn't enforce the new laws, either?

You totally miss the point. If we enforced the laws that are on the books, perhaps we might not need new ones. We're not "terrified of new laws" (except those that limit our constitutional rights). We just don't see what the point is of passing new laws just to make some politicians and left-leaning physicians happy.
 
You totally miss the point. If we enforced the laws that are on the books, perhaps we might not need new ones. We're not "terrified of new laws" (except those that limit our constitutional rights). We just don't see what the point is of passing new laws just to make some politicians and left-leaning physicians happy.

I'm not arguing with you; I agree that passing non-inforced laws is bad practice (e.g. anti-marijuana laws) and that laws abrogating constitutional rights are also bad (e.g. Bush/Obama warrantless wiretapping under FISA, championed by Dianne Feinstein, which infringes on our fourth amendment rights).

If even half of the fierce 2nd amendment defenders would defend the 4th amendment as fiercely, I'd be so happy.
 
Also, if "Barry" refuses to enforce gun laws, how come all the pro-gun folks don't support people like "Barry" who will leave them and their guns alone?

I hear two things all the time that don't seem to cohere: "Obama wants to take my guns away" and "Obama won't prosecute anyone for gun violations."

Clearly you're confused.

Conservatives would be perfectly happy if Obama would actually enforce existing gun laws, making at least some attempt to keep guns away from those who aren't legally entitled to possess them. Follow the laws that are on the books. However, "Fast and Furious" has taught us that he's simply not interested in keeping guns away from those who shouldn't have them.

That's a whole different concept from taking legally purchased firearms away from those who are legally entitled to own them.
 
Since this thread came back up, an interesting blog post as well, by a hollywood Jew no less :naughty: Not a big fan of the flowery writing, but others are, so

http://www.seraphicpress.com/jew-without-a-gun/

This guy writes: "It’s just another opportunity for the left to centralize power."

It's that kind of blog post. Long on rhetoric, short on clarity and coherence. An exercise in self-indulgence.
 
This guy writes: "It's just another opportunity for the left to centralize power."

It's that kind of blog post. Long on rhetoric, short on clarity and coherence. An exercise in self-indulgence.

While I agree with you to a large extent, I do think plays at gun control historically been largely power-motivated, more so than for the safety of citizens. In this country though, I'd say it's more so motivated by votes (which I suppose is also power-motivated, but in a different light). Same deal for republicans playing the opposite end of the aisle though.

My reason for deviating from numbers-based posts is just because this blogger has a similar background to d172

With regard to the 4th amendment, the adamant 2nd amendment advocates I know also tend to be ardent with regards to 4A rights.
 
Clearly you're confused.

Oh, yes, I agree. Many of your conservative fellow-travelers confuse the hell out of me.


That's a whole different concept from taking legally purchased firearms away from those who are legally entitled to own them.

I understand the opposition to strengthening current laws, but I do admit to some bafflement about the right's fear that agents of Obama are going to "take my guns away." In yours and my lifetime, when has the government ever confiscated people's guns?

It's an honest question. I can't recall any examples, but that doesn't mean there aren't any.
 
Oh, yes, I agree. Many of your conservative fellow-travelers confuse the hell out of me.




I understand the opposition to strengthening current laws, but I do admit to some bafflement about the right's fear that agents of Obama are going to "take my guns away." In yours and my lifetime, when has the government ever confiscated people's guns?

It's an honest question. I can't recall any examples, but that doesn't mean there aren't any.

Hurricane Katrina. I agree though that the possibility of a nationwide confiscation is essentially nil
 
I do think plays at gun control historically been largely power-motivated, more so than for the safety of citizens.

I'm willing to provisionally agree. The thing I worry about is that in the last 15 years, the govt. has accumulated the power to

a) incarcerate you without trial, indefinitely
b) kill you on the say-so of the President. Only requirement is that the Prez. has to use the word "terrorism." That's a pretty low hurdle to clear.
c) tap your phone and read your email, without a warrant, and without alerting you to the fact that your phone and email are being monitored.

