Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 95
  1. #71  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    8,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Epimetheus View Post
    I noted that in the line directly above the one you quoted. I agree it would be hypocritical to support these things in the wake of a tragedy like this after dismissing the NRA's approach, but that's not what I'm doing.
    Uh-huh...sure.


    Even Feinstein doesn't seem to be pushing for this, from what I've seen. Can you show me where Democrats are proposing retroactively applying any possible new regulations?
    You didn't really think I'd refute your clim without evidence did you?

    an the sale, transfer, importation or manufacturing of about 150 named firearms, plus certain rifles, handguns and shotguns fitted for detachable magazines and having at least one military characteristic.

    - Strengthen the 1994 ban by moving from a two- to a one-characteristic test to determine what constitutes an assault weapon.

    - Ban firearms with "thumbhole stocks" and "bullet buttons."

    - Ban the importation of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.

    - Ban high-capacity ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
    First off there is no such thing as an "assault" weapon. If that were the case...baseball bats and butter knives would be outlawed as well.

    Many of the above named items that Franken Feinstein is trying to ban are already owned by lawful gun owners. And they would suddenly find themselves in possession of illegal items.

    None of the gun grabbing measures that this Administration or the Dems are trying to pull off would have stopped ANY of the recent shootings.

    Tell me...if there are already 1,600 federal laws concerning firearms and their ownership and use...what the hell is one more gonna achieve?

    I've been out of school for about a year, though this is a short enough period of time that I can imagine I still sound like a student.
    You sound very much like a student merely repeating what your clueless teacher has told you.
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #72  
    Senior Member Molon Labe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Jihad Me At Hello
    Posts
    4,772
    I see alot of confusion here.

    It is impossible to separate the right to ones' life without supporting the 2nd Amendment.
    Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown


    The problem is Empty People, Not Loaded Guns - Linda Schrock Taylor
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #73  
    Drive-by Poster ABC in Georgia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    2,975
    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    I see alot of confusion here.

    It is impossible to separate the right to ones' life without supporting the 2nd Amendment.
    I agree 100% Molon!
    ===============

    Epi ...

    I still admire you for coming back to answer the questions asked of you and your attempt to refute what the members came back with.

    But, 73 posts later (or whatever it is) ... I must admit that due to medical problems on my hubby's part going on back here, plus my involvement in community planning at the moment ... I can no longer keep following this thread.

    Am afraid my attention span at the moment is focused elsewhere.

    In the end will have to agree with TVDOC, and what he said about being an "engineer" and your line of thinking. The two don't mix.

    Good luck in here, and hopefully you will eventually "see the light!"

    ~ ABC
    American By Choice ~ 1980
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #74  
    Sonnabend
    Guest
    Slow down? Maybe. Stop? No.

    And whatever regulations come into effect, if any, I doubt we would ever retroactively apply them to guns that Americans already own and use.
    I'm an Aussie, son, and the correct answer to my question was "No"

    I come from a nation with these gun laws, and they do jack and shit to stop gun violence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #75  
    Sonnabend
    Guest
    I don't believe these shooters are choosing Gun-Free Zones on purpose (or, therefore, that eliminating them would reduce the number of shootings occurring). Most are murder-suicides, with the perp either killing themselves or engaging the police in a hopeless firefight, so these people aren't looking for a location where they won't be fired upon.
    Virtually every single gun massacre has been in a gun free zone. The only person armed was the shooter.

    I also don't believe eliminating Gun-Free Zones would limit the damage from these shootings; I'm not sure I'd trust some random Joe to respond appropriately and fire accurately in a chaotic situation. Police Officers receive a significant amount of training in how to respond to these types of stressful and fast-moving situations in a way that minimizes the risk to bystanders.
    I'm a shooter as well, and a recent series of tests and a small competition in my range saw me scoring more than 40% above most cops, who are not familiar with their firerarms, do not use or practice with them often enough, and any gun toting American is a better shot and knows his weapon far better than Deputy Dawg, witmness the utter stupidity opf the Los Angeles PissPoorGunMarksmanship Department when they shot at a car that was nothing like Dorners and had women inside. They lack training, they lack any form of fire discipline, and can be counted on to draw their weapons on almost any pretext, creating a worse situation when you combine that with their utter uselessness and incompetence at using anything more complicated than a slingshot.

