RE: The ignorance of liberals

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: The ignorance of liberals

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The ignorance of liberals

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/11/2014 8:31:06 AM

Posts: 91
Joined: 8/8/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Nope. To the whole works. Nobody is especially trying to forbid nato rounds or the civilian guns that shoot them. An assault rifle is a rapid fire, magazine fed, automatic rifle designed for infantry use. A machine pistol would be an assault pistol.

For civilian possession, all machineguns must have been manufactured and registered with the ATF prior to May 19, 1986 to be transferable between citizens. So only those AR-15s made and registered between 1957 and 1968 could be owned in the first place.

Look alike semi-automatic rifles, and look alike semi-automatic pistols are not 'assault'. Flak having a german etymology has nothing more to do with nothing, as the old norse etymology of knee does here having nothing to do with nothing here.

All words come from somewhere. They are made according to perceived need to describe something.

STOP. MIXING. FULL-AUTO. AND. SEMI-AUTO. TERMINOLOGY.

"Rapid fire"... For fuck's sake.

There's a world of difference between "semi-automatic" and "full-auto". Especially in legal terms.

IDK... I think I'm done talking to someone who doesn't understand the basic terms of the subject matter.

(in reply to mnottertail)

RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/11/2014 8:31:47 AM

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

It's crucial the OP put forth ideas for reducing gun violence

Is it? Why is that? Because you say so? It's certainly not the topic.

K.

(in reply to cloudboy)

RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/11/2014 8:32:27 AM

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
Why was he allowed a gun with a restraining order against him? how many innocent people have to die at the hands of disgruntled people armed with a gun????

1.) A restraining order prohibits a person from coming into contact with a certain other person or persons.
It has nothing to do with licences or permits to carry firearms.

2.) If the criminal has already decided to violate one law (restraining order), what makes you think he'd suddenly grow a conscience and respect another law (atempted/murder)?

In order for your protection order to qualify under federal law, the defendant (person who the order is against) must:

Be served (given) notice of the court hearing. In other words, the defendant must have been given paperwork that told him or her about the hearing.
Have an opportunity to attend the court hearing.
Note: The abuser does not have to be at the hearing, but s/he has to have the opportunity to come to the hearing.
Be an "intimate partner" of the victim, which includes:
A current or former spouse
A person with whom you share a child
A person you live with or have lived with in the past.*

Trouble is, there are not enough agents going around to enforce this, and there is no real reporting of protection orders system in place nationwide for them to be alerted to these situations, as the police and judicial system is overwhelmed as well.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to Mouth4Mistress)

RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/11/2014 8:33:51 AM

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress

IDK... I think I'm done talking to someone who doesn't understand the basic terms of the subject matter.

Please include me in that "not talking to list."

Thank you.

(in reply to Mouth4Mistress)

RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/11/2014 8:37:44 AM

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Nope. To the whole works. Nobody is especially trying to forbid nato rounds or the civilian guns that shoot them. An assault rifle is a rapid fire, magazine fed, automatic rifle designed for infantry use. A machine pistol would be an assault pistol.

For civilian possession, all machineguns must have been manufactured and registered with the ATF prior to May 19, 1986 to be transferable between citizens. So only those AR-15s made and registered between 1957 and 1968 could be owned in the first place.

Look alike semi-automatic rifles, and look alike semi-automatic pistols are not 'assault'. Flak having a german etymology has nothing more to do with nothing, as the old norse etymology of knee does here having nothing to do with nothing here.

All words come from somewhere. They are made according to perceived need to describe something.

STOP. MIXING. FULL-AUTO. AND. SEMI-AUTO. TERMINOLOGY.

"Rapid fire"... For fuck's sake.

There's a world of difference between "semi-automatic" and "full-auto". Especially in legal terms.

IDK... I think I'm done talking to someone who doesn't understand the basic terms of the subject matter.

I am not mixing 'terminology' learn English, and English comprehension. You have demonstrated you do not understand basic terms of the subject matter or Even basic English, and therefore the subject matter in total.

I am an expert, holding a FFL and dealing in guns every fucking day as well as being ex-infantry.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to Mouth4Mistress)

RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/11/2014 8:43:11 AM

Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

I would also like to hear a great reason for owning an assault weapon.