Put those three together and all the elements of a totalitarian police state are in place and ready to go.

Are we living in a totalitarian police state now? I don't think so -- but the elements are all there to implement one with the snap of some bureaucrat's finger.

In this environment, I'm a lot more wary of gun-control than I was back when George HW Bush was in office. Which is sad, because I think the NRA is completely nuts when they talk about posting armed guards in every elementary school. Wayne LaPierre has fallen off the deep end. More gun control (even of the "use two hands" variety) would keep nutjobs like Adam Lanza away from guns, and that would be a GOOD THING.

I also think it's sad that the domestic right-wing has been so complicit in their support of arbitrary executive power since 9-11. In my own experience I haven't found a lot of 2A supporters giving much of a **** that Dianne Feinstein is eroding their 4A rights, but oh, how I'd love it if they did

Now the Left is having their turn at prostrating themselves in the name of the "war on terror", but that does not excuse the right wing one little bit. It just renders both right and left guilty in being stooges for authoritarian government, and for cowardice.
 
Hurricane Katrina. I agree though that the possibility of a nationwide confiscation is essentially nil

I think that is accurate based on the ability to execute this policy at this time.
I think that this does not mean that it is not the intent of many to do so. There are plenty of people who want to completely disarm individuals.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm willing to provisionally agree. The thing I worry about is that in the last 15 years, the govt. has accumulated the power to

a) incarcerate you without trial, indefinitely
b) kill you on the say-so of the President. Only requirement is that the Prez. has to use the word "terrorism." That's a pretty low hurdle to clear.
c) tap your phone and read your email, without a warrant, and without alerting you to the fact that your phone and email are being monitored.

Put those three together and all the elements of a totalitarian police state are in place and ready to go.

Are we living in a totalitarian police state now? I don't think so -- but the elements are all there to implement one with the snap of some bureaucrat's finger.

In this environment, I'm a lot more wary of gun-control than I was back when George HW Bush was in office. Which is sad, because I think the NRA is completely nuts when they talk about posting armed guards in every elementary school. Wayne LaPierre has fallen off the deep end. More gun control (even of the "use two hands" variety) would keep nutjobs like Adam Lanza away from guns, and that would be a GOOD THING.

I also think it's sad that the domestic right-wing has been so complicit in their support of arbitrary executive power since 9-11. In my own experience I haven't found a lot of 2A supporters giving much of a **** that Dianne Feinstein is eroding their 4A rights, but oh, how I'd love it if they did

Now the Left is having their turn at prostrating themselves in the name of the "war on terror", but that does not excuse the right wing one little bit. It just renders both right and left guilty in being stooges for authoritarian government, and for cowardice.


I agree pretty much whole heartedly with you, frankly. The only real issue I'd take with anything you wrote is something you didn't write (the how of keeping guns out of the hands of individuals like Lanza). Given that mass murder is a small phenomenon (relative to other issues), I'm sensitive in how much I think is reasonable to give up rights-wise in exchange for a possible reduction in mass murder rate.
 

Without wholly endorsing it, this is a pretty thoughtful article; I do think ol' Sam Harris is a solid guy.

Tangentially, I am disappointed by this: " For instance, it is estimated that 100,000 Americans die each year because doctors and nurses fail to wash their hands properly."

Sam, Sam.... this is a problem of a completely different order of magnitude and character. No one who isn't already very tenuous dies because the doc didn't wash his/her hands properly. These deaths are not "excess" deaths, like the deaths caused by firearms are. If those 100,000 hadn't died from dirty doctor hands, they'd have died from their underlying severe illness and poor health, because of some other minor perturbation.

I'm reminded of the Institute of Medicine's "To Err is Human", and their analogizing the patients "killed" by medical error to the deaths of a 747s worth of passengers in a plane crash, every day!

It's a misleading comparison that confuses the issue.
 
Since this thread came back up, an interesting blog post as well, by a hollywood Jew no less :naughty: Not a big fan of the flowery writing, but others are, so

http://www.seraphicpress.com/jew-without-a-gun/

Just as Obamacare has nothing to do with health, and cap and trade has nothing to do with so-called global warming, anti-gun laws have nothing to do with saving children’s lives.

