Gun Appreciation Day "Backfires"

[Jupiter551]

I still don't understand how any of this proposed revisals threaten the second amendment. Unless you're a criminal and can't pass a background check, you'll still be allowed to bear a wide range of arms?

I don't understand why any new legislation is needed at all, it won't change a damn thing. Political feel good BS IMO for the knee jerk emotional thinkers.

lol speedloaded revolver vs 100 round drum semi-auto AR-15. Wanna run that RPM test?

Btw, if the only difference between 'assault' weapons and hunting rifles is cosmetic, then why the hell are gun lobbyists frothing at the mouth over the AWB?

Secondly if the legislation itself does nothing, other than outlaw magazine sizes no one legitimately needs, and ban the new purchases of a bunch of rifles that are only 'cosmetically different', why are gun-nuts ranting and raving on every tv channel?

The 2nd Amendment doesn't mean WITHOUT RESTRICTION, just as your 1st Amendment doesn't mean you can have free speech WITHOUT RESTRICTION , if you don't believe me call the FBI with a bomb threat then claim 1st amendment protection.

 

[Bocefish]

lol speedloaded revolver vs 100 round drum semi-auto AR-15. Wanna run that RPM test?

The point is that reloading only takes fractions of a second, if practiced, rendering the 10 round magazine limit moot. You can't charge someone in a second if he knows what he's doing.

Btw, if the only difference between 'assault' weapons and hunting rifles is cosmetic, then why the hell are gun lobbyists frothing at the mouth over the AWB?

Because the ignorant idiots still want to ban the hunting versions, that's why. Besides, NOWHERE in the 2A does it mention that only weapons liberal idiots think are useful for hunting should be allowed. Hunting or sporting reasons is not the purpose of the 2A.

Secondly if the legislation itself does nothing, other than outlaw magazine sizes no one legitimately needs, and ban the new purchases of a bunch of rifles that are only 'cosmetically different', why are gun-nuts ranting and raving on every tv channel?

They're not, you only imagine they are. You might want to seek help for those delusions. :lol:

 

[Jupiter551]

That's all fine, but NO ONE is even suggesting CONFISCATION OF ARMS. Including the President.

All these RWNJ sheriffs are tilting at windmills.

Says the LWNJ who calls sheriffs RWNJ because they won't support any future unconstitutional laws. :lol:

Seriously, don't you understand this? Limiting certain types of weapons does NOT violate the constitution. There are ALREADY numerous weapons American citizens aren't allowed to own. Ronald Reagan, the modern day Jesus of the right wingers, campaigned to have assault weapons banned in 1994. George Bush wanted the ban extended in 2004. The vast majority of Americans support these changes according to polls with between 55and 90% approval ratings on all the executive order proposals. The NRA membership itself, not all of whom support a no-restriction policy, represents BARELY over 1% of your population. Do you not like democracy? 1% wanting to impose their interpretations on the rest - what is that if not an attempted tyranny?

 

[Jupiter551]

Secondly if the legislation itself does nothing, other than outlaw magazine sizes no one legitimately needs, and ban the new purchases of a bunch of rifles that are only 'cosmetically different', why are gun-nuts ranting and raving on every tv channel?

They're not, you only imagine they are. You might want to seek help for those delusions. :lol:

 

[Bocefish]

Piers should go back home to avoid his irrational fears but I heard they don't want him there either. :lol:

 

[Jupiter551]

Piers should go back home to avoid his irrational fears but I heard they don't want him there either. :lol:

Sensible gun regulation that wouldn't affect people's ability to own firearms or defend themselves from assailants is borne of irrational fear? The majority of the American public support these measures. As for secessionists in the south calling for seperation from the Union lol...there's nothing more un-American than that lol. Don't like democracy, don't like laws that most of the population support...lol. Yeah, real patriots.

 

[Bocefish]

Did we ban airplanes after 9/11?

Did we prohibit Muslims from flying?

NO.

We increased security, re-enforced cockpit doors and added armed Air Marshals. Similar solutions should be applied to schools instead of banning inanimate objects.