    Giving an imbecile a badge just means you've armed an idiot.

    Yes. However, this right was given for the purpose of allowing "a well-regulated Militia". I'm no Constitutional scholar, but this seems to allow for reasonable regulation of arms.
    The people ARE the militia, you fool.

    So, for the moment, I don't see any reason to get rid of gun-free zones; eliminating them wouldn't appear to reduce either the likelihood or severity of these tragedies.
    http://blog.eternalvigilance.me/wp-c...e-zone-cLR.jpg

    Or do you believe all regulation of guns is inappropriate (even all of LBJ's Gun Control act in 1968)?
    Aside from felons and the mentally ill, yes.

    Can you show me where the 98% statistic came from? This is surprising to me, so I'd be curious to read more.
    Sure. The regulations of illegal guns has been as successful as the war on illegal drugs. I live in a nation with huge gun laws, and I am not kidding when I tell you that within an hour, it is nowhere near impossible to get your hands on whatever you want. A recenrt gangland shooting and later arrest netted three Uzi's, grenades, there are rocket launchers still missing, guns stolen from police cars, shotguns, or if all else they make them themselves.

    Making a thing illegal or restricted just means it has been driven underground. In the US as with everywhere else, whatever you want can be gotten for the right price.

    Otherwise this appears to be a tragedy that could not be prevented by regulation. We'll never be able to regulate gun-violence out of existence, but that this occurred doesn't conflict with my position that if there exist reasonable regulations that will reduce violence without unduly infringing rights, they should be considered.
    How's that war on drugs coming along?

    Oh and here's the result of "gun control" in my city.

    http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydney-shootings
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #76  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,705
    I don't believe these shooters are choosing Gun-Free Zones on purpose
    Yeah, they just happened to be floating by schools, malls, movie theaters, and supermarkets instead of biker bars, cop hang outs, and the hood because of random acts of violence.

    We'll never be able to regulate gun-violence out of existence,
    Uh huh, and your ilk wants to put gun violence on steroids by removing guns from legal gun owners giving criminals zero resistance. Why you idiot liberals can't look at Chicago, Detroit, Camden, DC and see that more restrictive gun laws are counter productive boggles the mind . Why? Because you're too stupid to understand that at the end of the day CRIMINALS ARE GOING TO BREAK ANY LAW ON THE BOOKS BECAUSE, WELL, THEY'RE CRIMINALS!!!!!!!!!

    My God you liberals are so freaking brain dead that you can't see the reality in front of your own nose.
    Last edited by NJCardFan; 04-11-2013 at 01:46 AM.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #77  
    Senior Ape Articulate_Ape's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    NJ, Exit Only
    Posts
    8,006
    "It is difficult to see what the causes and efects are"? Are you joking? We have a plethora of evidence what the effects of socialism are. Can you say EU? A crumbling Euro? Greece? France, Italy? Portugal? Germany? And all the rest? Good grief, man. We have witnessed and are witnessing the fruits of socialism every day, even in our own nation. What sane country would strive toward an economic model that is failing miserably right before its eyes?

    We are tooling down a dangerous road and the Left (aka Liberals) is at the wheel. Wake up and smell the coffee, dude. If you are not a conservative in these day of destruction, you are on the wrong side of history.
    "The efforts of the government alone will never be enough. In the end the people must choose and the people must help themselves" ~ JFK; from his famous inauguration speech (What Democrats sounded like before today's neo-Liberals hijacked that party)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #78  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    8,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Articulate_Ape View Post
    "It is difficult to see what the causes and efects are"? Are you joking? We have a plethora of evidence what the effects of socialism are. Can you say EU? A crumbling Euro? Greece? France, Italy? Portugal? Germany? And all the rest? Good grief, man. We have witnessed and are witnessing the fruits of socialism every day, even in our own nation. What sane country would strive toward an economic model that is failing miserably right before its eyes?

    We are tooling down a dangerous road and the Left (aka Liberals) is at the wheel. Wake up and smell the coffee, dude. If you are not a conservative in these day of destruction, you are on the wrong side of history.
    QFT
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #79  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Epimetheus View Post
    Alright, not dead or in hiding yet - just on vacation. But while I will probably continue to be pretty inactive this week, I do have a bit of time at the moment.