It’s just another opportunity for the left to centralize power.


:thumbup:

yep, that is ALL what it is and what the GOAL is
 
Oh, yes, I agree. Many of your conservative fellow-travelers confuse the hell out of me.




I understand the opposition to strengthening current laws, but I do admit to some bafflement about the right's fear that agents of Obama are going to "take my guns away." In yours and my lifetime, when has the government ever confiscated people's guns?

It's an honest question. I can't recall any examples, but that doesn't mean there aren't any.

It never happens until it actually HAPPENS.

Cuomo is already absolutely freely using the word - confiscation it is.

That has a very bad predictive value


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/n...ill-outline-gun-measures-next-month.html?_r=0
he said: “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”
 
Well of course you are.

Let's remember that this editorial comes out of New York, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and yet these tragedies still happen. Ditto for Chicago - tight gun laws there but more than 500 murders in 2012. Yeah, those gun laws are REALLY helping.



Of course you do.

Before we enact more laws that aren't going to make a difference, like an "assault weapon" ban (BTW, D712, I'm still waiting for you to define an "assault weapon" for me) how about we start enforcing the laws that are already on the books? You realize that gun prosecutions at the federal level are down significantly since Barry took office, right?

JwK,

When was the last 20 person murder rampage with an assault weapon in NYC? Please get back to me on that.
So you think NY should loosen its gun regulations? :laugh::laugh:
It's frustrating when a trained scientist cannot (you) analyze even mixed data and have an independent opinion aside from a great love of the 2nd amendment. I'm happy to have a Federal Agent from NYC discuss the matter with you. Have you been face-to-face with killers on the street that are armed?

Of course you haven't. You're all comfy cozy in the OR cleaning up the mess.

You're right about one thing, more strict gun laws are needed in Chicago and NY. :thumbup: But of course you don't think we have a gun problem in the US. When 20 times the entire population of gun killed in the UK are shot in Chicago EACH year.

Thanks much,
D712
 
Last edited:
Well of course you are.

Let's remember that this editorial comes out of New York, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and yet these tragedies still happen. Ditto for Chicago - tight gun laws there but more than 500 murders in 2012. Yeah, those gun laws are REALLY helping.



Of course you do.

Before we enact more laws that aren't going to make a difference, like an "assault weapon" ban (BTW, D712, I'm still waiting for you to define an "assault weapon" for me) how about we start enforcing the laws that are already on the books? You realize that gun prosecutions at the federal level are down significantly since Barry took office, right?

I would stick to your area of expertise JWK, and facing a gun-toting criminal isn't in that area. When speaking to numerous Feds, your views become laughable.

D712
 
(BTW, D712, I'm still waiting for you to define an "assault weapon" for me)

Do you want D712's definition, the Federal Ban's definition, Dianne Feinstein's definition, the cosmetic definition?

Tell me, why should I bother lifting a finger for you at this point, and what the hell does the definition have to do with this debate?

Big, bad guns that shoot big bad bullets at relatively higher rates of speed (more damaging, right? F=ma) , that are capable of carrying extended magazines and shooting automatically and are similar in size/style and capabilities of Military Weapons is ONE DEFINITION. Lemme do this visually.

.357 not an Assault weapon.

Single shot hunting rifle, not an assault weapon.

Uzi, AK, AR, Bushmaster, and the like...assault weapons.

The ban should START there and then deal with ECMs.

Or, we could just put our hands in the air because of a sheet of paper from the 18th Century and hang our coats on that.

Either way.

D712
 
(except those that limit our constitutional rights).

All Constitutional rights have limits. Any particular reason you have not been able to grasp this concept yet? It's hundreds of years old...

D712
 
glorfindel said:
Also, if "Barry" refuses to enforce gun laws, how come all the pro-gun folks don't support people like "Barry" who will leave them and their guns alone?

It's simple.