Banning planes wouldn't make much sense, but somehow banning a certain gun does make sense? Even when there's a myriad of other guns available to accomplish the same thing? :snooty:

 

[Just Me]

Did we ban airplanes after 9/11?

Did we prohibit Muslims from flying?

NO.

We increased security, re-enforced cockpit doors and added armed Air Marshals. Similar solutions should be applied to schools instead of banning inanimate objects.

Banning planes wouldn't make much sense, but somehow banning a certain gun does make sense? Even when there's a myriad of other guns available to accomplish the same thing? :snooty:

Yet we do make people register their cars, make them buy insurance, take courses, pass a test before driving and tax those cars. There is not a constitutional amendment about owning cars but there is nothing in the 2nd amendment that would prohibit doing that with guns. The NRA and pro gun lobby would raise holy hell over any type of regulation regarding guns even if it was found to make the public safer.

 

[Bocefish]

Did we ban airplanes after 9/11?

Did we prohibit Muslims from flying?

NO.

We increased security, re-enforced cockpit doors and added armed Air Marshals. Similar solutions should be applied to schools instead of banning inanimate objects.

Banning planes wouldn't make much sense, but somehow banning a certain gun does make sense? Even when there's a myriad of other guns available to accomplish the same thing? :snooty:

Yet we do make people register their cars, make them buy insurance, take courses, pass a test before driving and tax those cars. There is not a constitutional amendment about owning cars but there is nothing in the 2nd amendment that would prohibit doing that with guns. The NRA and pro gun lobby would raise holy hell over any type of regulation regarding guns even if it was found to make the public safer.

Absolutely no idea why you quoted me or what it has to do with your reply , but I'll play along...

In 2010, there were 12,996 total homicides, 8,775 gun homicides and 358 committed by criminals using rifles of any kind.

Hmmm. That means that in 2010, 2.75% of all homicides were committed using rifles of any kind, and less than 1% were by so-called assault weapons.

That’s six years AFTER the AWB expired. It really makes sense to ban the weapon that was least used in homicides now doesn't it.

Speaking of vehicles and registration... How many vehicle accidents were fatal in 2010? (Using 2010 because that's the only year I could find both stats.)



Should we ban all vehicles or just certain vehicles using the AWB logic?

WTF does registering vehicles have to do with registering weapons and the 2A anyway? Once you register a grandfathered weapon, you can no longer legally give it to your heirs or sell it; that's total BS and nowhere near the same as registering vehicles or the purpose behind it.

 

[LadyLuna]

Registering vehicles means that when a person does a hit-and-run, if people have their license plate number, they know what car did it, and can find out who did it (unless the car was stolen).

The bit I don't get is not being able to pass the gun on when dead...

I wish gun use was a bit more like driving. If it were, it would go a little something like this:
Different licenses for different types of vehicles -> different licenses for different types of guns.
Can pass the car on when owner is dead -> can pass the gun on when owner is dead.
New person has to get a license to use the car -> new person has to get a license to use the gun or buy any bullets for it.
People with epilepsy and those who are legally blind are not allowed to drive -> those who are insane and untreated can't own a gun.
Cars require keys to get in and drive them (barring hacks and crowbars) -> guns have some way to keep those who don't own them from using them.

Once again, these do not indicate how things are, just how I wish they would be.

While I'm wishing for things:
-I wish there was a way to tell that a person was insane without getting way too intrusive.
-I wish it was easier for those who are mentally ill to get help for their problem.
-I wish there wasn't such a stigma against those who are mentally ill and getting help for it.
-I wish we didn't need guns to feel safe.
-I wish people were more kind, more patient, and more respectful of other people in general.

 

[Jupiter551]

Did we ban airplanes after 9/11?

Did we prohibit Muslims from flying?

NO.

We increased security, re-enforced cockpit doors and added armed Air Marshals. Similar solutions should be applied to schools instead of banning inanimate objects.

