Gun Legislation

[Roland Deschain]

I think among other things, "Roland" was frustrated by having to deal with someone who owned firearms, was trained in the use of firearms, and still hated the NRA and supported restrictive legislation. He probably ought to get used to it - there are actually a lot of us out there who just get shouted down by idiots like the pic in the article above.

No, I rather enjoyed our discussions. It was just a shame the two adults could not have a conversation without the resident forum ass hole sticking her big nose in where it didn't belong. If it wasn't for her and her endless berating of anyone who dares post opposing her this place would long be dead. So carry on as you were but just know o'really that you were the only one here that seemed to have some common sense.

[Roland Deschain]

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/ ... ngxml.html

The brave student in Seattle pretty much disproved the nuts contention that "it doesn't matter how many rounds the magazine holds...since shooters can change them so quickly." Apparently it does matter. If this guy had had an AR-15 with a 35-round magazine, for example, it's my guess there wouldn't have been anybody tackling him.

Apples and oranges, and unless you want to change every firearm out there to a tube fed style then magazine swaps can still be accomplished before you can rush a shooter. No to mention that this guy seems to not be very proficient in the use of his weapon of choice.

[Roland Deschain]

The typical mass shooter is greatly advantaged by large magazines, etc.

Again apples and oranges. Any tube fed style weapon requires that the magazine be recharged a single shell at a time. Whereas a detachable magazine is a single operation and can be accomplished faster than a shooter can be rushed. So whether he replaces a 30 round or 10 round magazine is irrelevant. What would really bake your noddle is to know that proficient shooters can reload an entire unplugged sporting shotgun's magazine (5 rounds) fast enough to make rushing them doubtful and the savvy shooter also knows that as soon as the first round is loaded a "rusher" could be stopped. So again this guy seemed far less than proficient in operation of his weapon.

[O Really]

The typical mass shooter is greatly advantaged by large magazines, etc.

So again this guy seemed far less than proficient in operation of his weapon.

I think that's the point, Roland.
So how many of all the mass shooters for which there have been reports were as proficient as you, or as you state is possible? Sure, there have been some gun nuts, who owned a bunch of firearms and subscribed to magazines, but how many are trained, practiced, and proficient?

[Roland Deschain]

Again both of you are trying to compare apples to oranges. Tube fed weapons are not the same as detachable magazine fed. A NONproficient shooter can perform a detachable magazine swap fast enough to render limiting the capacity of the magazines moot...and a proficient shooter with a tub fed weapon can render as much if not more damage. So the question becomes when are the anti-gunners going to stop trying to change things that make no difference and focus on the real problems at hand?

[O Really]

Again both of you are trying to compare apples to oranges. Tube fed weapons are not the same as detachable magazine fed. A NONproficient shooter can perform a detachable magazine swap fast enough to render limiting the capacity of the magazines moot...and a proficient shooter with a tub fed weapon can render as much if not more damage. So the question becomes when are the anti-gunners going to stop trying to change things that make no difference and focus on the real problems at hand?

There isn't just one easy answer to the "real problems at hand." Those problems are as much cultural as physical. Simply applying the same regulations, registration, and responsibility to firearms as is currently applied to cars would be one part of a start at solution.

[Roland Deschain]

There isn't just one easy answer to the "real problems at hand." Those problems are as much cultural as physical. Simply applying the same regulations, registration, and responsibility to firearms as is currently applied to cars would be one part of a start at solution.

Problem is that the right to cars is not protected under the United States Constitution. However, since you brought up that analogy when are you going to start demanding that cars be "banned" because drunk drivers kill, or possibly limiting the speed a car can go to give folks a chance of get out of the way.

[rstrong]

There isn't just one easy answer to the "real problems at hand." Those problems are as much cultural as physical. Simply applying the same regulations, registration, and responsibility to firearms as is currently applied to cars would be one part of a start at solution.

Problem is that the right to cars is not protected under the United States Constitution. However, since you brought up that analogy when are you going to start demanding that cars be "banned" because drunk drivers kill, or possibly limiting the speed a car can go to give folks a chance of get out of the way.

No, it's not a problem. Applying similar regulations, registration, and responsibility to firearms as to cars does not violate their protection under the Constitution.