Also, I believe there is no better deterrent to tyranny than a well-armed civilian population.

This was the answer I was expecting to hear.
Thanks

The main answer is that people haven't been able to own them since 1934.
The fact that you ask the question proves that you are unfamiliar with the subject.
The second answer is prove that my having a large capacity low caliber rifle is harmful. The fact that some people misuse them is no more a justification for banning them than the fact that far more people misuse alcohol justifies going back to prohibition.
Let me repeat what was said earlier if it doesn't have a selector switch (allowing full auto) it isn't an assault weapon.

No, they don't allow full auto mode, since 1934 the only people who can own those have federal gun licenses. You are arguing semantics, though, with saying that an assault weapon=military weapon, and that is playing loose with the facts. First of all, the military weapons have the ability to fire in semi automatic mode, and what that says is even in semi mode they have the kind of killing power required in combat. A weapon in semi automatic mode can still fire at a rapid pace, and more importantly, like the military versions,civilian models have large capacity magazines that can be switched quickly (which in military use makes sense).

It is interesting you mention that full automatic weapons have been banned for the most part since 1934 and the answer to that answers your question, about why they are banned...they were banned because they were routinely used by criminals in the 1920's, the infamous tommy guns and such, and the law was passed because those fully automatic weapons got into the hands of criminals because they could be legally sold, and many of the guns the Dillingers and Capones and such used were bought legally. It should be noted that once those bans went into place, the use of automatic weapons by criminals pretty much disappeared, to this day very, very few fully automatic weapons are in the hands of criminals.....if the NRA logic held true, that if you banned the so called assault weapons, was true then we should be pulling automatic weapons off the street all the time, but we don't, because without legal sales since 1934, they are extremely difficult and expensive to get on the black market. What is also interesting is that any fairly skilled gunsmith can modify a semi automatic to fire in full automatic mode, but they find very, very few weapons that have been modified like that. Why? Because if they find someone who has done that, they will end up with 20 years in the federal pen, so very few are going to risk going to jail for 20 year life sentences, and if they are they are going to want to be paid a lot of money to do so, so the reality is they don't.

Using the same exact logic, then a semi automatic rifle with a large clip raises questions as well. While they have nowhere near the firing rate of a fully automatic weapon, semis can fire a hundred rounds a minute, and with a large magazine can do incredible damage in a short time. Adam Lanza killed all those people and kids in a matter of minutes, and he was able to do so because his gun had a large magazine, so he could spray a lot of bullets fast, and reload, and it let him kill close to 30 people in minutes.......if automatics were banned because they were felt to be a public threat, why should weapons that don't fire nearly as fast, but otherwise have many of the same attributes, be allowed?

I don't favor banning assault weapons, if some yahoo gets his/her rocks off on having a gun that looks like a military rifle, be my guest. However, that doesn't mean that they have the right to near military firepower, either. As I put in another post, put in the law that civilian weapons cannot have the ability to fire above X rounds a minute, limit the size of magazines that can be used/sold, and also require that changing a magazine cannot be rapid, that quick change clips and magazines are not allowed as well. People can still pretend to be a Seal or whatever fantasy they have, but it also means those weapons if some wackjob gets their hands on them, will give potential victims a chance. Sorry, but pretending that the zombia apocalypse is coming or someone thinks they are going to fight off the 'govn'ment' with their black helicopters and such is no excuse to leave them with the kind of capabilities currently allowed.

(in reply to BamaD)

RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/11/2014 9:12:02 AM

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

~ FR ~

Returning to the topic...

K.

(in reply to njlauren)

RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/11/2014 9:24:52 AM

Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

a gun that is a semi automatic version of an AK47 or an AR15 that can shoot a hundred rounds a minute, and can carry large capacity clips and be reloaded quickly is not a dressed up rifle, it is an assault weapon

Any semi-automatic rifle is ready to fire again as soon as the action cycles. AR-form rifles are no different in this regard. And unless you enjoy sounding like an ignorant idiot, I would advise you to stop referring to a magazine as a "clip" and to semi-automatic rifles as "assault weapons".

K.