Banning planes wouldn't make much sense, but somehow banning a certain gun does make sense? Even when there's a myriad of other guns available to accomplish the same thing? :snooty:

Yet we do make people register their cars, make them buy insurance, take courses, pass a test before driving and tax those cars. There is not a constitutional amendment about owning cars but there is nothing in the 2nd amendment that would prohibit doing that with guns. The NRA and pro gun lobby would raise holy hell over any type of regulation regarding guns even if it was found to make the public safer.

Absolutely no idea why you quoted me or what it has to do with your reply , but I'll play along...

In 2010, there were 12,996 total homicides, 8,775 gun homicides and 358 committed by criminals using rifles of any kind.

Hmmm. That means that in 2010, 2.75% of all homicides were committed using rifles of any kind, and less than 1% were by so-called assault weapons.

That’s six years AFTER the AWB expired. It really makes sense to ban the weapon that was least used in homicides now doesn't it.

Speaking of vehicles and registration... How many vehicle accidents were fatal in 2010? (Using 2010 because that's the only year I could find both stats.)



Should we ban all vehicles or just certain vehicles using the AWB logic?

WTF does registering vehicles have to do with registering weapons and the 2A anyway? Once you register a grandfathered weapon, you can no longer legally give it to your heirs or sell it; that's total BS and nowhere near the same as registering vehicles or the purpose behind it.

Your argument is illogical. Regardless of how many are killed by assault weapons with high capacity magazines, they serve no legitimate purpose, and by allowing 350 people a year to die for no purpose is SICK, and it's IMMORAL. Many of the other measures in the recent executive orders are designed to curb gun violence with non-assault weapons - national database, better training for police and armed security, limit on magazine size (and that doesn't just apply to rifles either). Your figures are also specious because you know damn well that rifles are only one category of possible assault weapons as classified under the previous ban.

Should we ban all vehicles or just certain vehicles using the AWB logic?

Are you fucking kidding me? There ARE banned vehicles you numbskull. Part of the reason there are banned vehicles is because they're dangerous and serve no legitimate roadgoing, law-abiding purpose. Kinda like a 30 round+ 5.56 semi auto rifle with a reflex sight.


BTW I said earlier and you never answered - the defense against tyranny argument. Do you honestly believe that if some American people decided to rise up and overthrow your government you would stand a chance? The best you could do is basically become the taliban, striking out in guerilla warfare and using carbombs etc. Against the most technologically advanced army in the world, you would have NO CHANCE. Btw, the government is democratically elected so you'd also be guilty of treason against your beloved USA.

 

[Jupiter551]

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the government needs to know what weapons we have.

Where in the constitution does it say that the government has no right to know what weapons people have?

There are all sorts of ways you can interpret the short text of the 2nd Amendment, many STILL believe it was written as a check against a federally controlled military in a time directly after seperate colonies joined into a union after fighting a bloody war of independence. You can't just divorce it from the time and place it was written. I also love how conveniently ignored the 'well-regulated militia' is, even though your holy document insists it's ESSENTIAL to a free state. So where are your well-regulated militias? Isn't not creating well-regulated militias an attack on the second amendment?!

 

[Bocefish]

@Jup... Maybe you'll learn something from this woman's testimony, but I highly doubt.



As far as your interpretation of OUR 2A, look, listen and learn:



After posting those two vids, I'm done arguing my point.

Have a nice day. :hello2:

 

[Jupiter551]

I've seen both of those videos before Boce, but what's incontrovertible is that the second amendment leaves PLENTY of room for regulating certain types of guns and keeping guns out of the hands of certain people. It's been done before now, and it will be done in the future. An AWB doesn't infringe on the 2nd, nor does magazine size restrictions, nor does a national background check database.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Your argument is illogical. Regardless of how many are killed by assault weapons with high capacity magazines, they serve no legitimate purpose, and by allowing 350 people a year to die for no purpose is SICK, and it's IMMORAL. Many of the other measures in the recent executive orders are designed to curb gun violence with non-assault weapons - national database, better training for police and armed security, limit on magazine size (and that doesn't just apply to rifles either). Your figures are also specious because you know damn well that rifles are only one category of possible assault weapons as classified under the previous ban.

