Why does any civilian need assault rifles?
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago
0Peoplepower , Talk about a "tired " methodology , The entire anti- argument is just that. But then it always has been !
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
The death of the gun debate ;
How to Save $ 150.00 and NOT buy a "bump stock "......next time you are out target shooting with any semi-auto -matic gun , insert finger in trigger guard and shake rapidly from front to rear with firearm pointed in safe direction .
Finger in trigger of any semi-auto equal to "bump-stock" action .
Next lesson , how to duct tape 3 - 10 round magazines together to acquire one 30 - round magazine when said 30 round magazines become illegal .
Now ,can we debate existing gun law and the non-existing enforcement of them?ahorseback:: An M-16 can fire 15 rounds per second (900 rounds per minute) An AR-15 without a bump stock can fire 5 rounds per second (300 rounds per minute) and with a bump stock can fire 7.5 rounds per second (450 rounds per minute) The only significant difference in all three is the firing rate and the M16 is more accurate. The Las Vegas shooter killed 59 people and wounded 400 more in 10 minutes. He didn't need accuracy. All three of these firing rates can be used to assault people.
Why do civilians need that kind of fire power, even at 300 rounds per minute? How dead do you want a deer? An assault weapon doesn't need accuracy. I was told to hold my grease gun sideways and spray it. It didn't need accuracy and neither do mass shooters because they ASSAULT their victims.Peoplepower , Invented terminology is the debate in 99 % of your argument while you totally ignore the completely putrid state of the justice system . I am really surprised at the intelligence shown by you and yet the absolute ignoring of the problematic cause and the systematic solutions that are the only cure to ALL violence in America .
You I believe , are more intelligent than that . Its simply your chosen ideology that totally blinds you to THAT reality , Don't however feel alone , you belong to a substantial crowd of people who have no more concern for a solution to this plague of violence than they do in sympathy to the suffering of victims !
You simply repeat the same ole' lies while ignoring constantly the numbers AND the true solutions to this plague of an unpunished crime culture in America . You ignore the majority of the problem being of mental health AND non-existent health care system FOR it . You scream with the others for free health care for you and deny it to the insane, The problem isn't a gun - the problem is THAT mentality .
Congratulations ; you've willfully joined the uncaring society !The primary weapon used in the Las Vegas shooting was not an AR-15, it was a belt fed fully automatic machine gun (M240 most believe). Anyone familiar with M16, SAW, M60, M240, AR15 weapons that heard the audio and/or saw the firing muzzle flashes recorded on cellphone video that was posted on youtube would be able to identify this as true, a magazine fed AR-15 could not fire like this, no matter how it was configured. I put two short videos below that are OK for addition info/proof.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMecLHUvea4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vWPYTOxi6oKen: I don't think comparisons of gun shot wave forms is a valid proof. Here is an article about what the police found in his room.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4600926/l … otel-room/PeoplePower,
The media will put out whatever the official government line is on this. So while I did read that, it wouldn't tell you anything other than what the official story is. You can accept that as truth, I know better.
Why do I know better?
Because I worked for the 'government' for over 12 years, because I am an expert with every one of those weapons I mentioned and others. Because as part of my job, I had fired hundreds of thousands of rounds through each type of those weapons. I have run ranges for those weapons. I have heard those weapons fired in the confines of an urban environment, in an open environment, in real missions and training exercises.
Yes, there are people even better trained, even more knowledgeable, even more weapon savvy than I, and those are the people who make it their life, their job, to do so. And if you can find a true expert, who has decades of experience under his belt, who will corroborate the 'official' story that there was only one shooter, and that the primary weapon used was an AR-15 I would love for you to direct me to it. I would certainly read or watch it.
But no one I know, who has my respect, and equal or greater experience, has expressed to me any differently than what I have put forth. I am merely sharing with you what I think, and believe, not much else I can do other than that.
I suggest you search around for a reputable opinion on what really took place if you are interested in getting an idea of the truth, look for former Special Ops, DEA, SEAL types who might be sharing their opinions, people who have so much experience they can recognize the type of weapon by the sound and rate of fire, by the length of fire, by the muzzle flash, there are plenty of us out there.
As for the whole, taking weapons away... all I can say is the bad guys will still have them... but the good guys that might try and stand up to them won't, so the mass murders will continue to rise, they will not be stopped by making them illegal. They will just disarm those who obey the law.
Countries like France made all semi-automatic guns illegal, but that didn’t stop killers from getting fully automatic machine guns to use in mass shooting attacks. All four of the 2015 mass public shootings in France involved machine guns, including the 137 people killed in November at the Bataclan theatre massacre.
The only thing that can stop such violence is people ready and willing and capable of defending themselves when the attack comes. Otherwise we law abiding citizens are just victims in waiting that can do little to protect ourselves and those we love.Ken , While I love the debate and firmly believe in our lines of defense , I fully realize that attempting to bring reason to un-reasoned people is probably futile . I am surprised at the false facts they use , I am surprised at the ex-military anti- gun people out there , I shouldn't be surprised that they are so attuned to the falsehoods delivered by our media however and wish they would just think for themselves .
Your expertise is what we all need here .
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
There is NO such thing as an ASSAULT WEAPON on the streets of America , THAT is the most boring accusatory anti-gun logic to come along in decades , It's simply an invention of the lefts "Lets begin a campaign of wording " , and throw it on the table.
The lefts ------"If we repeat a lie enough , It becomes a truth "
Fact!ahorseback: In 1994 a law was passed banning the use of assault weapons by civilians. It diffinently defined what constituted an assault rifle, but the law had a sunset clause that in 10 years, it would expire and it did in 2004. If in 1994, they could define what a constituted an assault rifle, why can't they do it now? Answer, they can, but the NRA does not want them to. This is from wikipedia. Here is the link. If you so desire to read it.
"Efforts to pass a new federal assault weapons ban were made in December 2012 after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.[42][43][44] On January 24, 2013, Senator Feinstein introduced S. 150, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 (AWB 2013).[45] The bill was similar to the 1994 ban, but differed in that it would not expire after 10 years,[44] and it used a one-feature test for a firearm to qualify as an assault weapon rather than the two-feature test of the defunct ban.[46] The GOP Congressional delegation from Texas, and the NRA, condemned Feinstein's bill.[47] On March 14, 2013, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a version of the bill along party lines.[48] On April 17, 2013, AWB 2013 failed on a Senate vote of 40 to 60.[49]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_A … eapons_Ban" In 1994 a law was passed banning the use of assault weapons by civilians."
This sentence could not be more factually wrong than if the poster declared the reason why the Los Angeles Dodgers just lost the Stanley Cup was because their star quarterback didn't get to the free throw line enough times.
That's the problem with folk such as this. They argue their case from a complete ignorance of the subject but expect to be taken seriously.
I would contend that any weapon used to inflict damage on another human being is an 'assault weapon'. Any object used to inflict harm could be labeled as such.
It's too bad we are not seeking answers to the underlying causes as diligently as we are arguing the definition of words.
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
"The Only Way To Prevent Mass Shootings "
Police ,Enforce , Prosecute , Incarcerate !
Is to re-arm the law enforcement community with the ability to actually enforce , prosecute and punish criminals , eliminate any possibility of "Plea Bargaining " in gun crime situations . Demand stronger judge and attorney cooperation in prosecuting these cases , start actually punishing the criminal instead of revolving cases around the "Industry " of the justice system .
Leave law abiding America the hell alone .
Stop the "Not My Child " mentality of soft shoeing all crime ............... - ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
Peoplepower ,When the shallow collective mindset of this entire debate is "shot full of holes "as one considers that the Vegas shooting was that of 23 weapons , some illegally altered for full auto operation ? I ask ALL of you what new law[s] would have prevented it from happening?
If this cannot be answered ; Then there is simply no debate going on here at all BUT a conversation of selfishness and small minds of those looking simply for attention . ahorseback: You didn't answer my question. Why do civilians need firearms that fire 300 to 450 rounds per minute with high capacity magazines?
You answer my question and then I'll answer yours.Lets see now , If my bump stock allows a thirty round magazine to empty in ten seconds or so only by your arithmetic does that equate to hundreds of rounds a minute . Only problem is I would twist my arms and reflexes into knots trying to accomplish the multiplication you learned somewhere .
If my FBI qualified federal firearms licence allows me to buy a A 10 Wart- Hog fighter-
bomber to put on my lawn , then I am a legal A -10 owner or does that make me illegal?
Do you understand what breaking the law is ? You seem to have a lot of trouble with that .ahorseback: You still didn't answer my question. I'll ask it again. Why do civilians need firearms that fire 300 to 450 rounds per minute with high capacity magazines?
Why do we need high speed cars Why do we need knives over 4" long? Why do we need swords?
Why do we need a brown house, a blue car or a pet goldfish? Why do we need more than basic sustenance for food supplies?
Unfortunately for this offense, the constitution does not mention "need" anywhere in the amendment. Perhaps because, in terms of rights, "want" equates to "need", with the result that all of these questions, along with "why do we need firearms that can shoot faster than PP thinks is reasonable" are irrelevant. There is no "need" involved in the right to bear arms.
ahroseback: If you can fire 30 rounds in 10 seconds, then 6 x 10 sec. = I minute, therefore, 6 x 30 = 180, therefore you can fire 180 rounds in 1 minute with a high capacity magazine. = first grade math.
More children are killed each year in swimming pools. Why does anyone need an assault pool?
But Wes, pools are not manufactured with the express purpose of killing people. Assault weapons are, and we know this because the vast majority of bullets fired from them kill someone so that means they are built with the intent of killing people. The same way every pool is known to kill at least one child per year.
No one knows for sure how many AR style rifles there are in the US but about 8,000,000 would be a good number.
Assuming that they each fire two bullets a year that would mean that we would have at least 4,000,001 people shot with an AR each year. That is not quite the "vast majority of bullets" that are fired thru them, but it is at least a "majority", eh.
And it is absolutely TRUE that about twice as many people are murdered each year by someone using their fists to beat them to death than are killed by rifles of ANY kind -- including the AR. Here is the FBI to check in on that issue.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/20 … ta-table-8
Let this be a lesson, Dear Readers. When people such as wilderness posts anything about firearms, firearm owners, or firearm laws you can bet the mortgage that it is either wrong, mistaken, or a willful lie.Apparently the sarcasm went right over your head. Anyone with any sense at all knows the vast majority of bullets from guns do no harm to anyone.
(Had you paid attention in the past you would have seen that I have quoted that same FBI study, and linked to it, multiple times.
You might re-check your arithmetic as well; if each gun fires 2 bullets, one of which kills (a majority) the death toll is 8,000,001. Not half that.
When you say, "But Wes, pools are not manufactured with the express purpose of killing people. Assault weapons are...," you imply that killing people is always and everywhere an evil that is never under any circumstances permissible. Hence, obviously, our police forces and military forces do no need arms of any sort intended to kill people.
If defense of self or others, and the defense of property, is not a permissible use of arms, then obviously neither our police or military should be allowed to use arms for the defense of themselves or others, or the defense of property, or home, or country.Blueheron: You are using the same old line. Law enforcement does not use AR15's. They use military grade weapons. When I say civilian, I mean excluding law enforcement. If you are in the military, you are not a civilian. So your logic of banning everybody does not work.