Obama and Holder etc are doing a poor job of enforcing the gun laws to keep them out of the hands of prohibited persons (felons). Worse than that, there's Fast & Furious - a ridiculous ATF operation which deliberately put guns in the hands of felons.

On the other side, Obama and Feinstein are attempting to pass laws restricting the guns that law-abiding citizens can own.

I don't understand your confusion.


I understand the opposition to strengthening current laws, but I do admit to some bafflement about the right's fear that agents of Obama are going to "take my guns away." In yours and my lifetime, when has the government ever confiscated people's guns?

It's an honest question. I can't recall any examples, but that doesn't mean there aren't any.

It happens every day in California, because of the Diane Feinstein "assault" weapon ban.

Grandfathered registered "assault" weapons can not be passed on to heirs. When the owner dies, that property is confiscated by the state and destroyed. The CA AWB was specifically written to attempt to eliminate those guns and take them away from citizens. It's written with a diabolical patience - but the goal is clear, and it would be working, except that the law was so poorly written that millions of "off-list" guns have been legal to purchase.


Also - why is your litmus test "yours and my lifetime"? You think that because something hasn't happened in the last 30-odd years (maybe 70 in jwk's case ;)) it can't happen now?
 
Also - why is your litmus test "yours and my lifetime"? You think that because something hasn't happened in the last 30-odd years (maybe 70 in jwk's case ;)) it can't happen now?

Stop worrying so much, PGG. I think that was your advice to me once...

Eat, drink and be merry. Check your guns at the door. I guess you were one of those Mayan dudes, eh?

D712
 
Do you want D712's definition, the Federal Ban's definition, Dianne Feinstein's definition, the cosmetic definition?

Tell me, why should I bother lifting a finger for you at this point, and what the hell does the definition have to do with this debate?

Big, bad guns that shoot big bad bullets at relatively higher rates of speed (more damaging, right? F=ma) , that are capable of carrying extended magazines and shooting automatically and are similar in size/style and capabilities of Military Weapons is ONE DEFINITION. Lemme do this visually.

.357 not an Assault weapon.

Single shot hunting rifle, not an assault weapon.

Uzi, AK, AR, Bushmaster, and the like...assault weapons.

The ban should START there and then deal with ECMs.

Or, we could just put our hands in the air because of a sheet of paper from the 18th Century and hang our coats on that.

Either way.

D712

None of that is a definition. I'm not trying to be antagonistic. It's just truly completely unhelpful in defining an assault weapon. You're working from a shallow knowledge-base firearm wise and it shows
 
None of that is a definition. I'm not trying to be antagonistic. It's just truly completely unhelpful in defining an assault weapon. You're working from a shallow knowledge-base firearm wise and it shows

I defined it MY way. I also offered to give the Fed Ban definition, which is easy to look up.
So, not trying to antagonistic, if you feel like looking it up, look it up. I'm not here to prove my "weapons" knowledge.

None of those kids in Newtown knew what an AR was, until it shot them in the face.

Clear? Clear.

I'll read up on YOUR definition of assault weapons when JWK does some reading up on the framing of the US Constitution. :thumbup:

Here's my shallow knowledge base... gun accidents kill 1000s of kids and adults in the US every year. guns that shoot more bullets per minute kill more. guns that carry more bullets kill more. (the data is on this site and published). guns that shoot higher velocity bullets do more damage. Any questions? Trigger. Pull. Kill. I don't to be a ****ing Navy Seal slick.

D712
 
I defined it MY way. I also offered to give the Fed Ban definition, which is easy to look up.
So, not trying to antagonistic, if you feel like looking it up, look it up. I'm not here to prove my "weapons" knowledge.

None of those kids in Newtown knew what an AR was, until it shot them in the face.

Clear? Clear.