Should we ban all vehicles or just certain vehicles using the AWB logic?

Are you fucking kidding me? There ARE banned vehicles you numbskull. Part of the reason there are banned vehicles is because they're dangerous and serve no legitimate roadgoing, law-abiding purpose. Kinda like a 30 round+ 5.56 semi auto rifle with a reflex sight.
.

We allow plenty of dangerous objects in society the serve "no legitmate purpose" beyond people enjoy using them, Hummers, sport cars, hang gliders, motorcycles that go more than 100 MPH, samurai swords, fireworks, tobacco, and hard liquor. I am not aware of any banned vehicles.

People purchase and enjoy using guns like AR 15 for a variety of reasons. If I am going to the target range for a short while, I'd much rather carry 6 30 round clips than purchase and carry 18 10 round clips, this convenience and fun factor may not seem important or legitimate to you but because firearm ownership is a right the burden is on the government to show differently. If we were serious about saving lives we'd restrict cigarette packs to 10 cigs, and beer purchases to 12 oz bottle and only allow one 6 pack to be bought at time, these dangerous objects killing hundreds of thousands not hundreds of people.

It is also silly to claim enacting these laws would save 350 lives a years, because plenty of these are premeditated murders the criminal would just switch to a different weapon, and the data from the AWB is inconclusive at best. The deadliest school killing in US history was performed in 1927, and used dynamite and a car bomb. Which also seems to be the weapon of choice for mass killing in the Middle East, despite the widespread of availability of fully automatic weapons in almost all of these countries, and even RPGs.

 

[Jupiter551]

People in the middle east use bombs because they think they're fighting a war, not herding civilians into enclosed spaces and mowing them down.

 

[Jupiter551]

We allow plenty of dangerous objects in society the serve "no legitmate purpose" beyond people enjoy using them, Hummers, sport cars, hang gliders, motorcycles that go more than 100 MPH, samurai swords, fireworks, tobacco, and hard liquor.

None of those things are designed with the express purpose of killing as many people as possible with as great economy as possible

I am not aware of any banned vehicles.

Really? Try driving an indy car to work

 

[JerryBoBerry]

Are you fucking kidding me? There ARE banned vehicles you numbskull. Part of the reason there are banned vehicles is because they're dangerous and serve no legitimate roadgoing, law-abiding purpose. Kinda like a 30 round+ 5.56 semi auto rifle with a reflex sight.


BTW I said earlier and you never answered - the defense against tyranny argument. Do you honestly believe that if some American people decided to rise up and overthrow your government you would stand a chance? The best you could do is basically become the taliban, striking out in guerilla warfare and using carbombs etc. Against the most technologically advanced army in the world, you would have NO CHANCE. Btw, the government is democratically elected so you'd also be guilty of treason against your beloved USA.

I'm basically staying out of the gun part of this debate. I've always known for a fact no one is going to change my opinion about the subject so I'll assume I won't be changing anyone elses.

I will comment on a couple tangential issues though. If it ever did (and i'm not saying it is) become necessary to rise up, the military would not be that big of a threat as you think. Military personnel swear an oath to the constitution. So if an unconstitutional law was the focus of hostilities and the president ordered the military to intervene inside american soil I'm betting the majority of the military would tell the president go fuck himself. Keep in mind a very large percentage of the military is comprised of people who also happen to REALLY love their guns.

Also if an uprising of this nature did arise it would not be a taliban type campaign at all. It would originate at the state level. Many states have already enacted numerous laws stating the federal government has no rights within their boundaries to enforce any gun laws it deems legal. So if the president were to try to enforce something outrageous it would be the States National Guard acting against the military. State Guards do tend to have ways of taking out tanks beyond simple car-bombs. But this would also lead to even more problems for a president. The whole Posse Comitatus act could come into play which might encourage even more military personal to disregard those orders. Where I live in Missouri It's interesting to note that current state law describes the state militia to include EVERY single able bodied person between 17 and 64 years of age. So in times of emergency a huge chunk of the population can be pressed into service, and an equally large percentage already own guns and have been hunting/shooting since they were kids.