It seems that my sarcastic remark, plainly removed from truth as far as humanly possible, is being taken as factual. But either way, the conclusion you're trying to draw from isn't possible.
Pencils aren't made to mis-spell words, and yet they do. So I humbly submit the intents of the manufacturer aren't so valid.
Personally, I believe that things are made in order to make the manufacturer a profit. Could be wrong, though - maybe the employees at Colt or Winchester chortle to themselves every time a finished gun goes in the box, because they intend it to kill someone.
So you're saying you're a full-on pacifist? That there is never an instance in which is desirable, justifiable, or at least acceptable to kill someone? Not in the case of threats of imminent harm or death to yourself or a loved one, armed robbery, home invasion, or someone raping your daughter or molesting your child?
You're saying you don't believe violence should ever, under any circumstances, be resisted with counter-violence?Not sure what any of this has to with a company being in business to make a profit. Or why you've decided I am a pacifist under all conditions: truthfully this seems like something you've pulled out of nowhere for reasons unknown.
Can you elucidate?
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
Fact ;The only crime that we could possibly be sure may.....MAY be on the rise is mass killings and in that , My perspective is that there are less mental heath facilities [Reagan ? ], far less mental health incarcerations , a substantial increase in gangs like MS 13 for instance , more inner city violent spot crimes , a far far softer stance on prosecutions of all crime since the Clinton administration and far , far more prescription and illicit drug use,
I for one am a collector and have 26 firearms , not one of which was "designed for killing men " and all of which were bought legally , over the counter ,with FBI background checks .Fact ; An "assault rifle " does not exist but in police and military installations with such alterations as full auto actions .
Why are anti-gunners so attuned to half truths and total falsification ?ahorseback: So I could take one of your guns and shoot somebody in the head at point blank range and it would not kill them? What kind of guns, do you have anyway?
I'm off of the assault rifle kick and you know it. The common denominator is rate of fire. You are not willing to accept that a machine that can fire 300 rounds in a minute can be used by terrorist and mentally ill for assaulting others for the purpose of mass killings.Great! Keep the terrorists out and hide the mentally ill in institutions. Leaving the law abiding people exercising their constitutional rights alone, with their rights and freedoms intact.
Go after the suspected killers in other words, rather than innocent people. A novel idea, to be sure, but one that might have better results than repeating actions that have already failed miserably in the forlorn hope that this time it will be different.Yes ,, you sound like a criminal there Peoplepower , "Take one of your guns and shoot someone in the head ".................would you mention first that you'd have to break into my locked house [illegal ] break the locks on my gun safes [illegal ] , travel across state lines with them .[again illegal and felonious ] actually brandish the weapon at another human being [illegal ] and shoot them in the head [felony ] .
I see that you have conveniently changed your terminology and the "rate of fire for a bump stock " to now lower numbers in this debate and you are "off the assault rifle kick " ? Are we seeing a new reasoning for your debating , perhaps an adhering to reality rather than fantasy ?
Or are you admitting defeat in the presence of truth ?ahorseback: You wrote the following: "I for one am a collector and have 26 firearms , not one of which was [b]"designed for killing men "[b] and all of which were bought legally , over the counter ,with FBI background checks .Fact ; An "assault rifle " does not exist but in police and military installations.
As far as shooting somebody in the head, I'm just responding to what you wrote.
As far as terminology goes, pro gun people don't want rapid fire, high capacity firearms defined. Therefore, I have found that the common denominator of rate of fire and magazine capacity are definitive. An AR-15 without a bump stock has a firing rate of around 5 rounds per second (RPS) with a bump stock it is about 7.5 RPS. An M16 is about 15 RPS. You add a high capacity magazine and you have a mass shooting/killing device. I don't care what you call it. Therefore I'm not admitting defeat. My source is https://youtu.be/Dd9y8hHMUag
Here are the guns that they found at Vegas shooters room
https://goo.gl/images/uFWKs8Is it your goal to find a reasonable definition of what you want banned or to ban the AR-15 (and anything similar)?
You list firing rates...but without giving any indication of what you find unacceptable. Is it the 15 RPS of a true assault gun or the 5 RPS of every semiautomatic in the country?
And you still didn't indicate what a "high" capacity is - the 20 rounds in a .22 tubular magazine or the (50?) in the M16?I know the firing rate of legal guns and you have exaggerated the numbers from the beginning , a semi-auto rifle cannot fire 5 rounds per second. I dare you to accurately , with safety to yourself , try to fire five rounds per second. It can't accurately be done The Vegas shooter by the sounds , had sophisticated full auto [ILLEGAL} military and illegally altered street firearms . My point , Semi- automatic weapons have been street legal for as long as they've been around , for what a hundred years ?
I could have taken my Sharps single shot rifle and do a considerable amount of damage from the Vegas shooters standpoint , seriously would less such death and destruction have fit your rhetoric because I only killed a few and not with an AR 15 but a single shot rifle ?
The greater part of this debate SHOULD be the systematic breakdown of the law enforcement , justice dept.and the lack of eventual incarceration of criminals . Yet you continue to harp on the specifics of your own exaggerated anti-gun rhetoric . Your continued exaggerations only make you look foolish to us all and even to leftist causes .
Shut down your falsehoods or answer to the true causes of this incessant crime wave AND the left's collective lack of accepted reality of the present crime situation in America . You in my opinion ,continue this "assault weapon " fiasco only for forum attention .ahorseback and others: I can't stand to see and hear about mass shootings of innocent people and children by the mentally ill and terrorists. You can spout all the statistics you want about homicide rates, and other means of killing more people than mass shootings, even your mantra about the systematic breakdown of the law enforcement , justice dept.and the lack of eventual incarceration of criminals. But that changes nothing when a mass of individuals are killed. To me your systematic breakdown of our society, which you blame completely on liberals, is nothing more that a distraction of the immediate issue. To me,, the more guns, the more opportunity for the those who want to do harm to innocent people. If you ban the weapons of choice that they use for mass killings, the less they will able to do. Yes, they can do it by other means, but will they?
Pro gun people say it has been tried before and it doesn't work, but they are not willing to try it again, for the sake of not having access to the same tools that mass killers use. Diane Fienstein has a bill right now to re-instate the bill that was law for 10 years, And yes it is called the assault weapons ban. Here is the thing, you guys can't stand political correctness, but when it comes to a naming a class of weapons of choice that are used for mass killings, we are not allowed to call them assault weapons. if they are not called assault weapons, what do you call that class of weapons? That's the game you people play. Here is the link to her bill. Fat chance it will be enacted because of all the influence placed on congress by the NRA and the gun industry.
https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public … 00BB52A973"You can spout all the statistics you want"
In other words, don't confuse me with facts when my feelz is the most important thing we are discussing.
"To me your systematic breakdown of our society, which you blame completely on liberals, is nothing more that a distraction of the immediate issue."
In other words, don't confuse me with facts when my feelz is the most important thing we are discussing.
"To me,, the more guns, the more opportunity for the those who want to do harm to innocent people."
I think the "to me" is the indicator of the problem of communication we are seeing here.
"If you ban the weapons of choice that they use for mass killings, the less they will able to do."
Confusing "ban" with "magically make disappearing from society and existence" eh.
"Yes, they can do it by other means, but will they?"
Errrr.... yes. History and reality answers that one for you fairly quickly and affirmatively.
"Pro gun people say it has been tried before and it doesn't work, but they are not willing to try it again,"
No, pro-gun people know that NO "ban" on what you consider by your definition of "assault weapon/rifle" has ever taken place. We don't say that it has been "tried before" because we understand actual history and reality. What was "banned" was a few cosmetic features that had NO affect on the underlying structure of the AR platform rifle and the way it operated. By your understanding, banning air scoops on a car hood is actually the same as "banning cars."
You simply refuse to accept reality.
"you guys can't stand political correctness, but when it comes to a naming a class of weapons of choice that are used for mass killings, we are not allowed to call them assault weapons."
Ah... the Humpty Dumpty argument, eh...
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-that's all."
"if they are not called assault weapons, what do you call that class of weapons?"
How about by their actual class... semi-automatic rifles. Oh noes... reality strikes again.Jack: You wrote: "No, pro-gun people know that NO "ban" on what you consider by your definition of "assault weapon/rifle" has ever taken place. We don't say that it has been "tried before" because we understand actual history and reality. What was "banned" was a few cosmetic features that had NO affect on the underlying structure of the AR platform rifle and the way it operated. By your understanding, banning air scoops on a car hood is actually the same as "banning cars." "
Obviously, you didn't read this from my comment before you.
https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public … 00BB52A973Obviously you don't actually know the law that was passed in 1994, eh.
Jack Burton: Read this and then tell me there has never been a ban on assault weapons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_A … eapons_BanPeoplepower , Of course there was a ".......assault weapons Ban ....." in 1994 . Every gun owner knows that , they also do enough homework to know that it was dropped entirely because it was ineffective in federal studies ...............And there lies the problem . Basing one's whole argument on the entire "Assault Weapon " terminology . I suggest everyone learn the FBI's studies and statistical truth ,the failure of stopping crime of that legislation.
The American public is smarter than the new and improved use of anti-gun terminology . They have learned that " high capacity mags. , black guns , assault weapons , automatic weapons etc........" is just one more way of saying ALL guns . In fact , until the "bump stock " came out , there was NO change whatsoever in the effective firing power and accuracy of any weapon from over one hundred years ago - to today .
I hope that the American public continues to see through false argument , phony terminology and especially the use of made up media in all political debate but especially the gun debate ,let's face it , this debate is just as simple as those who understand the meaning of ALL the constitutional rights and those who take them for granted.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqYlQOagcQI
I would just like us to get to the point where we can all recognize, that it wasn't an AR-15 at all that was heard being used in ANY of the videos.
Can we start with this before me move forward on whether or not AR-15s or semi-auto weapons need to be banned?
Can we come to the conclusion of the reality of that terrible night, that one fact that cannot and would not be denied by anyone of moral fiber and weapons experience enough to know better, that the weapon used was a BELT FED FULLY AUTOMATIC MACHINE GUN, you can argue if it was a M249 or an M240 if you like but it was beyond doubt a belt fed weapon... there is no way it could not be... it is beyond the ability of any AR-15 to fire like that.
See once we can all get onboard with the same facts, the truth at least in as much as what TYPE of weapon was used, we could move forward to the other issues.Ken are you looking for something besides dodge , deflect and slip-sliding in basic fact here ? All of this threaded debate points more toward the ultimate polarization of ideological difference . Those uncaring of second amendment rights and those who do.
-academia against wisdom
-false media against truth
-might against right
-illusion against dillusion
There is no reasoning with the unreasonable.What matters to me is that we are arguing this issue because of the tragedies of the past few weeks.
We had Las Vegas, where an AR-15 is being blamed, yet is was impossible for that to be an AR-15 being used.... not getting into any other issues related to it... just what is most obvious, that there is no way, not .oo1% chance, that what we hear being fired is an AR-15.