A clip is generally in a handgun, in a semi automatic rifle it is a magazine, you are correct. And yes, a semi automatic can fire once the gun cycles, and the point is that their cycle time is low, and they are capable in semi automatic mode of firing a hundred rounds a minute. The idea that an assault weapon is only the military full automatic mode is a matter of semantics, because among other things, military weapons can fire both semi and fully automatic modes. The name itself is irrelevent, the issue is that the so called assault weapons we are talking about , the ones available to civilians, even in semi automatic mode have the capability to kill a lot of people very rapidly; not as rapidly as fully automatic weapons, but much, much more than you can do with let's say a semi automatic handgun or a hunting rifle or a standard shotgun and that is the point. The terminology means nothing, the point is that a weapon that can fire a hundred rounds a minute, can hold large magazines and can have them changed rapidly, is a weapon designed to kill a lot of people very quickly, pure and simple, and by its very nature that is a military weapon, not something appropriate for civilian use. Like I asked Bama D, we banned automatic weapons because of their killing capability, if that was legal, then why do we allow selling weapons whose purpose, like their fully automatic cousins, is simply to kill as many people as possible? I have no problems with a semi automatic rifle being sold that is basically the same thing as the military model, all I want to see is the firing rate, magazine capacity and reload ability made so that it reduces the ability to kill as many people as they can. Put it this way, I have heard people tell me these weapons are great hunting weapons (they aren't, but so be it), but there is no reason to have a large capacity magazine and the ability to shoot 100 times a minute when hunting, among other things, it isn't exactly sport to pump 30 bullets into a deer or something. I don't care what we call them, but we already regulate firepower civilians can have, and with semi automatic weapons commonly called assault weapons, the name is meaningless, what we really need to do is regulate how fast they can fire, how many bullets a magazine holds, and how fast it can be reloaded, that is the critical factor. I agree that many assault weapons bans were idiotic, in that they regulated the way a weapon looked rather than in what it can do, and I would want to see regulating action.

I also quite honestly find it a bit pathetic that grown people actually take something out of carrying a weapon that looks like a military weapon, it reminds me of 8 year old boys playing army...then again, I find the same thing with people driving hummers, old men driving tricked out muscle cars or rice rockets trying to pretend to be young, Rolex watches, Tract Mansions and other delusions of grandeur....

(in reply to Kirata)

RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/11/2014 9:35:58 AM

Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

......a gun that is a semi automatic version of an AK47 or an AR15 that can shoot a hundred rounds a minute,......

.....a weapon that even in semi automatic mode can fire a hundred rounds a minute or more....

The bullshit gets even stupider. Does anyone really believe that crap ? I would like to see this demonstrated. However close to a minute you can manage to get, loading 3 more 30 round magazines firing a total of 100 rounds, I'd be interested to see how many of those rounds can hit 100 different targets.

The fact is, if someone is intent on committing mass murder with a gun, at a place where everyone is unarmed, it doesn't freakin matter what type of firearm you have. Most any type of weapon outside of the semi automatic class will suffice and create as much or more carnage.

No, that isn't true, and that is the fundamental problem with the argument that a semi automatic rifle like Lanza used is the same as anything else. One of the fundamental truths of semi automatic weapons is they are designed for rapid fire, not accuracy, in use they are designed to rapidly fire and spray. It is like the arguments I have heard gun proponents use that a knife is the same thing as a gun in terms of lethalness, because they both can kill, but that belies the fundamental difference between them, in how fast they can kill and how effectively.

Put it this way, picture the scenario of Lanza going into the school, but instead of the AR15 with the large magazine, he has a handgun (semi auto, revolver, doesn't matter). He breaks in, and starts firing the gun , he gets a couple of people. He then has to reload, let's say the gun has 10 bullets. During that time, someone could take a garbage can and nail the sob, or pick up a fire hydrant, because it is likely he hasn't been able to kill everyone in the room, whereas with an AR15, he can already have wiped out all the people in the room.

Douchebag goes into a movie theater with a 9mm, and starts shooting, he runs out of bullets, goes to reload, and a couple of guys while he is reloading kick the shit of out him. With an AR15, he will have killed and wounded a lot more people, enough to allow him to put in another magazine and keep firing....

The point being that with a standard gun, handgun or rifle, the victims stand a lot better chance of getting away. If we are talking one person shooting a few people (like the piece of shit in Texas who just wiped out an entire family), it doesn't matter, but if you are talking someone like Adam Lanza or the douchebag in Aurora, CO, it does matter, because when we are talking opening fire in a public place, there is no comparison to the damage that can be done by one of the semi automatic weapons we are talking about versus a standard gun.