It's a complicated issue, but when you get right down to it I wouldn't rely on the military to be as big of a deterrent in this situation as you imply.

Now as for the whole 'treason' for defense against tyranny comment. This country was founded on it. Precedent was set for doing so from day one. Declaration of Independence, 2nd paragraph '... it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.'

We were founded by the very idea that if a government needed to be wiped out and a new one put in its place the people not only the right but the obligation to do so. So, while King George III would agree that the 56 people who signed the Declaration of Independence were committing treason against the current rule of law, in the long run most of us feel pretty happy they went ahead and did it.

 

[sweetiebatman]

Question..

If the "rising against the government" were ever to occur.. would you fall into civil war like The Congo or some other 3rd world country? Or would the rest of the sane world side with the Government of the USA?

This is where, in my mind, the pro gun lobby fall down, I dont mind sensible people owning guns but i think the car analogy is apt, Licence, Tax, etc

 

[Just Me]

Did we ban airplanes after 9/11?

Did we prohibit Muslims from flying?

NO.

We increased security, re-enforced cockpit doors and added armed Air Marshals. Similar solutions should be applied to schools instead of banning inanimate objects.

Banning planes wouldn't make much sense, but somehow banning a certain gun does make sense? Even when there's a myriad of other guns available to accomplish the same thing? :snooty:

Yet we do make people register their cars, make them buy insurance, take courses, pass a test before driving and tax those cars. There is not a constitutional amendment about owning cars but there is nothing in the 2nd amendment that would prohibit doing that with guns. The NRA and pro gun lobby would raise holy hell over any type of regulation regarding guns even if it was found to make the public safer.

Absolutely no idea why you quoted me or what it has to do with your reply , but I'll play along...

I was mainly quoting you about the banning of planes etc and what we did instead. I used the car analogy not to compare deaths but what more regulations could be put on owning a firearm. Would it help? I really do not know. Believe it or not, I am not for or against banning guns. I just find the debate interesting.

I did find this interesting. Since 1968, more people have been killed by guns in the US than in all US wars. While each incident is a tragedy for someone, these mass shootings, that get the debate going again are so exceedingly rare that the fear is out of proportion to the reality.

 

[Bocefish]

While each incident is a tragedy for someone, these mass shootings, that get the debate going again are so exceedingly rare that the fear is out of proportion to the reality.

That's why the sleazeball politicians use these tragedies to strike while the iron is hot, so to speak, and diminish our rights while the public is still emotional and fearful. Otherwise, they'd never get away with it.

As previously mentioned, the military also takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic, so the whole rising up against the government thing is a bit far fetched these days imho. However, I'm damn glad the 2A is in the Constitution, otherwise we'd probably end up like the rest of the regretful people that surrendered their weapons to the government.

If we ever experience a major extended power outage or EMP where the government is also severely diminished, whether it it be natural or enemy induced, the world as we know it would never be the same. Riots, looting and all sort of chaos could and probably would ensue. I'd much rather be well armed to defend my loved ones than left with harsh language and baseball bats. Way better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

 

[Jupiter551]

While each incident is a tragedy for someone, these mass shootings, that get the debate going again are so exceedingly rare that the fear is out of proportion to the reality.

That's why the sleazeball politicians use these tragedies to strike while the iron is hot, so to speak, and diminish our rights while the public is still emotional and fearful. Otherwise, they'd never get away with it.

No the 'sleazeball politicians' use these opportunities to try to enact laws that might prevent the NEXT of these scenarios. The only reason they use those times to bring it up is because it's such a taboo topic any other time.

As to the military thing, I wouldn;t discount many military joining any potential civil war, I didn't mention that though because IF they did, then ar-15s and high capacity magazines are going to be a moot point - people are far more likely in that case to arm themselves from military supplies. Although tbh what is much more likely is that the military would declare it's going to fight the revolution for you, tell all the weekend warriors to go home, sit down, and not get in the way of a professional military force. Mobs of armed civilians rampaging would be nothing less than a pain in the ass for both sides.