The Second issue, with what occurred in the Church in Texas, is a failure of the system, a failure to have an unstable and violent criminal labelled as such. Again, as I have debated in here, we need stricter controls, stricter restrictions on who can own a gun, and more training and licensing required.
That is what is needed... not the outlawing of guns. The outlawing of guns gives all the power to the criminals, the unstable, and even potentially a tyrannical government, I don't think it is possible for us to become the next Venezuela so long as we have the ability to stand against such oppression.Liberal anti-gun people have promoted , legislated and acted upon gun bans federally , in state and local laws to effect violent crime statistics . They have waged a war of attrition against the constitution , against the sporting industries, in the education industry they have brainwashed our kids , our college students , colluded with our news media , they have even altered the English language in this all out assault on our constitutional rights , they have taxed and fee'd the sporting and law abiding gun industry beyond belief .
Even though , they say , they did it all to affect the rate of violent crime in our streets. Not one thing they have ever supported in firearm restrictions has worked , not one legislative action has worked , they sight "long term studies " resulting in studies that change stat's year after year , They have resorted to language fads to effect change , terms . "Assault weapon " , " Automatic gunfire ", "military grade ",
"tactical weaponry "...................and it goes on .
And all of it totally done without ONE back- step in dealing with the broken justice system in America , whats that old saying about digging a hole ? It's been time for the anti-gun left in America to throw that shovel up out of the hole they have been digging in for decades and begin to work on something positive . If soft on crime and incarceration hasn't worked , how about a change there ? If courts plea bargaining and easing of punishment doesn't work ,change it ..............I can go on !
Bottom line , Anti-gun warriors are in total melt down failure , nothing they have tried has worked , make no mistake about it though , THEY ARE waging a major war of attrition against law abiding firearms owners , it's just that they don't say that out loud.
Ken, I have seen you previously state it was a belt-fed full-auto machine gun, but I wonder what makes you so sure - other than the links you provided offering the sound of seemingly full-auto rapid fire?
I am not considering any part of the official version of events regarding this point, but a youtube search found multiple AR-15 videos that sounded similar, (similar in that the rate of fire seemed the same, but the actual sound of the reports varied), to your link's rapid-fire sounds.
To my untrained ear, other than the varying actual report sounds - which will vary depending on several factors, the constant rate of fire from a bump stock-equipped AR-15 with a 50 or 100 round drum mag sounded just like the rate of fire in the link you posted. And... the length of the firing sequences seemed similar also.
What am I missing that makes you so sure of your conclusion that it was a SAW-type weapon?
GAA SAW has a firing rate of either 725 or 1000 rounds per minute, depending on the machining of the gas port hole. The guns at Vegas did not approach either figure. Maybe he had a roomful of old M2 50 cal. Brownings?
Hi Wilderness. I saw that information too. My only point to Ken was concerning the rapid firing rate in his video link. It seemed similar to the firing rate in the youtube AR-15 videos with bump stocks.
I was wondering why he placed so much weight on that point to be so sure the real weapon was a belt-fed machine gun.
GAJoke! Joke! It was a joke!
I think I need to brush up on my humor - my wife never gets it, either.
Well damn! I need that squiggly emotatext I once read about. The text wiggles and contorts to convey tone and inflection. ;-)
I got the "Maybe he had a roomful of old M2 50 cal. Brownings?" joke part. I just felt your comment deserved a reply. Maybe it should have been this one: (I like the logic)
"An Irishman walks into a bar in Dublin, orders three pints of Guinness and sits in the back of the room, drinking a sip out of each one in turn. When he finishes them, he comes back and orders three more.
The bartender tells him, "You know, a pint goes flat after I draw it, and it would taste better if you bought one at a time."
The Irishman replies, "Well, you see, I have two brothers.
One is in America, the other is in Australia, and I'm in Dublin.
When we all left home, we promised that we'd drink this way to remember the days we drank together. So I drink one for each o'me brothers and one for me self."
The bartender admits that this is a nice custom, and leaves it there. The Irishman becomes a regular in the bar, and always drinks the same way: He orders three pints and drinks them in turn.
One day, he comes in and orders two pints.
All the other regulars take notice and fall silent. When he comes back to the bar for the second round, the bartender says, "I don't want to intrude on your grief, but I wanted to offer my condolences on your loss." The Irishman looks quite puzzled for a moment, then a light dawns and he laughs.
"Oh, no, everybody's just fine," he explains, "It's just that me wife had us join that Baptist Church and I had to quit drinking. But it hasn't affected me brothers though."
GA
Hi GA,
I was wrong. I should have checked my information more thoroughly. Now that I have, the official story makes complete sense, and there is no further need to debate the matter.
Enjoy your Thanksgiving.That is certainly an out-of-character response Ken. Though there was skepticism in my comment, there was no intended offense or denigration.
Family, friends, and dumplings. I will enjoy the day, I hope you do as well.
GANo offense taken at all GA,
I was incorrect in my assessment regarding the topic, and I firmly believe that the official account of what occurred is accurate, the experts have weighed in on the matter and have no reason to withhold any information.
I was wrong to inject that I have any experience or expertise that would be credible to counter what has been reported, having not examined any of the evidence, or the AR-15 in question, or any alterations done of the weapon, it is very reasonable to assume everything was done by Stephen Paddock.
Enjoy the extended weekend and time with your family, wish you all the best.
Ken
Readers can always tell those who don't actually know the laws about firearms, and the firearms themselves.
Let's take a look at PP's own cite that he considers authoritative concerning any "ban" of "assault weapons".
Oh... look here RIGHT in the second paragraph...
"The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment"
So... PP... what happened to all the AR style rifles that were manufactured BEFORE the ban? Those millions of rifles floating around in civilian hands. Were THEY "banned"? Were they taken away from citizens by any process? It is a simple yes or no question.
"Under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 the definition of "semiautomatic assault weapon" included specific semi-automatic firearm models by name, and other semi-automatic firearms that possessed two or more from a set certain features "
And what were these "features"?
Well, they included such things as:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher
So another simple yes or no question, PP. If a manufacture just changed the "specific make or model" name of the rifle, and left off a "bayonet mount" and a "grenade launcher" could they manufacture an AR platform rifle virtually identical to any that had been "banned." A rifle that performed exactly, in every way (except for being able to stab people with a bayonet) as one that had just been "banned"?
Again... it is a simple yes or no question. But if you struggle with answering it, let's let you fellow gun-bigots answer it for you... again... from YOUR own cite...
In May 2012, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence said, "the inclusion in the list of features that were purely cosmetic in nature created a loophole that allowed manufacturers to successfully circumvent the law by making minor modifications to the weapons they already produced"
And as for the "ban on magazine" question... Here is another quote from YOUR cite...
"The Act also prohibited the transfer and possession of "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" (LCAFDs). An LCAFD was defined as "any magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after the date [of the act]"
In other, shorter words, EVERY one of the millions of magazines that were in existence on the date of the "ban" were completely legal to own, sell, and buy.
But here's the kicker, Dear Readers. Tomorrow, next week, next month, PP is still going to be pushing the fake news that somehow, someway, by magic if necessary, the AWB of 1994 made every single AR platform rifle "banned from existence."Jack Burton; You wrote; "So... PP... what happened to all the AR style rifles that were manufactured BEFORE the ban? Those millions of rifles floating around in civilian hands. Were THEY "banned"? Were they taken away from citizens by any process? It is a simple yes or no question."
NO, they were not because if they banned them before the ban, they would have banned all of them. That's part of the mentality of the pro-gun people. Do you want them all banned? Yes or no
You wrote: "So another simple yes or no question, PP. If a manufacture just changed the "specific make or model" name of the rifle, and left off a "bayonet mount" and a "grenade launcher" could they manufacture an AR platform rifle virtually identical to any that had been "banned." A rifle that performed exactly, in every way (except for being able to stab people with a bayonet) as one that had just been "banned"?"
If they produced the exact same platform and changed the model number, they would be complicit in any crimes committed while the ban was in effect.
You wrote:
"In other, shorter words, EVERY one of the millions of magazines that were in existence on the date of the "ban" were completely legal to own, sell, and buy."
Again if they removed magazines that were already produced, they would have to confiscate them. Do you want that, yes or no?
You wrote:
"But here's the kicker, Dear Readers. Tomorrow, next week, next month, PP is still going to be pushing the fake news that somehow, someway, by magic if necessary, the AWB of 1994 made every single AR platform rifle "banned from existence."
I did not say that. And I don't believe that all AR platforms before the ban went into effect should be confiscated. It's only after the ban. Again your paranoid logic is taking over common sense. You people are so afraid all of your guns are going to be confiscated, you can't even think straight.
"Yes, they can do it by other means, but will they? "
History and experience says "Yes they will", but that isn't an answer that is palatable, is it? So we'll ignore it and continue down the path of banning guns whenever possible while we watch the death toll refuse to fall. The only question is "why?" and the only answer I can come up with is that we don't care what the death toll is as long as we get those guns and don't have to make changes ourselves.
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
Better arm yourselves ;
Monday AM , All through this debate naive anti-gunners throw their own versions of
" facts, statistics , truths " and as we bring the real numbers , the one truth and arguments to the table A U.S. Border Patrol guard member was shot and killed on the Mexican border yesterday , in the last week at least two cops have been gunned down in America . What about these crimes ?
AND THE ANTI_GUN PEOPLE STILL refuse to acknowledge that we have a crime epidemic going on all across America , Cities and now even small towns that are playgrounds for MS 13 gang members making their uninterrupted journey from Mexico City to the Big Bend area in Texas to Phoenix and on to cities and towns near you , distributing drugs , enslaving your daughters and nieces into the sex" trades '. causing your sons and nephews into committing property crimes everywhere .
But the anti-gun crowd so ignores this total crime wave and still distorts reality so much as to to limit a deer hunter in Michigan or a partridge hunter in Vermont from buying a new shotgun , I can only say , So much for the sense of reality of those on the left ! One look at this new and improved crime wave in America and I know enough to realize ,We all have to arm and defend ourselves .
So much for the anti -gun debate .MS-13 is an American gang...I know this because they started about a mile from where I work.And I had to deal with them from time to time. They only proliferated in El Salvador because back in the late 80s and early 90s many of them with criminal records were deported (despite several of them being American citizens) where they initiated a lot of people there. Now, that you've made a detour get back to the original topic of this thread and talk about things you claim you know more than all those "naive anti-gun people" (even if some of those people you've targeted are not anti-gun).
Call the MS 13 what you will, it began elsewhere and moved here , carrying with it major southwest drugs and crime now spreading all across America , What I debate here is certainly far more into honesty than you can argue , The left's anti-gun problem is that they -you have your habits of invented fact that has nothing to do with reality . How exactly can you blame America and America's deporting illegals as origins to anything so illegal as MS 13 is beyond me and most others . For instance , you thus blame who , the border patrol for MS 13 habit of victim decapitations ?