Criminals and those with mental health issues are ALREADY prevented from owning cars as well as firearms. Some classes of motor vehicles already have physical speed limiters, and of course everyone is legally subject to speed limits.

Almost no-one "demands that guns be banned because gun owners kill." That's NOT the same as demanding some responsibility.

[Roland Deschain]

No, it's not a problem. Applying similar regulations, registration, and responsibility to firearms as to cars does not violate their protection under the Constitution.

What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do you not understand???

Criminals and those with mental health issues are ALREADY prevented from owning cars as well as firearms.

Well, hell problem solved then.

Some classes of motor vehicles already have physical speed limiters, and of course everyone is legally subject to speed limits.

So I guess that there is no need for highway patrolmen or mounties, in your case, then is there?

Almost no-one "demands that guns be banned because gun owners kill." That's NOT the same as demanding some responsibility.

Then what is the reasoning behind the cries from bans and limitations? Also, define responsibility as you would "demand" it?

[rstrong]

No, it's not a problem. Applying similar regulations, registration, and responsibility to firearms as to cars does not violate their protection under the Constitution.

What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do you not understand???

The firearm owner still has the right to bear arms. Registration does nothing to take that away.

Criminals and those with mental health issues are ALREADY prevented from owning cars as well as firearms.

Well, hell problem solved then.

Funny, a moment ago you opposed this.

Some classes of motor vehicles already have physical speed limiters, and of course everyone is legally subject to speed limits.

So I guess that there is no need for highway patrolmen or mounties, in your case, then is there?

The existence of regulations does not do away with the need to enforce them. Try to keep up.

Almost no-one "demands that guns be banned because gun owners kill." That's NOT the same as demanding some responsibility.

Then what is the reasoning behind the cries from bans and limitations? Also, define responsibility as you would "demand" it?

Very nearly all of them are straw-man arguments from the right. Every time there's another gun massacre, the NRA and the far right makes claims about how the gub'mint is going to use it as an excuse to take guns away.

They screamed it non-stop for months after the Newtown massacre, and misrepresented every comment by Democrats - comments that usually echoed comments made by the NRA when Republicans are in the White House - as a demand to take guns away. And yet it never happened, nor was there any sign of an attempt. Obama simply punted the issue over to a Republican-controlled Congress.

If you can't figure out the reasoning behind keeping military-grade weapons off the street, or keeping guns away from criminals and the mentally ill - on your own - things that even the NRA calls for outside of an election cycle - then I doubt anyone could explain it to you.

You could make perfectly sensible gun legislation from NRA suggestions before the 1980s when it became a scare-tactic propaganda arm of the Republican party. Or from NRA "instead of (straw man argument) we should do _____" claims since then.

[Roland Deschain]

No, it's not a problem. Applying similar regulations, registration, and responsibility to firearms as to cars does not violate their protection under the Constitution.

What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do you not understand???

The firearm owner still has the right to bear arms. Registration does nothing to take that away.

Other than INFRINGING upon the ability to obtain

Criminals and those with mental health issues are ALREADY prevented from owning cars as well as firearms.

Well, hell problem solved then.

Funny, a moment ago you opposed this.

No idiot. You just proved the point that gun laws ALREADY EXIST that are supposed to keep firearms away from criminals and mentally ill. If the laws that are already there aren't working why do you think more laws will????

Some classes of motor vehicles already have physical speed limiters, and of course everyone is legally subject to speed limits.

So I guess that there is no need for highway patrolmen or mounties, in your case, then is there?

The existence of regulations does not do away with the need to enforce them. Try to keep up.

Again you prove a point. We do not need more laws...we need enforcement of those that are already there.

Almost no-one "demands that guns be banned because gun owners kill." That's NOT the same as demanding some responsibility.

Then what is the reasoning behind the cries from bans and limitations? Also, define responsibility as you would "demand" it?

Very nearly all of them are straw-man arguments from the right. Every time there's another gun massacre, the NRA and the far right makes claims about how the gub'mint is going to use it as an excuse to take guns away.

They screamed it non-stop for months after the Newtown massacre, and misrepresented every comment by Democrats - comments that usually echoed comments made by the NRA when Republicans are in the White House - as a demand to take guns away. And yet it never happened, nor was there any sign of an attempt. Obama simply punted the issue over to a Republican-controlled Congress.

If you can't figure out the reasoning behind keeping military-grade weapons off the street, or keeping guns away from criminals and the mentally ill - on your own - things that even the NRA calls for outside of an election cycle - then I doubt anyone could explain it to you.

You could make perfectly sensible gun legislation from NRA suggestions before the 1980s when it became a scare-tactic propaganda arm of the Republican party. Or from NRA "instead of (straw man argument) we should do _____" claims since then.

Great little speech there, but you have already disproven you argument through your own statements above except one and that is in reference to "military-grade weapons". Please define for us what a "military grade weapon" is. I also notice that through all of you bloviating you neglected to define responsibility even though you "demand" it. Why is that?

[JTA]

Please define for us what a "military grade weapon" is.

The ones that look real scary, like my k-bar knife. I keep it locked down when not in use though because I caught it sneaking around the neighborhood unsupervised one night with my pistol trying to egg some houses and cause a ruckus.

[bannination]

Please define for us what a "military grade weapon" is.

The ones that look real scary, like my k-bar knife. I keep it locked down when not in use though because I caught it sneaking around the neighborhood unsupervised one night with my pistol trying to egg some houses and cause a ruckus.

I HATE it when that happens.

[JTA]

Please define for us what a "military grade weapon" is.

The ones that look real scary, like my k-bar knife. I keep it locked down when not in use though because I caught it sneaking around the neighborhood unsupervised one night with my pistol trying to egg some houses and cause a ruckus.

I HATE it when that happens.

This is why I apply a strict regimen of solvent, gun oil, a couple of bootstraps, a little elbow grease, and a Good Christian upbringing to all my firearms after every range visit.

[O Really]

Shooters kill two in pizzaria, then shoot up Wal-Mart, then shoot each other. Damn, if only those having pizza had been armed.... oh wait.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/two ... ee-n125766

[Mr.B]

noddle...? gunghuggers...?

[Roland Deschain]

Shooters kill two in pizzaria, then shoot up Wal-Mart, then shoot each other. Damn, if only those having pizza had been armed.... oh wait.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/two ... ee-n125766

Some of the reports I'm hearing are stating this was an"ambush" style attack on the cops. There are also yet UNCONFIRMED reports that a concealed carrier may have engaged the couple at the Wal-mat and thus ended the spree....why don't you mention that????

[Roland Deschain]

Just so we're clear about the irresponsibility, stupidity and cowardice of the guy representing gunghuggers here:

Just so we are clear....when vrede has no facts to refute argument she doubles down on another posters mistakes and attempts to discredit the poster. Yes, i screwed up the numbers but the fact remains that the California incident was NOT limited to guns and vrede will gladly parrot the liberal talking points the mention guns ONLY!

[O Really]

Well, generally we're trying to talk about firearms and how to reduce the amount of firearm violence in the US, which is way more than any comparable "civilized" nation. If we were talking about cancer, we wouldn't bring up heart disease that also kills people, as an argument not to try to reduce cancer deaths. If we were talking about automobile deaths, we wouldn't bring up bikes and motorcycle deaths as an argument not to try to reduce automobile deaths.

[Roland Deschain]

Well, generally we're trying to talk about firearms and how to reduce the amount of firearm violence in the US, which is way more than any comparable "civilized" nation. If we were talking about cancer, we wouldn't bring up heart disease that also kills people, as an argument not to try to reduce cancer deaths. If we were talking about automobile deaths, we wouldn't bring up bikes and motorcycle deaths as an argument not to try to reduce automobile deaths.

Sounds legit. However, why do you people refuse to acknowledge the fact that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. You all prattle on about "the guns" while refusing to acknowledge the breakdowns in society and the criminal element that is usually responsible for gun violence. Time and again it is PROVEN that laws and regulations, staying within the 2nd amendment" DO NO work. Yet, you continue to call for more laws and regulations. Why? Have you not figure out that you are all the epitome of the definition of insanity...continuing with the same actions while expecting different result