I'll read up on YOUR definition of assault weapons when JWK does some reading up on the framing of the US Constitution. :thumbup:

D712

I'm aware of the federal ban's definition. It did little to prevent access to semi-automatic high power rifles. It was decent at preventing access to new "evil looking" rifles, pistols, and other small arms. Making a definition of an assault weapon that includes semiautomatic weapons is exceedingly difficult if you want to remain realistic with what could be plausibly be banned
 
I'm aware of the federal ban's definition. It did little to prevent access to semi-automatic high power rifles. It was decent at preventing access to new "evil looking" rifles, pistols, and other small arms

Reread my edited post.

And yes, some data suggest the ban helped. We've been over this. One side (yours) says otherwise. Mine says so in the affirmative. Let's not look back, let's look forward.

D712
 
627967_01_cobray_pm_11_9mm_semi_640.jpg


legal during the federal AWB. I'm sure you think it should be banned based on appearance, but frankly, your glock is many times more deadly. The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of firearms related deaths are committed with handguns
 
Actually, Organic, let's play a game. I have a GREAT idea. Let's have a HYPOTHETICAL shootout. A shootoff. Whatever you want to call it. But I don't own a gun, so my father (the Federal Agent) has volunteered for this HYPOTHETICAL experiment.

He'll enter the room looking something like THIS (P90, largest clip available, shoots at a rate of 900RPM)

ScreenShot2013-01-03at75415PM_zps7a173bc3.png


You use THIS: (he has, theoretically, offered to allow you to use both weapons). ;)

ScreenShot2013-01-03at74415PM_zps43ffc2ab.png


You both walk into a school room and just start going BRUCE WILLIS on one another. Each of you can wear a bullet proof vest. And a helmet. (you know, like our shooter friends like to wear). Dad has declined a vest, says he won't need it. :laugh:

You wouldn't last 3/4 of a second.

But good luck trying to argue that you are using a deadlier weapon from the grave, buddy!

D712
 
The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of firearms related deaths are committed with handguns

Good, you have identified what we like to call, "A problem." Step one is complete.

:)

D712
 
If you can find me a legal full auto P90, I'd love to buy it off you :)

How about my own scenario. He can have his P90, and I'll take a pick up truck full of ANFO. We can start a couple hundred feet apart, and we can see if he can stop the truck before I get in close to him.

Or maybe we could both start behind cover, he could have his P90, and I'd take a garand. We'd probably both end up dead either way
 
If you can find me a legal full auto P90, I'd love to buy it off you :)

How about my own scenario. He can have his P90, and I'll take a pick up truck full of ANFO. We can start a couple hundred feet apart, and we can see if he can stop the truck before I get in close to him.

Or maybe we could both start behind cover, he could have his P90, and I'd take a garand. We'd probably both end up dead either way

How about an illegal full auto P90? You think you're coming out alive against his AR-15 made fully auto, or AK-47, or anything else remotely similar? Should I have posted a picture of a gun that is more readily available to you. Like this one...

ScreenShot2013-01-03at82118PM_zps52364ef8.png
(way to deflect btw, lol).

Please focus on the point, you're dead. He's alive. Why? He can kill you quicker and more swiftly with his AUTOMATIC WEAPON than you can with your little **** guns. THAT is the problem with these types of weapons.

ANOTHER completely separate problem: the murder rate in the US with handguns.

So, as you can see, we have a two-fold gun problem in the US.

Are you saying ANFO is protected by the 2nd amendment too? Stay on topic here: GUNS.

D712

p.s. take your Garand. He'll use his JAR. :laugh:
 
If you can find me a legal full auto P90, I'd love to buy it off you :)

How about my own scenario. He can have his P90, and I'll take a pick up truck full of ANFO. We can start a couple hundred feet apart, and we can see if he can stop the truck before I get in close to him.

Or maybe we could both start behind cover, he could have his P90, and I'd take a garand. We'd probably both end up dead either way

How about you just answer my scenario... Pistol vs. AR-15/P90. Who you going to put your money on Organic?

More importantly, two people walk into school. Who kills more kids faster, or at all?

Exactly.

D712
 
I don't know where anyone is getting these automatic weapons you are rambling about. You should focus more energy on banning fists or swimming pools. Both kill more people than rifles annually.
 
Last edited:
Top