Got something to add to our debate , do it , don't whine ."Call the MS 13 what you will..." wow, that statement says so much about you. Even when I point out I know the history (i.e. facts -- you know that thing you claim to have on your side -- lol)., you still pull out the denials and stick to your flimsy, cardboard story. Did I make myself clear? I had to deal with this gang as well as others. With this type of reaction, it's no wonder why you pull out the what-about-ism rhetoric; you can't handle it when someone has the upper hand in a debate ( so you try to deflect). Worst yet, you pulled out the ideological card, thus making your argument laughable. Haven't I told that's dumb to do?
Also, you seem to forget something I stated: most of the people you've debated and labeled as anti-gun are actually gun owners or former NRA members. Many have questions and are starting to realize that the status quo on current laws needs to be reviewed and revised.
Personally, all I did was point out that many of you were using faulty data. But, you guys got your panties in the bunch. But what else can I expect from someone who is a prime example of the Dunning Kugar Effect (look it up, if you are actually curious).
Also, genius, I didn't mention anything about blaming border patrols. That was a stretch to say the least. And how you came to that conclusion is just sad and way off the mark.Dean , Did you come up with all this while waiting in traffic on the 401 ? Wow , that's brilliant deductive power , And now you imply that all the gun supporters want change but me , uh huhhh....Right or left Dean , your problem may be that you make up your own reality . Advice , In the real world and outside of California , you can't do that .
Gun owners that I know , realize fully the war of attrition going on , the psychology as one say's ,"many are former NRA ..........many have question's and have realized the status quo on current laws needs to be revised and changed ........." That's just so much B.S. Dean , you better get off the highway , you're highway dreaming .
In almost all of these forums Dean , particularly in the second amendment and guns issue , "Faulty Data "................ IS the new and not so clever , new age tactic of the entire left , Go there you might as well stay home . Your message , as is in the O.P.'s gun debate , is shallow , distorted and very transparently so .
The "flimsy cardboard story " IS the anti-gun ,anti-second amendment , anti-reality crowd , welcome to the group.Gee, two screeds for the price of one. Way to go horseshack . So where do I go to distinguish this dumpster fire?
Well, first off, there's some corrections that need to be made: 1. It's the 405, not the 401. Ones a traffic jam waiting to happen while the other is a tax annuity for the private sector. Don't confuse the two. 2. it's "effect" not "affect." Effect is a noun whereas affect is a verb. In the name of the Effect I meant named a condition in which someone is so incompetent that they don't realize that they are incompetent (I mentioned that because you were probably too scared to seek its meaning).
Next, not looking at data when debating someone is just stupid. Sure there's a lot of faulty data when it comes to the gun control/rights debate, but there's plenty of good ones out there. Also, knowledge is just as powerful as experience (then again that was just some anti-intellectual rant that only affirms you follow blindly an ideology rather than "realty" you seem to think your delusions are....but that's another story.
Speaking of reality, you do realize that there are NRA members who are also starting to accept that regulations are needed, especially, when it comes to assault rifle? No? Maybe you're just one of those that go to gun shows dressed in their best cosplay. Is it George Washington or George Patton? Those were always the popular ones.
Point being, being a follower that does nothing but eat up propaganda that does little inform one about the truth you claim to behold. Therefore any argument on the matter, despite your so-called experience is null and void.
Yeah, I know you're going to respond to this with angry lunacy that's barely readable...but know one thing:I'll keep coming back and I will come back hard.Dean , Oh gee wiz excuse me , 405 , you really got me there ....., First , I have been involved in gun debates since before they came in news print , your's aren't good, your arguments lose all substance and meaning especially when you think and speak for disillusioned NRA members "starting to accept that there are regulations needed ...........". I don't know any , you don't either and you can't speak for them .
I may not have the articulation of your highly sophisticated intellectual likeness but what I do have is an amazing internal B.S radar. The screen lights up brightly when I read your responses. The problem with ...."not looking at data ....blah blah blah ..."
is that I've seen it all , good ,bad and even your new age documentary crap .
Show me even an FBI study that doesn't change from administration to administration
and I'll read The Three Bears for you so you can listen in your audio-books on the 405 trip home. Otherwise ; Try this , give me an example of how you'd fix the broken justice system . How you'd change the incredible drug addiction in your inner city crime culture , why you think crime isn't spilling over the border into your sanctuary city homeland.
Start there and get back to me.I've been involved on both sides of the debate for more than 30 years.try to explain where I'm wrong...I've pointed your bs arguments a million times. All you do is prove you own guns because you're paranoid and afraid of your fellow human beings.
And by the way , Your reference to 'Dunning- Kugar -affect " is shallow , phony and naive , I have a policy here in forums of NOT using , statistical pie charts , collegiate studies , polls , graphs and general modern day media driven B.S. flow charts because of their newly formed inaccuracy and ideological , agenda driven origination . I also no longer use pictures , cartoons or anything provided by the general media .
My knowledge of all firearms and their technical make up is one gained from a lifetime use of them NOT a phobia of them like many many here .
I make my points all based on common sense and wisdom gained from real life experiences , when you have been around long enough to really , I mean really enter a forum using these attributes , let me know . Your spotty responses are generally delivered with an eye cast downward on the rest of humanity . A basis in the mindset of a UCLA street poll or a protest march slogan.
If you can actually make a valid point in this thread do so , otherwise go back to your California classroom , you fit better there .
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
Peoplepower ,
Call homicidal maniacs the killings and the weapons they use anything you want ,
call for extra legislation to ban any weapon you want , call conservatives anything you want ! BUT , what you know has to happen ----- isn't happening .
The repair to a broken legal system .
Stop calling for increased legislating FORWARDS and start systematic repairing BACKWARDS , that is what I and those on the right are saying ! A thousand more laws won't fix one thing or save one life and the sad part is YOU know that and totally ignore it for ideological purposes . - ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
AS a gun owner and strict constitutional believer , I won't ever give up the 2nd right however my reasonable side could be persuaded to let the bump stocks and thirty round mags go,..... Yet gun owners and I will fight it ALL tooth and nail simply because it IS a war of attrition on firearms , I know it , Libs admit it and the media doesn't care , they just sell it !
The government will follow the will of the majority , federally , state or in the localities .Don't look for ANY change anytime soon however , I for one , have re-signed to join the NRA just to keep assigned the congressional lobbyism and why ? For one , because of the senseless forum opposition here , two because of the media psyc- warfare of simple terminology.
Go NRA. ahorseback: You wrote:
"Peoplepower , Of course there was a ".......assault weapons Ban ....." in 1994 . Every gun owner knows that , they also do enough homework to know that it was dropped entirely because it was ineffective in federal studies ...............And there lies the problem . Basing one's whole argument on the entire "Assault Weapon " terminology . I suggest everyone learn the FBI's studies and statistical truth ,the failure of stopping crime of that legislation."
No, you are wrong. It was dropped because it had a sunset clause that it would expire in 10 years, if it was not renewed. The NRA, gun industry, and gun lobbyist and conservative congress pushed for it not to be renewed.
Here is what Dianne Fienstein's bill proposes. You will notice, it only bans the sale of new purchases of assault style weapons. It does not take away your guns.
"Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, and 22 other Senate Democrats have re-introduced a bill to ban “military-style assault weapons” and high-capacity ammunition magazines.
Her fellow California Sen. Kamala Harris also signed on to the Assault Weapons Ban of 2017, which was introduced on Wednesday. The announcement comes just days after a man used a Ruger AR rifle to open fire on a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, killing 26 adults and children.
“It’s past time to remove weapons of war from our streets,” Feinstein tweeted on Wednesday.
What would the Assault Weapons Ban of 2017 do?
The bill would prohibit the sale, manufacture, transfer and importation of 205 military-style assault weapons. Those weapons are defined by having a detachable ammunition magazine or other “military characteristics” that include fixed magazines that accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
The bill lists, literally name by name, 2,200 guns that would be exempt for hunting, household defense or recreational purposes.
It also bans bump-fire stocks — notoriously used to kill 58 people in the recent Las Vegas shooting — and other devices that allow semi-automatic weapons to fire at automatic rates.
Feinstein said the bill “won’t stop every mass shooting, but it will begin removing these weapons.”
.
What happens to guns that are already out there?
People who already have these “military-style” assault weapons and magazines would be able to keep them, but the new law would require them to be stored in a secure gun storage or have a safety device like a trigger lock.
Have similar bills been introduced before?
Yes.
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act was passed in 1994. It banned 19 military-style assault weapons.
Congress allowed the law to expire in 2004, however, so the bill is being reintroduced. Feinstein says it was “just starting to show an effect” in 2004 and that “it will be a long process to reduce the massive supply of these assault weapons in our country, but we’ve got to start somewhere.”
“To those who say now isn’t the time, they’re right — we should have extended the original ban 13 years ago, before hundreds more Americans were murdered with these weapons of war,” she said in a released statement on Wednesday. “To my colleagues in Congress, I say do your job.”
Critics at the time said loopholes allowed sales to continue anyway.
“President Bill Clinton’s so-called ‘assault weapons’ ban was nothing more than a sop to anti-gun liberals,” U.S. Rep. Butch Otter, R-Idaho, said in 2004. “It provided only the illusion of reducing gun violence, but it did real damage to our liberties.”
Feinstein introduced the bill again in 2013 shortly after 20 schoolchildren and six adults were killed in Newtown, Connecticut, but it was defeated by a 60-40 vote in the Senate.
How likely is it to succeed?
It seems Feinstein isn’t under the illusion that the bill could pass the Republican-controlled Senate, but she says she wanted to introduce the bill anyway.
“We’re introducing an updated assault weapons ban for one reason: so that after every mass shooting with a military-style assault weapon, the American people will know that a tool to reduce these massacres is sitting in the Senate, ready for debate and a vote,” Feinstein said in a released statement on Wednesday."
There you have ahorseback, you and your pro gun people can sleep tonight, knowing they are not coming for your guns.- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
Back in the eighties and nineties when I got my monthly letter from the NRA , I used to think the NRA was over zealous with the whole anti-gun crowd . Certainly we could all be reasonable and come to a conclusion that might seem compromising . After all , do we need guns painted black , over five round magazines , bayonet attachments, guns near schools , we could use mandatory gun safes and trigger locks .
We bought expensive trigger locks , we bought two thousand dollar locking gun safes , we drove around the school zones when we went to the woods , we showed our kids how to handle guns safely , we forced responsibility on them , we tried to reason with blindness in the opposition , we hid our firearms from public view , IN other words we tried ALL reasonable compromises .
But a simple read through all of the ant- B.S. above and I realize the NRA was always right ! Thirty years of telling me that "They are after your guns .....all of them !" is the truth . One way or another the anti- crowd , given that less youth are entering the outdoor hunting , sporting , shooting world because of the bias in education , for one !
I'm not even going to debate the legal system failures in this thread any more , Peoplepower knows them well ! All anti- gun people knows them well . I'm only going to tow the NRA message of Charleton Heston .".From my cold dead hands ". Not because that's how I feel but because the legal , law abiding gun owners of America are being and long have been pushed into a corner .ahorseback: What corner are you pushed into? You have all the guns you need or want and you can even buy more. Has anybody come for your guns or any guns from any person in the U.S? The anti-gun people are the ones who are pushed into the corner by the pro-gun people doing nothing. Every mass murdering now comes with platitudes: "Our thoughts and prayers are with you, We will never forget you; and Now is not the time to talk about gun control." A wise man once said, to do nothing is to do everything. Doing nothing is also a decision. If you are concerned about the systematic decay of the criminal justice system, do something about it. Don't just whine and blame those awful left wing liberals who want to take away your guns. Write to your congressmen get in contact with your representative. It's very easy to blame others for your own ills.