    Odysseus, that was an excellent response. It will take me some time to digest and get back to you, but thanks for your time.
    Glad to be of help. I suspect that you are actually not impervious to reason, and many liberals are, and may thus be open to ideas that you've never been exposed to before. I'm always happy to teach.

    Quote Originally Posted by Epimetheus View Post
    Yes. However, this right was given for the purpose of allowing "a well-regulated Militia". I'm no Constitutional scholar, but this seems to allow for reasonable regulation of arms.
    A few points. First, none of the rights in the Bill of Rights were "given" to us. The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, which places limits on the federal government, not on the people. The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are actually constraints on the authority of the federal government. For example, the First Amendment states, not that the people retain the rights to freedom of speech, worship or redress of grievance, but that congress shall make no law abridging those rights (and since congress was the sole legislative body, it was a blanket ban on federal constraints on these rights). The source of the authority of the federal government is the people, and the militia, as defined at the time and in subsequent legal writings, has always been the whole of the people. The congress has no more power to disarm the people than a minor child has to disarm his parents.

    Quote Originally Posted by Epimetheus View Post
    Now, we can argue about what constitutes 'reasonable' regulations. To me, pretty much anything short of making it illegal to buy/own guns is theoretically possible, so long as the benefit to the public can be shown. I've yet to be convinced of the effectiveness of the gun control measures we've introduced so far, but I'm open to the debate.

    There seems to be agreement that we shouldn't be giving guns to the mentally ill or convicted felons, so expanding background checks and eliminating the Gun Show loophole seems to be a sensible approach to this.
    Let us compare, again, the First and Second Amendments. One can argue that the founders' concern for free speech never anticipated the technological changes of mass printing, electronic broadcasting, social media or any of the other innovations which have made communications far faster and more pervasive than they were in colonial times. One can further argue that the abuse of free speech by the press has led to all manner of violence (media outlets have created wars, incited mobs, subverted the democratic process, corrupted politicians and destroyed empires), much more so than a single firearm in the hands of a madman. If the pen is mightier than the sword, then the 24-hour news network is a WMD, and a single columnist in the NY Times is more dangerous than a dozen Nidal Hasans. So, with that in mind, what "reasonable regulations" would you trust the government to impose on the media?

    Quote Originally Posted by Epimetheus View Post
    I don't believe these shooters are choosing Gun-Free Zones on purpose (or, therefore, that eliminating them would reduce the number of shootings occurring). Most are murder-suicides, with the perp either killing themselves or engaging the police in a hopeless firefight, so these people aren't looking for a location where they won't be fired upon.
    You're wrong. The shooters don't turn their guns on themselves until the police have arrived and they are no longer able to continue killing. Many of them don't kill themselves, but count on the police to do it for them, and seek the opportunity to kill the most helpless people that they can find. This is why schools are especially inviting targets. Unarmed teachers and large numbers of children are the perfect victims for an armed killer. Every mass shooting of the last few years has been in a designated gun-free zone, with one exception, and that was the shooting of Gabby Giffords, which was more of a political assassination in execution than a planned mass murder.

    Quote Originally Posted by Epimetheus View Post
    I also don't believe eliminating Gun-Free Zones would limit the damage from these shootings; I'm not sure I'd trust some random Joe to respond appropriately and fire accurately in a chaotic situation. Police Officers receive a significant amount of training in how to respond to these types of stressful and fast-moving situations in a way that minimizes the risk to bystanders.
    And yet, you are willing to trust some random Joe to elect the politicians who will establish the standards for police training and resonse? The authority to protect citizens is not a power that police take from a vaccuum, it is a delegated right of self-defense, and we are the ones who delegate it. We don't abrogate that right when we delegate it, and those who assume that it's a matter of trusting the average person to do the right thing miss the point, that it's a choice between trusting yourself, your friends, your neighbors and your community with the power of life or death, or trusting the career politicians who have increasingly become a class unto themselves with that power. You're assuming that a random Joe will or won't protect you when the time comes, but that misses the point, which is that you, as an adult citizen, have the right and responsibility to protect yourself. Don't worry about what Joe will do, but be prepared to do what you need to when the time comes. Take responsibility, rather than evade it.