And I suggest you do a little research on the firing capabilities of some of these guns, there was a lot written after the Connecticut shootings.

(in reply to lovmuffin)

RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/11/2014 9:38:18 AM

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

semi-automatic weapons are not automatic weapons. one trigger pull results in one bullet fired.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to njlauren)

RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/11/2014 9:41:45 AM

Posts: 5568
Joined: 7/3/2007
Status: offline

FR.

This is all very circular. Sure, Liberals are unlikely to know as much as rednecks about guns.

But if the topic were Art, or Philosophy...

_____________________________

Remember.... There's always somewhere on the planet where it's jackass o'clock.

(in reply to mnottertail)

RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/11/2014 9:48:51 AM

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

Semi-automatic Art, or Automatic Philosophy?

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to crazyml)

RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/11/2014 9:55:17 AM

Posts: 13
Joined: 2/15/2008
Status: offline

Taking a big picture look at guns in society, guns have a few purposes, guns designed for sport hunting are (or are mostly) single shot high accuracy, guns for self defense from animals are as small as possible for the application, light weight and usually have limited number or rounds available, guns for military use vary widely depending on application but are designed to kill as many people as possible as efficiently as possible. Civilian guns for self protection are adapted military weapons and designed to kill people, with that in mind I think they should be licensed for civilian use and ownership and those licenses should require the licensee to prove that they are fit and qualified to own, use and care for the weapon from purchase through sale to the next qualified owner. That probably includes psychological testing, physical testing, a knowledge test and a an acknowledgement of responsibility for the use of the weapon by the owner and anyone else until the weapon is reported sold.

It makes sense to me that the second amendment guarantees qualified citizens the right to own appropriate weapons but it is just one of many amendments and the amendments are just a part of the Constitution. All or our rights are equal and the 2nd Amendment doesn't trump the rest of our rights or common sense. No one wants crazies or wackos carrying guns on our streets any more than we want terrorists having WMD or guns in our country, or in fact anyone having a nuclear weapon in our country. Common sense has to prevail at some point and the first step to gain some common sense is taking an honest look at the real big picture in our country.

Is having a school shooting on average once a week acceptable? Are mass shootings at places like theaters acceptable? Is having small arms keeping us safe from government tyranny? If you think so can you give us an example of where it worked? Can small arms stop a modern Army or even a modern police department that has things like drones, robot tanks, helicopters, missiles etc? If not how does having guns stop tyranny>? Is having 300 million guns and growing keeping us safer or making our lives more dangerous? Are our kids and grandkids safer or threatened by all those guns?

So if having regulated guns looser than Canada and western Europe is what we want.... Should the government have to keep a 'no gun list' or should gun owners have to prove they are gun worthy? Who's job is that and who should pay for that? Obviously the insane should not have guns, but how about the marginally insane like the kid at Newtown? or the kid at Aurora? If the regulation system isn't perfect does that mean it should be thrown out entirely? Do we do that with the driving license testing system? Should gun owners have to have insurance for their guns use? and be responsible for misuse like cars?

I know there are TONS more questions to be asked if we had an honest discussion about what to do with guns and regulations/policy. I have my opinions about personal safety, I lived in Mexico for almost 20 years amongst more crime than any of you do now and never had a gun and never had a problem... I did have 2 doberman and a fence with barbed wire on top (more to keep the dogs in than bad guys out). However i am wide open to whatever Americans feel they need and want for solutions and what level of risk they are willing to accept as solutions. I don't think we realize the risk we are taking right now..... As most know, a school shooting on average 50 times a year, 300 kids accidently killed by guns since Newtown, the odds of a successful suicide increased by a factor of 4 if you have a gun in your home and the odds of a murder in your home increased by a factor of 3 if you have a gun in your home...... those are big prices to be paying for guns so we need to know what we are getting for those prices and then decide if it's worth it.

For me, I'll stick with the dobbies, but we as a society need to have an honest discussion and not let the NRA or the far left chose for us... find out the reality and you'll know in your heart what you think is the right way to go.