Oh believe me , I write my reps often and willfully . The indecision and lack of enforcing laws and progressive movement against the newest plague of crime in America is all the left's , As much as the NRA says to me "Send money ,they are after us " the anti-gun people say , " Send money, we will confiscate them "I've received both. ...........So tell me ? What has the left done to change the totally liberal influenced justice system ? Ex. ......Mayor Giulianni understood being tougher on crime and while he was in office it worked well in NYC, What did the left do , give NYC Mayor Deblasio .
What is the extent of liberal -progressiveness against crime ?
Follow the crumbs.
-Plea bargains
-Softened incarcerations
-No death penalty
-Early release
-Prisoner early releases
-Prison closures
-Open borders
This is where you tell me that incarceration isn't a deterrent to crime .
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
Anybody heard that there are dozens and dozens , possibly hundreds of victims from Vegas shooting already suing the hotel for their security breech ? Something wrong with this whole scene , why is the shooters tech. info not being released by the investigators yet ,isn't that unusual ? No one here seems to know exactly what he even had for guns other than 23 weapons .
I don't care how the anti's dissect all their supposed technical brainstorms of weaponry , one could have done almost as much damage with a 10 / 22 Ruger* semi-auto plinker rifle or check out a Ruger* MK.II .22 handgun . all easily used to inflict such multiple deaths.
While the anti's rant , the abilities of the existing justice system rusts away to uselessness and life goes on.ahorseback: Thank you for that information. Then those plinkers should be banned as well, if they get in the wrong hands. What do you think? You do know by now that banning does not mean taking away guns from people? It is just no further sales of what they deem necessary to ban.
In the existing justice system, we have an Attorney General who is an ultra conservative. The republicans run congress, the Supreme court is controlled by ultra conservatives, and the president is a republican. I suppose you want to blame Obama and the liberals for the breakdown in the criminal justice system. Just look in your own backyard.Peoplepower As with most on the left you sure are shortsighted , Of course the faults all due to the recently acquired republican control of the Whitehouse , congress etc........Not ! No its been in decline since the sixties , but we do owe most of the quality of the justice system decline to liberals .
I have said many times , the left has no political memory.
As to your "....... banning the .22 plinkers too........" I have told everyone about your following the true leftist mission , to ban all firearms , You just simply and effectively confirmed that . Thank you for revealing that ....finally .ahroseback: I revealed nothing. That is your inference from what I said. It was a nice try though. It is the pro-gun paranoia that thinks we are going after everybody's guns. Why would the bill state that they only want to ban any future sales? Oh I know the right's paranoia says that is just the beginning, eventually they will come for everybody's guns.
I like the way you stated, "but we do owe most of the quality of the justice system decline to liberals. I have said many times , the left has no political memory."
Again, you are placing the blame on the liberals. As far as political memory goes, the right can't recall anything in these investigations. Sessions must have said it at least 100 times in his hearing with congress. Not only that but republicans have selective memory. Trump said he never met with Russian operatives, but yet there is a picture in the oval office with Trump and the operative in question with Trump's cabinet members.
Please prove to me that it is mainly the left's fault for the decline of the the criminal justice system. Jails are big business that are run by corporations. The more people they put in jail the more money they make. That is a doing of the republicans, not the left. They take kids who are smoking pot and put them in prison and change their lives forever. When they are released they become criminals that you are talking about.
I back up my assertions with supporting evidence. Unlike you it is not just my opinion. Read this.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-priso … avery/8289
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
The Viet- Nam war of the left;
I have never seen such a decades long issue as the second amendment attacks in America that shows so little an understanding of the all important national issue , violent crime . A completely misdirected , ineffective war against the totally wrong enemy - the law abiding citizen .
Even the projected victorious outcome of the anti-gun crowd would show no notable change in crime statistics , a hand grip style , a bump stock , a high capacity mag , a trigger modification there , the color of a gun , WHILE totally ignoring the fact that this war against law abiding , mass majority of gun owners .......Does nothing.
Perfect example ; Speed limits , every body knows that every car you meet today is speeding , every one of them , on the highway , the city streets , the school zones , the dirt roads, ........So much that it causes more deaths than even firearms in America . But the mentality of anti-gun people is that we write a couple more laws ? And the ignorance in understanding is that it will stop all speeding crimes and deaths .
News Flash ; You are creating more paper and not changing the original problem one iota .
There is no reasoning with the unreasonable. - ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
Recent crime in my hometown : Man arrested for possession of opioid's and domestic assault for threatening , fighting with his wife , man arrested ,has guns confiscated , going through investigation the Atty.Gen.. drops gun charges and decides to prosecute only drug charges , before trial the guy goes through judge and threatens to sue for return of guns , Judge orders return of all guns and he get's his guns back , all of this pre- trial for drugs .
Anyone see;
The problem with the gun crime ?
The plea bargaining ?
The gun issue ?
The problem with the justice system ?
The drug problem ?
Or is the nasty old gun still at fault ? This happens thousands of times a day .ahorseback: You take one example and multiply times a thousand for one day. I would say that is a bit of an exaggeration..
Here are the facts for the number of mass shootings in the last 511 days, from June 2016 to October of of 2017...No exaggeration. Oh I know, you don't like the NY Times, it's fake news according to your president...and I know you believe everything he says.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 … gress.htmlYou do realize that if you banned the production of every "assault weapon " characteristic in the American gun market today that you will still not change the numbers because of grandfathered mfg. laws don't you ? They always apply to firearms legislation's, they did in 1993 , they would tomorrow .
I noticed you didn't respond to my example of the multiple Judicial problems ?
And No , I don't trust any of the liberal rags that you call media .
Why don't you give me ten examples of legislation that will stop gun killings.
Answer my media example , I'll answer yours .
And ,Happy turkey day !ahorseback: Here is one reason. You want to talk about a broken criminal justice system.
http://a.msn.com/01/en-us/BBFvI5E?ocid=st
Thanks, and Happy Turkey day to you as well.You do realize , because of constitutional law , that the FBI cannot create in any way , hold in possession , divulge to anyone , maintain or otherwise create a naming list of lawful firearm purchasers in the US ; DURING an FBI background check , Right ?
All else is plea bargain , de- listing or other entirely legal maneuvers by DOJ , You can blame , again , the left for most softening on crime laws !ahorseback: What does that have to do with this article? You do realize this article is about the difference in the FBI and the ATF in defining what a fugitive from justice is for the purpose of gun purchases. It is the ATFs definition that has allowed thousands to be purged from the database. What does that have to do with right or left?
Boy you hang your hat on anything that you think you can blame the left for. How about taking some responsibility for the right. It must be wonderful to not even have to think and just say it is all the right's fault. That is so easy and without any real critical thinking. What did the left do to soften crime laws? I'm going to play your game. Give me 10 examples.
You've also reported a HALF truth , even though your link that says the feds are essentially removing some from these "lists ".......Sessions also says they are studying just why law enforcement entities have failed to properly notify the FBI , ATF of all official records keepers of those not qualified to purchase a firearm , In other words ; the law enforcement community has failed to follow through on notifications of felons , domestic assaults convictions , military discharges ,etc....... and all other illegal attempts to purchase firearms .
But it's so typical of your style to pick and chose out of context what your anti gun reality , really IS ?
IN other words of Sessions move is to ;
Make the laws we have now work , first before inventing new legislation.ahorseback: Did you want me to copy and past the entire article that you just read. I tried to just present the part that is relevant to your reply...give me break. By the way, your phrase of being "soft on crime" fits several propaganda techniques
I think the term "soft on crime" fits into the category of a number of Propaganda Techniques:
- Suppressed Premise: a premise is fact necessary for the conclusion to follow, but is not explicitly stated; The suppressed premise when using applying the term "soft on crime" is that the option being discussed is invalid and not worthy of consideration. Using this term overrides the need to provide information to the discussion on crime.
- Glittering generalities (also called glowing generalities) are emotionally appealing words so closely associated with highly-valued concepts and beliefs that they carry conviction without supporting information or reason. Such highly-valued concepts attract general approval and acclaim
- Black and white fallacy: The black-or-white fallacy is a false dilemma fallacy that unfairly limits you to only two choices.
- Apeal to Emotions: Specifically an appeal to fear for those who fear being vicitmised by crime
- This term can be used as a epithet (part of an Ad Hominum) attack.
- Faulty Generalization: A fallacy produced by some error in the process of generalizing.
So I think you will have a difficult time giving 10 examples of why the left is soft on crime. That's what you get for believing too much right wing propaganda. You have to stop listening to Mark Levin.
Since vehicles kill thousands more people than guns, it seems that to really save lives, you would outlaw any car that went over the speed limit. I mean why does anyone need a corvette that goes over 120MPH? Over 13,000 people killed in accidents from just speeding.... We don't really seem to want to save lives. We want to make political "gotchas!" If people REALLY wanted to save lives, they would go after things that would actually make a difference in deaths. Sadly, they rant and riot for political gain, NOT saving lives. Like police shootings. One person dies from a shot from a policeman, and the world goes GAGA! A dozen young Blacks get killed in LA from gang violence, nobody gives a rat's @$$. That is all about hating police...NOT saving lives. I have NEVER seen the mayor of Chicago rant, rave, loot, throw a tantrum, over the 500+ homicides this year alone. BL really DO NOT Matter. But hating one political party is "IN."
Sadly , You make excellent points , putting all things [deaths ]in perspective . Perhaps our entire cultural system , our society is at a saturation point . A systematic maxing out of all things , deaths by accidents , by cars , by guns , by gangs . Incarcerations by drugs , by homicides , by other crimes .We are full up !
Only the shallow sensationalism's of media perception matters ? Why isn't crib deaths a national focus ,what about minority abortions , why not falling accidents , being's it's a leading cause of death and injuries? Recently , in the last twenty years or so to liberals everywhere , the main focus is anything that reflects conservatism ie...that evil , prehistoric and outdated law abiding gun owner .
To liberals, It's simply that need for a nanny state .
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
You still took and take "fact " out of context , constantly . We're about the same age so our intuitions deciphering such stats should be about equal . Yet what you linked is a partial fact . I suggest reading about Jeff Sessions entire move on that part and present not just your party agenda-ed proportioned ,
Just like Brietbart Radio , Andrew Wilkow , "The arguments on this program cannot , will not , will never be broken " ,all because of the one truth policy.
THAT is the entire story of the anti-gun debates , the anti-s take the tac of breaking it all down and use certain context in their arguments , reducing fact and statistics to cherry picked B.S . tactical argument .
Throw reality in their face and they quiet down instantly .ahorseback: Your replies are boastful and without any substance. What you call cherry picking, is supporting evidence in context for the issue at hand. That is the real reality.