    So, for the moment, I don't see any reason to get rid of gun-free zones; eliminating them wouldn't appear to reduce either the likelihood or severity of these tragedies.


    See above.


    To the first question, no. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that current regulations have prevented some violence, or that future ones could prevent more. But I don't think it would ever be possible to eliminate these types of tragedies altogether.

    I haven't seen great evidence for the effectiveness gun control policy in the past, and strong evidence may always be out of reach due to the complexity of sociological factors causing crime and violence. It would be helpful to know which specific parts of gun control you disagree with to continue this discussion more specifically. Or do you believe all regulation of guns is inappropriate (even all of LBJ's Gun Control act in 1968)?


    To an extent, I agree with your point. It is misleading to lump suicide in with murders and other violence when discussing gun violence, as people will tend to associate this statistic with the latter.

    However, there is an argument that the presence of guns could be increasing suicide rates by being a lethal and available method of suicide with no preparation needed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17426563). While chronically suicidal people could find other ways to plan and commit suicide, guns may allow acute suicidal impulses to be potentially deadly as well. So I think it's fair to discuss suicide when it comes to gun control, but it should be clearly separated from violent crime when it comes to statistics.

    Can you show me where the 98% statistic came from? This is surprising to me, so I'd be curious to read more.


    This is just an anecdote - a single instance. Belgium has markedly lower firearm-related deaths per capita than the US (Belgium: 0.23 homicides per 100,000, 2.43 per 100,000 including suicides. I'm not going to make the claim that Belgium is lower because of their gun control laws - I have no way to substantiate that and there are a lot of factors contributing to crime/violence/etc. Is there data showing an increase or decrease in firearm-related deaths following the total gun ban in Belgium? That would certainly be interesting to see.

    Otherwise this appears to be a tragedy that could not be prevented by regulation. We'll never be able to regulate gun-violence out of existence, but that this occurred doesn't conflict with my position that if there exist reasonable regulations that will reduce violence without unduly infringing rights, they should be considered.


    Slow down? Maybe. Stop? No.

    And whatever regulations come into effect, if any, I doubt we would ever retroactively apply them to guns that Americans already own and use.[/QUOTE]

    Quote Originally Posted by Epimetheus View Post
    I noted that in the line directly above the one you quoted. I agree it would be hypocritical to support these things in the wake of a tragedy like this after dismissing the NRA's approach, but that's not what I'm doing.


    Even Feinstein doesn't seem to be pushing for this, from what I've seen. Can you show me where Democrats are proposing retroactively applying any possible new regulations? The closest thing I've heard about is a voluntary program for people to return guns that they've purchased in return for cash at-or-above market value for their weapon. But again, this would be a voluntary program.

    I've been out of school for about a year, though this is a short enough period of time that I can imagine I still sound like a student.
    Quote Originally Posted by txradioguy View Post
    Uh-huh...sure.




    You didn't really think I'd refute your clim without evidence did you?



    First off there is no such thing as an "assault" weapon. If that were the case...baseball bats and butter knives would be outlawed as well.

    Many of the above named items that Franken Feinstein is trying to ban are already owned by lawful gun owners. And they would suddenly find themselves in possession of illegal items.

    None of the gun grabbing measures that this Administration or the Dems are trying to pull off would have stopped ANY of the recent shootings.

    Tell me...if there are already 1,600 federal laws concerning firearms and their ownership and use...what the hell is one more gonna achieve?



    You sound very much like a student merely repeating what your clueless teacher has told you.
    One point, which is that there is a specific definition of assault weapons, derived from the first true assault rifle, the MP44 Sturmgehwer. An assault weapon is a firearm capable of selective fire (that is, it can fire semi-auto or full-auto). The M-16 is an assault weapon. The semi-automatic copy of the M-16, the AR-15, is not. Assault weapons are already illegal, or at least regulated to the point of de facto illegality. The weapons that Feinstein claims to want to ban (as opposed to the weapons that she admits to wanting to ban when she's off-camera) are not assault weapons.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #80  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,705
    Does everyone else find it funny that liberals want to ban guns but legalize drugs? In 2010, there were 31,000+ gun related deaths(suicide/homicide/accident) however there were 38,000+ deaths due to drug overdoses.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •