Gun Legislation

[Mad American]

(running away)

As expected.

Unlike you, I have a life and it does not revolve around or require interaction and responses from a computer forum. I simply do not have time to sit here and continue to prove time after time that you are a blathering fool on the subject of guns or go point by point and prove your lies again, only to have you create another spin, repost the same billshit, have your lies proven again...lather, rinse, repeat. SSDF.

[Mad American]

More childish insults while running away from the subject of guns

As expected!

[bannination]

Fifth grader brings gun and ammo to school to kill ex girlfriend. 4th grader tells on him.

Obviously more guns are the solution. Fourth grader really was a hero though.

[Mad American]

More childish insults

No, proof that you're lying about the timeline and post order.

while running away from the subject of guns

As expected!

No, I did not write that. You fail composition, again, as expected.

As for "running away from the subject of guns":

...

...For example, you can't admit your "cosmetic" screw-up and can't retract your "machine gun" lie.

You were caught lying about the "slide fire" claim.....it was made by Feinstein.

She extrapolated from the Slide Fire claim, the one you neglected to quote. In fact, her "400-800" is lower than the "100 rounds in 7 seconds = 857 rounds per minute rate of fire" that the article says Slide Fire claims.

You have tried to twist words and I have proven you over and over an ignorant fool when it comes to guns.

You keep saying that and keep failing to provide an example. Run away, Brave American, run away.

You have made dishonest claims about my links and when proven a liar on that tried to spin out of it.

Name one. This should be good.

...

Other things ducked by Mad American:

His not knowing that 300 is less than "400-800",
His confounding of state and federal proposals,
His lie that I had confounded state and federal proposals,
His confounding of operation and appearance,
His original failure to cite an article backing up his claim that the CA law was about defining "assault weapons" and then blaming me for his lapse,
His silly demand for an apology when I hadn't disputed him in the first place,
His lie that I called Slide Fire a gun rather than a mod,
His failure to include a relevant quote from the article being discussed,
His inability to translate "100 rounds in 7 seconds" into "857 rounds per minute rate of fire",
His inability to recognize that there are unacceptable extremes to technology,
His lie that I've offered an opinion on Feinstein's bill,
His idiotic constitutional stance that even the NRA disagreed with for most of its history,
His idiotic definition of "press",
His lie that someone else first injected California.

That's just on pages 19 and 20. Impressive.

And, for 11 pages now, his refusal to retract his lie that I ever called a rifle a "machine gun".

Run away, Brave American, run away.

Yep, all gun-related points, all run away from for 3 or more posts now by Brave American. Maybe I should say Masochistic (nttawwt) American.

Damn.....UNCLE! I give up...I can not compete with your endless twists and blatant dishonesty vrede. You win! I'm done going around in circles with you. I am going to converse with people who are at least sane. Now post some other insult about me running away, what ever floats your boat, or you can take my advice and go fuck yourself.

[Mad American]

Fifth grader brings gun and ammo to school to kill ex girlfriend. 4th grader tells on him.

Obviously more guns are the solution. Fourth grader really was a hero though.

Truly a sad situation that an 11 year old felt the need to take such actions. I am curious, you did catch the following line from the story?:

The suspects, who KREM 2 has chosen not to name, began planning this attack at least two weeks ago, investigators say. They add the gun the boy brought to school was stolen.

Buried at the bottom almost like an after thought. I wonder why? Anyway, what would you propose to prevent acts such as that without violating the 2nd amendment rights of law abiding citizens?

[bannination]

Fifth grader brings gun and ammo to school to kill ex girlfriend. 4th grader tells on him.

Obviously more guns are the solution. Fourth grader really was a hero though.

Truly a sad situation that an 11 year old felt the need to take such actions. I am curious, you did catch the following line from the story?:

The suspects, who KREM 2 has chosen not to name, began planning this attack at least two weeks ago, investigators say. They add the gun the boy brought to school was stolen.