(in reply to Kirata)

RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/11/2014 9:59:34 AM

Posts: 5568
Joined: 7/3/2007
Status: offline

Goddammit man, don't start making outrageously controversial statements like that in a genteel spot like this.

_____________________________

Remember.... There's always somewhere on the planet where it's jackass o'clock.

(in reply to mnottertail)

RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/11/2014 10:03:07 AM

Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini
I have been around long enough to ignore a lot of comments on here.
I often see this place as a little microcosm of society.

Many really only want to "bash" the other side, or engage in incessant partisan debates, rather than attempt to discuss or hammer out real issues.

The fighting is often a distraction.

I get the same feeling when I watch cable news.
Many in politics rather fight and name call and point fingers, than get down to the real business of trying to solve some serious problems.

I am a gentle and delicate flower, but when I come down here, I put my big girl panties on.
lol

Take two potted plants. One is in full bloom the other is just a seed under the soil. Its much easier to destroy the plant, then grow it.

Creating good and effective laws, regulations, and systems, is not easy. The difference between the planet growing, and fashioning laws, is one is biology and the other is politics. That crafting good firearm laws (or other laws for different topics) starts off being 'hard', before adding in all the complications, difficulties, and hurdles to over come. Add in the growing chasm of Americans that take a 'my way or the highway' rather than 'being an adult and handling the issue in a mature, reasonable, and patient manner'.

If Americans whom are conservative and liberal (and hopefully some moderates) can come together, deal with firearms correctly, it would help on a great deal of other subjects. Re-establishing the trust that has been blown to pieces over the years, would aid this nation by leaps and bounds. I can not say what form this firearm law(s) will take. Hopefully one in which all sides feel they got something good without losing something they didn't wish to lose. That each person walks in, knowing ground will have to be given to obtain that which is desired is an important lesson Americans will be forced to relearn, if this nation as a concept is to continue. That keeping emotion at bay, and allowing cooler heads to prevail will bring the most long term stability on this topic is the key. Removing those whom stand to profit financially or politically will be critical to its eventual success.

If any of this was easy, it would not be a problem right now. We'd be arguing over other things....like 'cake or pie'.....

There is a simple solution punish misbehavior.
You don't keep everyone from having whiskey because some misuse it you punish the abuse of the item.
You don't restrict everyone's use of a car because some misuse them you punish the misuse.
Don't restrict everyone's use of firearms because some misuse them punish the misuse.

The problem with your argument is what constitutes misuse, and that is huge. Before prohibition, for example, there literally was almost no regulation of alcohol, so everything that went on was perfectly legal. Want to have a saloon or bar and stay open 24/7? You could do it. Serve patrons who were noticeably drunk? Be my guest.....own a liquor store, and sell to a minor? Go ahead, many places had no restrictions on age. Want to sell something that is beer spiked with alcohol to make it more potent, without anything idicating that? Go ahead...you get the idea.

The answer isn't to punish misbehavior alone, it is in having rational laws, regulations, so that we can punish people for misbehavior. Let me give you an idea of what I am talking about with guns, a very real example:

1)In NJ, Joe Smith buys a couple of guns, after going through the background check, registration, etc (In NJ, to buy a gun, they have a comprehensive background check to buy a gun, not the government one alone, you get fingerprinted, that gets run by the FBI database and so forth), you get a permit to buy the gun, then it is registered as well). Money runs tight, and Joe Smith goes to Newark and sells them in the black market). Gun gets traced back to him after being used in a crime, and because he didn't report it stolen or lost, he is in deep doo doo. Nice part about this law, if someone keeps reporting guns lost or stolen, it is going to raise eyebrows, so maybe Joe Smith once could sell a couple of guns down in Newark and report them lost or stolen, but do it again, he is in trouble. Also, in NJ, there are limits to how many guns you can buy.

In Virginia, Bob Jones walks into the gun store, they do the background check or whatever, he then proceeds to buy let's say 15 guns, perfectly legal from everything I know.

He then drives north and sells them in DC in the black market.

One of the guns gets pulled off the street, and traced back to him. He says "oh, I lost the gun" (since Virginia has no law requiring it be reported), and that is that, no questions asked. Other guns get pulled off the street, he tells the person who comes to him, Oh, must have been stolen, etc, etc......