Thank you for your confession on listening to Briebart, and Andrew Wilkow, both are of the real fake news and spout ultra right wing propaganda, just like Mark Levin's "soft on crime" statement.
The difference between me and you is that I do the research before I reply. Now I know you are just spouting right wing rhetoric. By the way, I did the research on Andrew Wilkow. His political background is DISC JOCKEY. Just like Steve Bannon, who runs Brietbart, his political background is show business producer. His qualification is he has lots of money. He and Trump really scare me for what they want to do to this country. But that's another story.Peoplepower , Lame ; I probably read more HONEST fact, statistic and real media in a week than you have this year first and second , If you listened to anything but left fallacies in these debates , your message would at least sound somewhat honest. If you ever listened to Brietbart once you'd also know there are several pundits who talk and yes even debate the issues , unheard of on the left .
You'll also see in headlines today that the NICS background checks are rehashing existing foul ups in records keeping : a disconnect in background checks from the military, FBI , DOJ sources previously unconnected apparently to any accountability .
So much for your Obama legacy ? "Draining of the swamp" happening before your very eye's . Your" research" in the past isn't in keeping with your ineffective debate today.ahorseback: You first paragraph is entirely wrong. You shot yourself in the foot when you said, "I probably read more HONEST facts." Either you do or you don't, "probably" means you don't know for sure and therefore there is doubt in your mind. You are also wrong about the left not debating issues. That tells me, you have never watched CNN or any of the other outlets. They always have people from the other side to debate. Kellyanne Conway and Jeffery Lord spend a lot of time on CNN.
In your second paragraph, you make it sound like Obama created "drain the swamp" again that is right wing propaganda, even Trump uses it almost everyday. So much for your assertions.
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
Peoplepower , Your debate in the past has also failed miserably to show any balance in between any reality in deaths in America from , auto accidents ,child biking accidents . abortions , falling from ladders , heart issues or any other far more important , [numerically } statistic .
I suggest that you and your leftist activists focus on the importance of true statistics in debate , It would offer far , far , far more legitimacy to your debate . It must be sad to many of you when your arguments are null and void do to constant lying .
Why do you think the supreme courts side with gun owners so often , because of Truth , history and fact . Given even your adult legacy and honorable military training , I suggest you stick to factual debate and not one of " crying wolf ", one taken so out of context. - ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
Side note , When liberals continue to use such biased debate as is so often done in places like Hubpages , One statistical advantage is that pro-gun reactions inevitably effect instant gun sales . For instance -- Black Friday 2017 ,FBI instant background checks are at a record high ..........again .
Note ;; so much for liberal media , anti's and their Hubpage allied management apparently think disallowing firearms Hubs for instance will effect gun sales ,
Congratulations.
Where perhaps safety Hubs might actually save a life , you chose the bias , the censuring and the miss-representing of the truth.In the above charts , liberal anti- gun, anti-second amendment advocates , should ask themselves what the overall percentage of liberally managed of these listed cities IS ? Mayors , aldermen , [women ] , police chiefs , mayors , attorney generals ,........................Get back to us please !
Don't bother , I already know , its whats called being informed.ahorseback: Everything you have stated about me is only your opinion. Please prove otherwise. So here is the deal. Why don't you and your pro-gun people, invite the survivors of all the people who have been killed from mass shootings. And then tell them, we are not going to do anything to help you, because you and your loved ones are statistically insignificant compared to the total homicides by other means in this country. Therefore, we are extremely INFORMED, compared to the anti-gun people, we will concentrate on what we think is statistically more important than the gun issues.
And that is exactly what is going on. Except, nothing gets done with the gun issues and nothing gets done with what you think is statistically more significant and important...
"Our thoughts and prayers are with you, but now is not the time to talk about gun issues." "Thank you for attending. We won't forget you."...BS.
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
Peoplepower I apologize all right , for It makes no sense to try to reason with a stone , That is the problem with all this entire false flag anti-gun rhetoric in America . That is also why the American gun owner is as proud of the membership in the NRA as we are the fact that our entire heritage is so connected with firearms .
Somewhere along the way in your suburbanite existence ,you've taken your eye off the ball , meaning having a clear picture , or even a singular clue of all that is wrong with our justice system in America today , I can't blame you however , for those like you that is easier path. No self guilt !
Here's a problem with the mass killings , a virtual reality that so easily escapes your understanding , If Peoplepower knocked on every door in America , asked for and received every single "assault Rifle " in America ; Tomorrow , the next day , next month or next year , there would arise one more "mass killing " somewhere in our country . It would be done by explosives , automobiles , airplanes ,water system poisoning , bio chemicals or some other form of human destruction .
I wouldn't worry about that though , from your personal standpoint , you can always find one more set of blame cards to throw on the table , rather than to then consider the true causes of such evil human mentality and destruction of lives .............again! One thing about it though , nothing that ever goes wrong with humanity will ever be the fault of the same left .
Sometimes I wonder who has the greater mental health issue , The mass killer or that part of humanity that ignores it's true causes AND finds it's personal pleasures in the blame game of false causes and paper tiger solutions .ahorseback: Let's keep this very simple. What do you call the fact you blame the left for all your woes? Your replies are loaded with insults for the left and for me. I have tried to not insult you in any way shape or form. At least I have the common sense to know that it is not all one sided.
My previous reply is just a reflection of what you people are saying about statistical insignificance. You on the other hand use supposition that is based on the "what if game" without any proof.
Again, I'm not asking for the confiscation of everybody guns. Just like the bill states, only the further sale of those GD assault style weapons, high capacity magazines, and bump stocks or whatever you want to call all of them.
I know the what if game will not allow you to even trust those terms, but there it is plain and simple. Why not try it and see if it works, instead of projecting what you and others think will happen? And then nothing gets done. The real reason behind all of this is that it is big business for the NRA, the gun industry and congress. That's a fact and not a supposition. and I can prove it...Have a good day my friend."Why not try it and see if it works, instead of projecting what you and others think will happen?"
Perhaps because it has not worked anywhere in the world. Not even where all semi-automatic guns, not just black ones with large magazines, were confiscated rather than banned from future sales. Most people can look at history and find no reason to repeat it.
Couple that with a tremendous loss of income, jobs, taxes, etc. and it should be rather obvious "Why not try it?" You said it yourself; the opponents are big business (and their employees that depend on those gun sales for the food on their table), much of the gun industry and the NRA.
The cost is exorbitant, and the return is expected to be non-existent. Which clearly and in simple terms answers your question.
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
One , last point first , Because it WAS tried in 1993 by Clinton and because it amounted to a fat -O- in end results and actually seemed to expand the acts of extreme violence in American crime culture . Because criminals , gangs and violent perpetrators haven't felt threatened? You can judge that .
Two , "supposition " is the most important and most obvious trait of having an open mind and not emotionalizing my way through such an important issue --that mostly effects other people sacrifices and not my own , something that you have done all through the gun debates in HP forums . Do you not think that gun owners too sympathize at the realization of this new found , new age culture of violence ? I will tell you this , I believe those on the right just naturally have a better understanding of the solutions , if not the construct of the problem of crime itself.
Anti- gun advocates have ignored ALL previous results of stricter gun legislation , fact! . Clinton's federal "assault rifle " restrictions , Chicago's , Baltimore's , San Francisco's , L.A.'s, D.C.'s name them , the individual state and city restrictions have only contributed to higher violent crime rates . Rape , home invasions ,gang related crimes ,all related property crimes , drug involved crimes , These are not "suppositions " Peoplepower , these are facts .
What is the judicial lefts response to America's increased VIOLENT crime fact's , leaner sentences , prisoner releases , softer drug sentences , more half way houses , increasingly open borders , anything but facing it head on . Let's emotionalize the law enforcement community , let's start a cultural war against the front line , the police !
That will help won't it ?
Why do "I blame the left for all the crime woes "? Because all of the above were acts of the left ! With the exception of actual crimes of course ,
Any yet , Isn't it a crime to continue down the road of gun -related legislative insanity if it isn't working ?
Want to ban something ? Let's try banning such heinous acts of crime ! Oh .......you already have ? Then how is THAT banning working out in crime statistics ? - ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
I have spent the entire morning reading , rereading facts about the obvious . The incredible size and scope of the firearms industry in America , One , it is bigger than General Motors ; Did you know that Obama said " General Motors is the tip of the pyramid of economic strength in america "..........in our economy ? That was when he was justifying and giving stimulus dollars to GM . Fortunately the firearms industry has shown unbelievable growth before and after O -man took office and began his ant- gun crusade and since Bill Clinton passed his restricted gun laws in 1993 ., and ever more so since each further threat of increased legislation .
To that , I say keep fighting against guns and watch that industry grow further.
The polls I have been reading all show , almost without ANY dispute , that the ideology of the left is responsible for about 80 % of all anti-gun polling . For instance - The Quinnaipiac Polls , I do not however know where they stand in honesty , Conservative to liberal - right across the board , liberals are far more likely to always at least vote against the gun. ..............surprised?
It all reinforces my resolve and I'm sure all firearms supporters , in that the attack is bred , born and continues through simply the left's inability to recognize the REAL problems with criminal control in our culture . In other words , Make repair to the criminal justice system and you repair the mass killings . To the anti -gun crowd -Continue the war against law abiding people instead of the real enemy , and watch that enemy grow one , and two watch the gun industry grow.
Why does any civilian need assault rifles ?......My answer .
Why does the left only , not recognize the real problems ?
Ever notice what happens in a flood zone when extensive flooding runs rampant and the sewage treatment plants overflow , they always flood over into the rivers , back into the brooks , lakes and streams to the oceans ! There is the condition of the criminal justice system in America and such are the revolving doors of the criminal justice system !ahorseback: You said the "the attack is bred , born and continues through simply the left's inability to recognize the REAL problems with criminal control in our culture . In other words , Make repair to the criminal justice system and you repair the mass killings ."
You make it sound like it's the left's problem to fix the criminal justice system. So once the left fixes the problem they created, the mass shootings go away. So in your words, the left has created the criminal justice problem but once, it is fixed by them, to your satisfaction, then terrorist will not be able to get guns to kill people in mass, like in San Bernardino and Florida?No it won't be the left that fixes the justice system , it is the left that has gutted it's effectiveness Why do you think that the crime situations differ so much between liberal lead cities and conservative rural America . Look at the worst crime infested cities in America and thank your own ideology for the gangs , domestic violence , street level racism etc...., I have pointed this out again and again to you.
If you think about terrorism politically , it's origins and effectiveness , You'd know that terrorism is generally a tool of the smaller political entity trying to be heard above the giants , incurable . On the other hand , gun violence like Vegas and the MS 13 stuff is a policing issue involving such things as , military , criminal records , mental illness' , An end ? How has that worked so far.
Note; Not many mass shooting happen in rural America do they ?
Why are they most always in far heavier populated area's ?
Why's the system "dropped the ball " in so many of the mass shootings ?
But you want the same system to "fix "this ?