Buried at the bottom almost like an after thought. I wonder why? Anyway, what would you propose to prevent acts such as that without violating the 2nd amendment rights of law abiding citizens?

Not surprising, I wouldn't imagine the little boy had a gun registered in his name.

I'm being facetious but there's very little information to go on, thus hard to make any conclusion.

[O Really]

Buried at the bottom almost like an after thought. I wonder why? Anyway, what would you propose to prevent acts such as that without violating the 2nd amendment rights of law abiding citizens?

I doubt anybody thought the kid bought the gun legally. But every gun stolen is a gun not properly protected. Let's start by making life hard on those who "lose" their guns.

[Mad American]

Not surprising, I wouldn't imagine the little boy had a gun registered in his name.

I'm being facetious but there's very little information to go on, thus hard to make any conclusion.

True. It is curious how it was reported....be interested to see how it plays out.

[Mad American]

Buried at the bottom almost like an after thought. I wonder why? Anyway, what would you propose to prevent acts such as that without violating the 2nd amendment rights of law abiding citizens?

I doubt anybody thought the kid bought the gun legally. But every gun stolen is a gun not properly protected. Let's start by making life hard on those who "lose" their guns.

Ok...serious question(s)...make it hard on them how and what about the circumstances? My guns are locked in a 10 bar, 6 digit electric combo lock, certified safe but they can still be stolen by a pro.....or take my friend who was on a hunting trip, the truck was broken into and the guns were stolen along with the locked cases they were in, and the truck relocked. At what point does negligent storage give way to, life sucks that was a good thief????

[O Really]

Buried at the bottom almost like an after thought. I wonder why? Anyway, what would you propose to prevent acts such as that without violating the 2nd amendment rights of law abiding citizens?

I doubt anybody thought the kid bought the gun legally. But every gun stolen is a gun not properly protected. Let's start by making life hard on those who "lose" their guns.

Ok...serious question(s)...make it hard on them how and what about the circumstances? My guns are locked in a 10 bar, 6 digit electric combo lock, certified safe but they can still be stolen by a pro.....or take my friend who was on a hunting trip, the truck was broken into and the guns were stolen along with the locked cases they were in, and the truck relocked. At what point does negligent storage give way to, life sucks that was a good thief????

Serious answer - in criminal matters, the rule is "innocent until proven guilty" meaning that it is the state's responsibility to prove guilt - not the defendants job to prove innocence. But in civil matters, one often must prove innocence. I'd say if somebody's gun get stolen, it would be their responsibility to prove it was because of "life sucks it was a good thief." BTW, sure some pros might be able to steal your guns with the protection you stated, but the odds of them trying it when so many easier targets are around are slim. To steal yours, they'd have to (a) know you had them; (b) want your particular guns; (c) believe they could get them easier than some similar ones.

[O Really]

In traffic incidents, it's pretty well established that if you hit a car from behind, it's your fault. Doesn't matter much what the idiot ahead of you does. I think it would be helpful to have a similar approach in gun ownership. If your gun gets gone, it's your fault, and you can be held liable for whatever is done by that gun. That might make some people re-think whether they really really need to keep a gun around. Opps. That's a good thing.

[Stinger]

In traffic incidents, it's pretty well established that if you hit a car from behind, it's your fault. Doesn't matter much what the idiot ahead of you does. I think it would be helpful to have a similar approach in gun ownership. If your gun gets gone, it's your fault, and you can be held liable for whatever is done by that gun. That might make some people re-think whether they really really need to keep a gun around. Opps. That's a good thing.

As long as you apply the same logic to everything that gets stolen. A drunk steals your car and kills someone, and you go to jail for DUI manslaughter. Hell, the City of New York could sue those airlines for letting those planes get stolen by those terrorists. Recoup some of the money the city has lost. Work for you?

[O Really]

As long as you apply the same logic to everything that gets stolen. A drunk steals your car and kills someone, and you go to jail for DUI manslaughter. Hell, the City of New York could sue those airlines for letting those planes get stolen by those terrorists. Recoup some of the money the city has lost. Work for you?