The sad part about your last statement is that alcohol and cars are often more regulated then guns. In all 50 states if your car is used in commission of crime and you haven't reported it lost or stolen or the person doing it was known to you, you can be held accountable.

If you serve alcohol at a party at your house, and someone gets drunk and drives and kills someone, in most places you can face all kinds of consequences for doing so.

Yet with guns, depending on where you live, there aren't consequences for misusing the right to buy guns because there are no laws, in part because far too many people seem to feel that having reasonable laws restrict their rights.

I have made clear many times, and on here, that I don't favor banning guns, but what I want to see are real laws on the books that establish proper use across the board, and also make sure that people who misuse the privilege, like Bob Jones in Virginia in my example,face consequences

People may yell and holler about regulating how many shots a magazine can carry or how fast it can fire, but guess what, we do that with other things. States regulate the alcohol content of beer in many places, states regulate where you can buy it, they regulate who can buy it, and the establish consequences for those who abuse it, or allow others to abuse it, and comparatively, in many states, this doesn't exist.

You drive a car, and legally you are required to have insurance (something few if any states require with gun ownership), you are reguired to register it, you are required you know how to drive and get a driver's license (a lot of places you can buy a gun without any proof of taking a gun safety course), and you have to prove every couple of years through inspection that the car is driveable. Compare that to guns, where in many places after the background check (which quite frankly, is not even that great), you simply buy the gun, sign the form at the gun store, pay the money and you are on your way. Heck, in more than a few places, if you leave a gun unsecured and a kid finds it and blows his head off, you can't be charged......

Having rational laws, which we don't have at the moment in many places, would help prevent the tragedies. Unfortunately, Bama, what your last argument, about punishing for misuse, translates to "put the guy who did the crime with the gun in jail', rather than defining rules and penalties for those who let the person get the gun in the first place.We punish the bar owner that let someone obviously drunk drink and drive, why shouldn't we punish the gun owner who abuses the right to own guns by selling them into the black market, hold him accountable? Why shouldn't we require that all potential gun owners demonstrate that they know how to use one safely? Why shoudn't we require gun owners to report any weapons lost or stolen, so they can't buy guns legally and 'lose them' ie sell them in the black market?

We have laws limiting what kind of alcohol that can be served, why can't we have laws restricting what kind of guns can be sold (and we do, with the automatic weapons laws for example), based on the risks those guns pose to others? We have safety laws for cars, and laws on what kind of glass it can have, what kind of lights, and also have limits on what legally can be driven on the road in terms of horsepower and such (indirectly, through pollution and safety regulations, a NASCAR engine with 800 hp wouldn't be street legal because of emissions and noise), why shouldn't we limit magazine capacity, refire rates and the speed of changing magazines?

The problem is that we don't have consistent laws on misuse, and the only misuse we have conistently is after someone uses a gun to hurt or kill someone, when if we had efective safety regulations and restrictions on what kinds of guns that are sold, we can prevent more than a few of these tragedies by forcing accountability before the guy gets the gun, too. Putting someone in jail is all fine and good if they commit a crime, but you get a lot more bang for the buck if you establish rational laws before hand, it is much like in medicine that a vaccine preventing disease is a lot better than treating it after it occurs.

(in reply to BamaD)

RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/11/2014 10:14:18 AM

Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

The bullshit gets even stupider. Does anyone really believe that crap ? I would like to see this demonstrated. However close to a minute you can manage to get, loading 3 more 30 round magazines firing a total of 100 rounds, I'd be interested to see how many of those rounds can hit 100 different targets.

The fact is, if someone is intent on committing mass murder with a gun, at a place where everyone is unarmed, it doesn't freakin matter what type of firearm you have. Most any type of weapon outside of the semi automatic class will suffice and create as much or more carnage.

Or just use a car or a truck as a weapon, or gasoline or propane, or swords, or derail a train...

God, talk about the idiotic argument coming back time and again. It is true a car bomb or a truck bomb is an effective weapon, and yes you can use gasoline or propane to kill someone, and derailing a train could do damage, too.