Gun industry may be bigger than GM, but the facts are clear: GM has been responsible for hundreds of thousands of more lives lost...that is if you believe the maker of a gun is responsible, then you must believe that auto deaths are the fault of GM. (13K a year by guns, 30K a year by autos) Hmmmm. Remember that GM and Chrysler bailout? Your tax dollars at work!!!!!!
stephenteacher: Those same tax dollars put a lot of people back to work. Hmmmm, Do you remember the financial meltdown?
Congratulations, you have just used a propaganda technique called Faulty Cause and Effect, You wrote, "GM has been responsible for hundreds of thousands of more lives lost...that is if you believe the maker of a gun is responsible, then you must believe that auto deaths are the fault of GM."
So if GM is is responsible for more lives lost than by guns, therefore I must believe that all auto deaths are the fault of GM...Do you see how that works?"So if GM is is responsible for more lives lost than by guns, therefore I must believe that all auto deaths are the fault of GM...Do you see how that works?"
Don't you see how it works? If one manufacturer is responsible somehow for deaths from it's (non-defective) products, so is another? Or can you point out how it is different for one than another? An no, you don't get to change the logic from what was said in the first place - it was never that GM products produce deaths so therefore GM is responsible. It was that Winchester products cause death, and Winchester is responsible, so therefore GM is responsible for the deaths from its products just like Winchester is.Wilderness: What? Winchester wasn't even mentioned in his reply. Talk about changing the narrative...nice try.
"that is if you believe the maker of a gun is responsible, then you must believe that auto deaths are the fault of GM."
Am I wrong in thinking that Winchester makes guns? That was the comment - that because gun manufacturers are responsible for deaths from their product, so must be car manufacturers.
I have no idea what your logic is after that. You say people don't kill, it's the guns. So we need guns out of the hands of people. Well, ditto with cars. Ditto with alcohol. Each day, almost 30 (YES THIRTY) people are killed due to alcohol related auto deaths. Now that's a real stat. So if you really REALLY wanted to save lives, you would demand alcohol and autos be taken out of the hands of people. But you don't. You don't really care about lives.You care about political gain. 8 people died from a rental truck in NYC. Where is the outrage about rental trucks? Demand and riot for rental truck control!
You cannot have the illogical both way argument. That guns are evil but cars are okay. It's okay for people to get behind the wheel and KILL....(more people than guns)...but somehow they get a pass.stephenteacher: So therefore, unless I focus on the other means of people dying, then I really don't care about saving lives of others. Congratulations, this time you used a propaganda technique called Either/or fallacy.
This technique is also called "black-and-white thinking" because only two choices are given. You are either for something or against it; there is no middle ground or shades of gray. It is used to polarize issues, and negates all attempts to find a common ground. Either I focus on other means of people being killed or I don't care about saving lives at all.
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
What we need to fix "Mass killings , mass shootings"in the US ;
-Foremost [almost any ] improved communications between all policing agencies .
-An end to constant territorial rivalries between such ;FBI , CIA , DOJ...etc.|
-Reorganized legal system - it's ALL about existing criminal records
-Comprehensively opening communications from mental health entities - authorities.
-Tougher court sentencing-keep activist lawyers out of the incarceration system.
- No more plea bargaining in violent crimes
These solutions aren't difficult
The legal system is admittedly a mess , We all know that , deny that and you are delusional.ahorseback: I'm not going to deny it. However, you are constantly blaming the left for all of those things. How about sharing some of the blame with the right? If you deny that, then you are delusional. (your words). In other words, unless all of those things are fixed, we should not do anything about mass killings by guns? Is that correct? Now I understand how you guys operate. Here is something for your dining and dancing pleasure, in case you missed it. Notice the Supreme Court uses the words assault weapons.
http://a.msn.com/01/en-us/BBFOxeZ?ocid=stInteresting article. Liberally sprinkled with the term "assault weapon" (although I didn't see where the SCOTUS used it), "military style" and even where a semi-automatic rifle is "like the military's M-16 machine guns".
I have to say that these circuit court judges need some serious training in guns - to say that a deer rifle is like a machine gun used by the military is almost beyond belief.
But what else is new? It's more important to raise emotions and fear than to be honest and factual. That the court follows the lead of liberal politicians is no surprise.Wilderness , we all have to remember that the left seems more and more inclined to "take out of context " only what feeds their argument . Also remembering Obama loaded these federal courts with over two hundred and thirty activist judges , do you suppose they were mostly conservative?
ahorseback: please tell me what is out of context with that article?
Peoplepower , the article is as biased as the Obama stuffing of the federal court judge and clerk positions , same as the DOJ , And that cannot be denied , How has social engineering and re-engineering worked for liberal driven focused academia in the last forty years ?
Point is , liberal ideologies are more responsible for the lack of judicial focus on any progress against violence, Why ? Because those prone to violent tendencies laugh at the systematic moron mentality of the entire judicial system , they always have and always will . Yet the left thinks that soft shoeing and nanny handling makes all things heavenly , look at the perfect example of the overall education system , softer than ever , dumber than ever .
Criminality , more violent than ever, more criminal than ever and You know I'm right .
Hey there ahorseback, I started a new thread for you to expand on these ideas - without hijacking this gun control/mass killings thread.
GAGA , I don't see that thread anywhere , could be me ?
It's there now bud. I had to run an errand before I could get it posted.
Is The U.S. Criminal Legal System a Mess?
GA
13,000 people die each year due to speed-related crashes. Nobody gives a rat's behind. I'm waiting for gun controllers to give up their cars. Seems like an easy fix to me! Every day, 29 people die due to to drunk driving. Swallow that. 29 people daily. No riots, no speeches, no looting, no political ranting, nobody gives a care about actually saving lives....
stephenteacher: Deaths from speed related crashes and drunk driving are called accidents and in almost all cases their primary intent is not kill people or things. On the other hand, the primary intent of guns is to kill things. I don't think you really care about saving lives. All you care about is saving your guns and you want to shift the narrative for those people who don't think like you do to them not caring about saving lives.
"On the other hand, the primary intent of guns is to kill things."
Now that is just flat untrue - guns don't have any intent at all. They are a mindless piece of iron without feelings, without thought and without intent.
Nor do the manufacturers have as a primary intent (or any intent at all) of their product killing someone - certainly their primary intent is to make money and there is zero indication that they have any intent of a (civilian) weapon killing anyone at all. To put such a intent onto workers, management, or stockholders is reprehensible in the extreme and beneath even the gun hating crowd. On the other hand killers absolutely wish to murder people, and it doesn't matter whether they use a gun, knife, car or their own hands they have the intent to kill.
The question then becomes just why you would make such a statement, knowing it is untrue and unsupportable. Because you wish to put the feelings and intentions of a murderer onto a lifeless tool so that it can be demonized? To raise an emotional response in favor of banning guns? Why would you make such a statement?No matter what you say, the primary PURPOSE of a gun is to kill. How many ammo penetration tests have you watched on YouTube? What do you think they're talking about, picking daisies?
"They are a mindless piece of iron without feelings, without thought and without intent."
True, but NOT without purpose. If a person has zero desire to kill anything, he will most likely have zero desire to buy a gun. Even if one has zero desire to kill anything, the odds that one will go way up. As for the manufacturers, they clearly understand the purpose of their products even if their intent is profit-driven. This cannot be denied.Welcome to the Neverland of factual firearm debating , congratulations you have joined an elite group of what ; inner city firearms professionals , high rise rural living cultural experts and bottom feeding legal wizards who's closest brush with a firearm is by walking next to a mall guard ?
When the boys wrote the second amendment , they used those old muskets for what marching in parades and looking really , really tough ? Of course they were designed to kill , it would have seemed kind of mindless to assume they were meant to stack in triangles outside of the tents to what , scare the red coats to death ?
Revelation ; Many of you actually wouldn't have been here today to vocalize these brilliant politically motivated opinions if more than one soldier in one of many ,many wars actually didn't use a rifle to kill. What's the next brilliant observation .ahorsesass --
Had you actually read my comment and gave it a minute's worth of thought -- I can see that's difficult for you -- you might have understood it. Your side just loves to obfuscate the issue by any means possible. wilderness was attemtping to do this very thing by harping on the term "intent". The original poster should have instead used the word "purpose". Using the appropriate term effectvely ends the obfuscation by stating an undeniable fact; one that even you were not able to deny.
Now, let me state my position in clear language: I am not advocating the banning of all guns as that would be a clear violation of the 2nd. However, I AM for the banning of certain guns and that IS allowed both under the 2nd and by court precedent. What would I ban? I would get rid of anything that is a military knock-off, even if only in appearance. There's no use for them when you take into account the numerous makes and models of guns available today. You don't like this and I don't care. Given your statement "Of course they were designed to kill...", how many guns do you need? Are you going to cry at night because the ARs, the AKs, and the sniper rifles may one day be taken off the market? You'll get over it. Every person I've talked to at the place where I go shooting in the desert has never expressed an actual need for an AR. They own one because it's "cool" or "just for the hell of it". It's a testosterone booster for them I suppose. (probably for you too) They must believe the ladies love them for it.
Your comment about the "boys [who] wrote the second amendment" was both assinine and expected. Here you seek to obfuscate the issue by attempting some means of time travel. It is my opinion (and only that) that given the high regard we place on those who founded this country, they would be horrified by what they see today. Of course we'll never know, but given what this debate has done to my country I feel I'm on solid ground.
Your comment about the military is yet another assinine example. The military is not the issue at hand; it's the use of weapons that are near replicas of the weapons used on the battlefield and their place in society. In my opinion, they have NO place just like the Thompson sub-machine gun, for example. You cannot possibly justify why they should be allowed other than you believe anyone should have one if they so desire. I say this because, once again, there are more than enough makes and models of guns available to the public to kill anyone or anything. Please give it your best shot to try to convince me otherwise. I doubt you're up to the task.
Both your opinions and mine are politically motivated because that is the state of this debate. How can it be anything else? I don't mind having a discussion on guns without being political; it would be a pleasant change. But your side is so shaking-in-your-boots afraid that it becomes impossible to have a meaningful conversation. And I just shake my head every time I read someone yakking about how the left is going to repeal the 2nd. Did you guys learn anything in school? But you know, I don't actually mind when ya'll get your panties in a bunch over the mere whisper of gun control. You guys get all worked up and the cost of guns increase. Supply and demand you know.
The problem with your side is that ya'll abide by the "we'll always have criminals no matter what we do" nonsense. It's so easy to see when your back is up against the wall because all of you come out with the same shit. Nothing new or original; you just depend on the shared lack of mentality all of you have when you hear the word "gun".
I own a Canik TP9v2 and I've spent 6 years in the military, so please spare me the trash about how close I've been to a firearm. I live in Las Vegas and we've been through a lot out here recently. In fact, we're still trying to recover. Judging by your opening statement, you must live somewhere up in the hills in West Virginia. So who's the bottom feeder?"I would get rid of anything that is a military knock-off, even if only in appearance. "
Why? What possible reason could you have for confiscating anything black and scary looking?
"There's no use for them when you take into account the numerous makes and models of guns available today."
Are you setting yourself up as a god, to determine what use or purpose anyone in the country has for whatever they want? And then declare they are wrong because you don't agree with them?
"They own one because it's "cool" or "just for the hell of it". It's a testosterone booster for them I suppose. (probably for you too) They must believe the ladies love them for it."