There are different levels of liability required now for different products. If you have dynamite, you're under a different standard of protection than you are if you have a bag of concrete. It's not the theft that should be consistent, it's the potential damage. But as to your analogy, if your car gets stolen because you leave your keys in it - then sure, you ought to share in the liability of what happens from the use of that car.

[Stinger]

As long as you apply the same logic to everything that gets stolen. A drunk steals your car and kills someone, and you go to jail for DUI manslaughter. Hell, the City of New York could sue those airlines for letting those planes get stolen by those terrorists. Recoup some of the money the city has lost. Work for you?

There are different levels of liability required now for different products. If you have dynamite, you're under a different standard of protection than you are if you have a bag of concrete. It's not the theft that should be consistent, it's the potential damage. But as to your analogy, if your car gets stolen because you leave your keys in it - then sure, you ought to share in the liability of what happens from the use of that car.

Then the City of New York (and their insurers, the federal government, etc.) can sue the airlines for the collapse of the Twin Towers?

What if my car keys are hanging in the house on a hook and not in a safe? Drunk breaks in, steals your keys, backs over the neighbor on the way out. Bang, you're guilty of DUI manslaughter. I have my doubts about that scenario.

[O Really]

As long as you apply the same logic to everything that gets stolen. A drunk steals your car and kills someone, and you go to jail for DUI manslaughter. Hell, the City of New York could sue those airlines for letting those planes get stolen by those terrorists. Recoup some of the money the city has lost. Work for you?

There are different levels of liability required now for different products. If you have dynamite, you're under a different standard of protection than you are if you have a bag of concrete. It's not the theft that should be consistent, it's the potential damage. But as to your analogy, if your car gets stolen because you leave your keys in it - then sure, you ought to share in the liability of what happens from the use of that car.

Then the City of New York (and their insurers, the federal government, etc.) can sue the airlines for the collapse of the Twin Towers?

What if my car keys are hanging in the house on a hook and not in a safe? Drunk breaks in, steals your keys, backs over the neighbor on the way out. Bang, you're guilty of DUI manslaughter. I have my doubts about that scenario.

Yeah, me too. Why did that get into a discussion of gun law? Why jump to something not related? What do stolen cars and DUI's have to to with guns at all? Why should the same logic apply to different products in different circumstances? The gun ummm "enthusiasts" insist tighter restrictions on gun ownership or types of guns owned won't work. OKfine. Let's look at something else. Let's make it a realistic and plausible personal risk to keep firearms lying around. Not illegal, just potentially financially dangerous.

[Boatrocker]

???

I admit I've not followed this pissing contest very closely; there doesn't seem to be room for more than two in the mudpit. But having read the last few pages and, trying to winnow out the JYIS filler and process the rest, I have to say that I can't quite get a handle on the point you're trying to make here. Could you back up a little and punt your point, concisely and clearly for us, please?
Sorry to intrude.

Ok, thanks.

1. proposed federal legislation has a large basis on appearance not operation

Citation? Be specific, please?

2. proposed California legislation has now labeled EVERY semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine as an "assault weapon"

So? Detachable magazine is not merely an "appearance" issue.

3. totally stock unmodified firearms are capable of high rates of fire.

Again, so? If rates of fire are an issue, it is not one of appearance. Are such weapons not included in "proposed" legislation?

4. ignorance of guns, their technical specs and operation, leads to mistakes like #'s 1 & 2

You have yet to demonstrate any "mistakes." Citations?

[Stinger]

As long as you apply the same logic to everything that gets stolen. A drunk steals your car and kills someone, and you go to jail for DUI manslaughter. Hell, the City of New York could sue those airlines for letting those planes get stolen by those terrorists. Recoup some of the money the city has lost. Work for you?

There are different levels of liability required now for different products. If you have dynamite, you're under a different standard of protection than you are if you have a bag of concrete. It's not the theft that should be consistent, it's the potential damage. But as to your analogy, if your car gets stolen because you leave your keys in it - then sure, you ought to share in the liability of what happens from the use of that car.