The problem with those arguments is that those kind of things are a lot more difficult to pull off. Sure, I can take my car and run it into a crowd of people, but one of the reasons people don't do that is it is too close and personal, with a gun you simply go into the crowded area and open fire. Too, guns are eminently portable, to use gasoline or propane requires lugging large amounts of it someplace and setting it off. To derail a train means knowing when the train will come by, and also having the gumption and guts to destroy the rail (not to mention that with tracks where passenger trains run, they have at least some ability to detect vandalism).....it takes time, and planning to do it, which also is why guns are so different, many cases of gun rampages happen spontaneously, the nut doesn't sit and plan it, they get pissed, grab their guns and go (obviously, some are planned out, last I heard Adam Lanza had planned out his attack, for example).

Arguing a sword is like arguing a knife, whule you can do real damage with a sword, it gives victims more of a chance to get away, too. If some bozo pulls a sword in a movie theater, his attact range is a perimeter of maybe 3 feet around, and people have the chance to run away. Or, for example, someone with half a brain can grab a garbage can or a fire extinguisher as a shield and brain the fucker before he can do much damage. A heavy coat can work against a sword, whereas against some jerk off with a gun, it would do very little.

(in reply to Sanity)

RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/11/2014 10:16:36 AM

Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

The bullshit gets even stupider. Does anyone really believe that crap ? I would like to see this demonstrated. However close to a minute you can manage to get, loading 3 more 30 round magazines firing a total of 100 rounds, I'd be interested to see how many of those rounds can hit 100 different targets.

The fact is, if someone is intent on committing mass murder with a gun, at a place where everyone is unarmed, it doesn't freakin matter what type of firearm you have. Most any type of weapon outside of the semi automatic class will suffice and create as much or more carnage.

Or just use a car or a truck as a weapon, or gasoline or propane, or swords, or derail a train...

or fertilizer

Fertilized is heavily watched and regulated, lot easier to buy a trunkload of AR15's for a mass killings then buy fertilizer for a bomb, way easier. Fertilizer unlike guns have heavy federal laws behind it, and the consequences, unlike guns, of selling a huge lot of fertilizer without notifying the authorities, is to end up in the nice SuperMax jail for aiding a potential terrorist.

(in reply to BamaD)

RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/11/2014 10:17:00 AM

Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml
Sure, Liberals are unlikely to know as much as rednecks about guns.

Come to think of it, I don't know much about Polish tractor engines or 12th century Polynesian pottery, either. Who cares?

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com

(in reply to crazyml)

RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/11/2014 10:19:48 AM

Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

In post 43 I mentioned the texas deaths of 6 members of a family, including 4 kids, which has been roundly ignored(what a surprise) well there's more information.
His wife had a restraining order, from a year ago, he shot her sister and the family because they wouldnt tell him where the ex wife was.
the 15 year old that survived despite being shot in the head, called the police because the dumbfuck big man with the gun was on the way to the grandparents house.

Why was he allowed a gun with a restraining order against him? how many innocent people have to die at the hands of disgruntled people armed with a gun????

Texas Massacre Survivor's Courage Saved Grandparents' Lives

http://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-massacre-survivors-courage-saved-grandparents-lives/story?id=24518195

Cause the NRA says a pissed of guy with a gun against an ex wife has every right to own a gun..this is a classic example of why the gun laws are a joke. The minute that guy got an order of protection against him (and remember, this is Texas, where simply beating your wife or girfriend up is often given the nod nod wink wink by judges and cops) any guns he had should have been confiscated, but at least one news account mentioned that under Texas law if a legal gun owner shows signs of violence or mental illness they have no right to take the guns away.

(in reply to Lucylastic)

RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/11/2014 10:20:48 AM

Posts: 91
Joined: 8/8/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
A clip is generally in a handgun, in a semi automatic rifle it is a magazine, you are correct.

Incorrect. The distinction isn't in what type of weapon it's intended for.

A clip is a device that holds ammunition, but the device itself does NOT stay in the weapon. It's a loading aid.

A magazine is a device that holds ammunition, AND stays inside/attached to the weapon.

A "speed-loader" for a revolver is also a type of a clip, but not a magazine - the speed-loader holds the bullets, you stick them into the chambers, and remove the speed-loader.

[image]https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/shopping?q=tbn:ANd9GcStHsuPj51gHLr57Yr0MDt7IhnP2t6LnT47SfbCgL-P8Fxn8iZFzrEbG6uB7UjKBsTj4G5NeYYl&usqp=CAE[/image]

(in reply to njlauren)

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The ignorance of liberals

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.467