And you give not one but two uses for those scary black things. You just don't agree and so, as a god, will declare that no one should have one. You won't mind if I decide you don't need a car or computer, in my role as a god, and therefore must dispose of both?
"No matter what you say, the primary PURPOSE of a gun is to kill."
Will you now explain to the competition Olympic shooters and biathlon athletes that the primary purpose of their gun, the reason they bought and own it, is to kill? And the same for the .22 gun Dad bought Junior; that the primary reason for the gun is to kill rather than teach gun safety and handling? Will you do it for the owner of the ancient blunderbuss that won't fire any more? Or, just maybe, you don't have the right OR willingness to (honestly) determine what the purpose of someone else's possession is?
"True, but NOT without purpose. If a person has zero desire to kill anything, he will most likely have zero desire to buy a gun. Even if one has zero desire to kill anything, the odds that one will go way up. As for the manufacturers, they clearly understand the purpose of their products even if their intent is profit-driven. This cannot be denied."
At least it cannot be denied by those that don't want one and don't want anyone else to have one, either. Vanishingly few gun owners will agree that the purpose of their gun is to kill anyone (and a great number that won't kill game animals, either)...but then, that doesn't matter if your opinion says it IS to kill with. Is that how it works?
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
Peoplepower , Every argument without exception in ALL gun debate you and I have shared on anti-gun rights , has been easily shown as ineffective in the long run .
Now whether you accept that is another story . Gun bans, especially regional ,city , state etc. don't help . They simply create another new category of victims.
Those who , while abiding to law , cannot defend their own rights.
Liberal ideologies move constantly to shift the laws in social re-engineering , thus creating and enabling larger and larger law enforcement agencies , with more and more names ,with more and more personnel , more paper work , more statistics , more cost .......What resulting improvement have we seen in government ? Little if any the numbers of violent crime rose and at greater expense .
Do you even realize that as you drive across town you are breaking numerous laws?
Failed a complete stop , speeding , failure to use directional's , failure to yield a right of way , drinking a soda , barefoot driving or texting while driving ..................it matters not which or how many , only that we are enslaved to laws that do nothing but raise public revenues.
The difference between laws to you or a mass killer is that you know where to draw the line , right ?ahroseback: I think you are exaggerating again. Let's go the other. Let's not have any laws at all. No speed limits, no traffic lights, no having to pass a driver's test, no federal agencies. I could go on and on, but I'm sure you get the point. it would be pure chaos...so where do you draw the line? That is precisely what deregulation does. It takes away the controls to keep people safe. Free enterprise is great, but the one thing it does not take into account is the human nature trait of greed. That is precisely what happened in the financial meltdown. It was deregulation of the banks, investment companies and real estate.
You talk about having your freedoms taking away. I remember a time when one could board an airplane without having to have half of your clothes taken off, have your luggage searched, and all the other restrictions that are placed on us. What caused all of that? Terrorists with assault rifles and bombs that are easy to access in this country.
What we are really arguing about here is the role of government. Here is an irony for you. Liberals are not liberal when it comes to regulations. They are conservative...And conservatives are liberal when it comes to regulations...go figure!Peoplepower , I'l just happy most people see right through the level that the left's argument always flies right to the level of expert hypocrite , I can see in forums even here that the young at least listen to reason but the old guard habitual's never do.
That last paragraph says it all. Looking for true solutions from such stanch anti- gun crowds is like looking for cats in a dog pen. My advice to you , never volunteer for a public fact finding mission.
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
Peoplepower , Did you hear the latest verdict in the Kate Steinle Murder Trial ?
This is the system that you think will carry the torch of justice and uphold the laws that keep "assault rifles" or any firearm out of criminal hands .
Your entire theory is as compromised as our justice system .ahorseback: Excuse me. He accidentally fired the gun. The round hit the the sidewalk and ricocheted killing Kate Steinle. What you fail to acknowledge is that how he got the gun. You exaggerate so much about me. My theory is not compromised, only in your mind. Didn't your parents tell you not to exaggerate? If we would have tighter gun laws, this may of not happened.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/01/us/kate-s … index.html"Tighter those gun Laws" until the law-abiding is strangled to death . Then that will be one more stumbling block out of the way of a stumbling uninformed ideology ; Those who believe in the fallacy, that law cures all wrongs.
Come on , time to evolve those prehistoric thoughts and beliefs .Tighter laws??? From my limited reading of this case, he was a felon, barred from ever having a gun. He cannot purchase a gun, or own one. He had no right to be in this country, and had been kicked out multiple times. The gun was stolen from law enforcement. I'm sure it was illegal to fire a weapon in the city limits. It is likely to be illegal to be drunk in public, which he was.
Which law, gun or otherwise, that he broke would you "tighten" to prevent it from happening again, and what should it have said?I know you didn't bring this up, but I'm quite sure it's a belief of yours.
I laugh everytime I hear the "law-abiding citizen" argument. This is a fallback argument that the gun nuts just LOVE to use. They act as if the "law-abiding citizen" is a different kind of species. How ridiculous. Name me ONE person guilty of ANY crime who WASN'T a law-abiding citizen first. Just one! Come on, I know there must be an example out there SOMEWHERE! Damn, all I hear are crickets. Wait! That isn't crickets -- it's silence born out of the fact that there aren't any examples to provide. That's one myth knocked down...You "......... laugh when you hear the Law Abiding citizen ".... Yes , no doubt that is exactly what happens when violent felons walks out of a courtroom door on a mindless ,meaningless technicality too ? Do you laugh then ? Did you laugh when sanctuary states and cities like California allow Obama non-immigration policies to kill young and innocent people. I'm sure you laugh hysterically when some idiot falls through the cracks of the legal court system including the military's and shoots up a church in Texas , Probably the first big joke in life was actually when a mental midget from a rich family popped a few rounds at Pres, Reagan and a few others ?
See , that's the real problem today , Our legal system is a clown act that entertains millions of people just like you. Too bad we weren't a little more serious , we could perhaps solve the meltdown in our justice system . The malfunctioning justice system itself , is actually responsible for more murders than guns .
Keep laughing though , it helps .
Peoplepower , Right ,...... I was wrong , it isn't your theory of law that's compromised . It's your entire judgement call about guns , your sense of reality of everything this man did illegally and your lack of comprehension of current events as they occur.
So what , he was just target shooting with a stolen cops gun ? Accidentally killed a girl walking with her father and then ran away .......again . And then what , it's the fault of the gun itself .
And now , he's got what a free pass on murder ? But yes Peoplepower , its the nasty old guns fault to begin with .....................again ? No , It's not my opinion that is wrong. It's those just like you with your opinions who sit on judges benches , jury panels , attorney tables and keep passing these same people around and around the courtroom tables.
Your revolving door justice system at work.
ahorseback; You are right it is your limited reading. What you read is not current. The current and accepted testimony is he found the gun wrapped up in a towel on the pier. It was a Sig Sauer P239, which more than likely would be one of the guns banned by the bill for any further sale to civilians, because it is strictly used by law enforcement.
Hi peoplepower73, I could not find any information that the SIG P259 is limited to law enforcement use, or that such a designation is in Feinstein's bill, or that the P259 meets any of the Bill's banned characteristics.
Where did you see that this pistol would be banned?
GA
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
There are too many here who pull the wool over their own eye's who cannot , will not , will never see -- and then try to pull it over all our eye's to the real problems of our justice system , actually with our horribly crippled justice system, and with modern pop perceptions of that. This is the quintessential case of everything that could be wrong with an immigration system , a justice system and just what happens because of it !
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
You know , the same exact thing is happening with these anti-gun forum attacks as happened in the presidential election . Loose facts , a media totally lost to accuracy , integrity and honesty . And worst , a population of likely urban dwellers who actually know nothing about the heritage behind our firearms culture .
First , If one thinks the only reason FOR guns is " that it's designed to kill" then you shouldn't even be contributing in this debate . It's as if collecting stamps butterfly's , rocks and perhaps marajiana pipes were the only hobbies one should have ? There are gun collectors , target sports, family heirlooms , metal workers , woodworkers ,
re-conditioners , biathlon , triathlon , clay pigeon shooters , trap , skeet ............A lot of you need to get out of the city once in awhile and enjoy a target shooting competition .
I run snowshoe and black powder target biathlons . Gee , that must make me truly dangerous .Wow . What is truly dangerous , is that most of you were brought up at some time in at least your early lives on beef , pheasant , duck and pork that was killed with guns ..............Yes you were fed by killers .
Is it true , Anti- gun people were dangerous beef and pork murderers ?
It's fun , Trying to reason with the unreasonable. - ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
So "assault rifle "isn't working very well for anti-gun debates this season , Why don't we rename them for the sake of continued demonizing ?
Perhaps Ninja ,gangsta ,militaristic, obliteration ,demonic ,assassination acquisition , universal micro-machined utility death and destruction assault weapon ?
Don't you think Anti-gun people are losing mileage over this too little a descriptive terminology ? - ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
Anti -gun inconsistencies are everywhere and so easily arguable .
"Ban Assault Rifles" because they kill MORE people "
Then why is it that handguns kill far more people than "assault rifles "in the US.?
See what I mean , It's easy to debunk the left . This isn't about "assault weapons" bans , it's about all guns banned .
All one has to do is go to the core of the argument with fact .
They always attempt to dehumanize actual fact with lame emotional appeal.
Related Discussions
- 204
Why not pass Gun Control laws in pieces?
by Don Bobbitt 9 years ago
It has become so tiresome seeing all of the radicals on both sides of the Gun Control issue, eacn proposing some "master plan" to control the sale of guns in America. Why can't we do this in "baby steps"?For instance, assault rifles! Just tell me who can justify owning an...
- 215
Should I buy an assault rifle?
by promisem 7 years ago
They seem to be getting very popular in this country, both for sport and for committing mass murders. Why should I buy one?
- 13
Gun Control & the Border Wall
by Ralph Schwartz 6 years ago
I've been reading and listening to the debate on gun control over the past day. I keep hearing a repeating theme from those who feel guns need to be banned - its for the safety of children. Yet, those same voices are totally against a border wall that would reduce illegal drug...
- 89
Tragedy in Las Vegas
by Ralph Schwartz 7 years ago
Another horrific shooting in America occurred last night at at Country Western concert in Las Vegas. The motives of the shooter are not yet known, the investigation is just getting started but already people are rushing to put a political slant on the man and the event. ISIS has even...
- 11
If owning an assault rifle is not important to most Americans, why is there now
by flacoinohio 12 years ago
If owning an assault rifle is not important to most Americans, why is there now a retail shortage?With the impending possibility of a ban on assault rifles and high capacity magazines, assault rifle sales have gone through the roof in the past few weeks. If there are so many people out there...
- 81
How Many Less Dead in Orlando Had High Capacity Magazines Been Illegal
by Scott Belford 8 years ago
Even though the system, as currently configured, worked in the case of the Orlando Terrorist, if one of the more popular gun regulations had not been stopped by the NRA & friends, how many people, now dead, would have been alive? One of the more sensible and less intrusive regulations...