Then the City of New York (and their insurers, the federal government, etc.) can sue the airlines for the collapse of the Twin Towers?

What if my car keys are hanging in the house on a hook and not in a safe? Drunk breaks in, steals your keys, backs over the neighbor on the way out. Bang, you're guilty of DUI manslaughter. I have my doubts about that scenario.

Yeah, me too. Why did that get into a discussion of gun law? Why jump to something not related? What do stolen cars and DUI's have to to with guns at all? Why should the same logic apply to different products in different circumstances? The gun ummm "enthusiasts" insist tighter restrictions on gun ownership or types of guns owned won't work. OKfine. Let's look at something else. Let's make it a realistic and plausible personal risk to keep firearms lying around. Not illegal, just potentially financially dangerous.

I'm comparing things that are legally owned.

You're saying that if someone's gun gets stolen and used in a crime, they're civilly liable. I'm just saying that if someone's car or airplane gets stolen, they should be civilly liable too.

[O Really]

I'm comparing things that are legally owned.

You're saying that if someone's gun gets stolen and used in a crime, they're civilly liable. I'm just saying that if someone's car or airplane gets stolen, they should be civilly liable too.

Why wander off on that tangent? It's just a deflection worthy of the NRA types. Guns are a unique item, already with a long list of separate laws (and lack thereof) that don't apply to other things. Gun ummm, "enthusiasts" reject comparison of gun registration to car registration although there is no difference. They wave the Second Amendment around and insist that what applies elsewhere "wouldn't work" or isn't the same for guns. They say banning certain guns or equipment wouldn't work, while generally insisting it's the right approach for drugs. They want their own "separate and unequal" rules, and I'm just going along with it on behalf of the rest of us.

While I'm at it, I'd put some teeth behind the laws against illegal possession or use of a weapon. If a person got caught illegally possessing a gun, I wouldn't just tack an additional charge of illegal possession onto whatever else I caught him for - I'd have a law that allowed takeover of all his assets - property, cars, bank accounts, shirt off his back.

[Stinger]

I'm comparing things that are legally owned.

You're saying that if someone's gun gets stolen and used in a crime, they're civilly liable. I'm just saying that if someone's car or airplane gets stolen, they should be civilly liable too.

Why wander off on that tangent? It's just a deflection worthy of the NRA types. Guns are a unique item, already with a long list of separate laws (and lack thereof) that don't apply to other things. Gun ummm, "enthusiasts" reject comparison of gun registration to car registration although there is no difference. They wave the Second Amendment around and insist that what applies elsewhere "wouldn't work" or isn't the same for guns. They say banning certain guns or equipment wouldn't work, while generally insisting it's the right approach for drugs. They want their own "separate and unequal" rules, and I'm just going along with it on behalf of the rest of us.

While I'm at it, I'd put some teeth behind the laws against illegal possession or use of a weapon. If a person got caught illegally possessing a gun, I wouldn't just tack an additional charge of illegal possession onto whatever else I caught him for - I'd have a law that allowed takeover of all his assets - property, cars, bank accounts, shirt off his back.

It doesn't seem to be a tangent, according to your statement. If there is no difference -- your words -- why the difference? Guns, cars, and airplanes are all regulated. Why single out guns? Why not apply the same standard to all? Unless you want a double standard. Now that's worthy of the NRA types.

[O Really]

It doesn't seem to be a tangent, according to your statement. If there is no difference -- your words -- why the difference? Guns, cars, and airplanes are all regulated. Why single out guns? Why not apply the same standard to all? Unless you want a double standard. Now that's worthy of the NRA types.

Few things in life that are different can have a single standard. While a registration itself could be considered the same for guns or cars, it still remains that cars and guns are different. The NRA has repeatedly rejected any form of gun registration. So let's do something else. I don't have all the answer, but we need to look for some other direction other than arguing the same ol' same ol' tired views over and over.