 

[Bocefish]

No the 'sleazeball politicians' use these opportunities to try to enact laws that might prevent the NEXT of these scenarios. The only reason they use those times to bring it up is because it's such a taboo topic any other time..

Enacting more useless laws like the AWB and 10 round mag limit only helps the sleazeball politicians brainwash the general public into thinking they're actually doing something. All the laws on the books really help the daily homicide rates in cities like Chicago, Detroit and LA., don't they. It does help the gun manufacturers though, they've never had such booming business than they've had in recent weeks. Can hardly find a magazine or ammo in stores anymore. :lol: :lol:

 

[mynameisbob84]

However, I'm damn glad the 2A is in the Constitution, otherwise we'd probably end up like the rest of the regretful people that surrendered their weapons to the government.

Who are these regretful people you speak of? In the UK at least, you would have to search far and wide before you came across somebody who would be happier if every other person was carrying a gun. I suspect the same thing can be said of most other countries where gun crime isn't a giant problem.

 

[Bocefish]

However, I'm damn glad the 2A is in the Constitution, otherwise we'd probably end up like the rest of the regretful people that surrendered their weapons to the government.

Who are these regretful people you speak of? In the UK at least, you would have to search far and wide before you came across somebody who would be happier if every other person was carrying a gun. I suspect the same thing can be said of most other countries where gun crime isn't a giant problem.

 

[Jupiter551]

However, I'm damn glad the 2A is in the Constitution, otherwise we'd probably end up like the rest of the regretful people that surrendered their weapons to the government.

Who are these regretful people you speak of? In the UK at least, you would have to search far and wide before you came across somebody who would be happier if every other person was carrying a gun. I suspect the same thing can be said of most other countries where gun crime isn't a giant problem.

That's propaganda Boce, like that Australian video that gets posted every now and then. 15 years old, and a small, loud minority exploited by the incredibly rich US gun lobby.

So tell me this, do you honestly believe that the 'sleazeball' politicians who want the AWB back are planning on taking over your country? Like, the NRA makes HUGE political contributions so it's very clear who benefits from resisting gun control in Washington, but who is it you think is gaining from restricting firearms?

Unless you really think they're secretly hoping to turn USA into some huge concentration camp (which btw, is more of a right wing thing than a left wing one), what the fuck is their motive? Who's paying to restrict guns?

 

[Jupiter551]

:lol: "You're a redcoat!"

 

[Bocefish]

Propaganda? Ya right, if you say so. :lol:

When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

"Does the government fear us? Or do we fear the government? When the people fear the government, tyranny has found victory. The federal government is our servant, not our master!

Some say Thomas Jefferson spoke those words. Whoever said it, it is timeless and as true today as it was then.

Said it before, but I'll say it again in case you missed it. If we ever experience a major extended power outage, an EMP, or other catastrophe where the government is severely impaired, whether it it be natural or enemy induced, the world as we know it would never be the same. Riots, looting and all sorts of chaos would ensue. I'd much rather be well armed to defend my loved ones than left with harsh language and baseball bats. Way better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

 

[Bocefish]

Now this is propaganda from the communist news network...



CNN disingenuously demonizes so-called "assault weapons," with then Broward County (FL) Sheriff Ken Jenne first firing a then-banned semi-auto AK-47 copy into cinder blocks, showing the damage, and then shooting an AWB compliant AK copy, but not mentioning the fact that he was shooting into the ground, rather than the blocks, in order to give the impression that the banned gun was vastly more destructive than the legal one. And the idiots fell for it.

And this is what they followed up with:

 

[Jupiter551]

Yeah but it's just quibbling, I saw a Fox news piece that showed the relative entry sizes of various calibers including the 5.56 vs buckshot and I'm not sure what else in a hunting rifle maybe a .308, showing the entry wounds from the AR15 were much smaller....but it's all beside the point because the AR 15 has other advantages, that translate directly into killing people.

Get a mini 14 with a 10 round clip. It's all the rifle you'll ever need.