don't let facts get in the way of a liberal trying to ban guns.
don't let facts get in the way of a liberal trying to ban guns.
Reminds me of the old question about catching syphilis in public restrooms. "My doctor assured me that I cannot contract syphilis in a public restroom. So when I'm going to screw a stranger, I always insist on doing in a public restroom."The gun can spread HIV if you ram the barrel up one guy's ass then ram it up another guy's ass without washing it.
We should adopt Canada's gun laws. Most people are lazy, so putting up simple hoops to jump through seems to stop most people. Honestly, I've met people who let things like phone bills go into default because they were too lazy to log into online banking and just pay the damn thing.
One should do a study to see if there is a correlation between credit score and violence. If violence and poor credit are related, requiring 5 minute of paperwork might prevent a lot of violence.
Here's the application form for a gun license in Canada. It's 8 pages.
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/form-formulaire/pdfs/5592-eng.pdf
It's worth a read. Canada is interesting because their guns have minimum sizes. It looks like it's broken down in non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited.
The bolded, exactly.As a gun owner, I am open to ideas about how to prevent gun violence. But I am not interested in discussing these ideas, or "COMPROMISING", with people whose ultimate goal is to ban them. There's no compromise with someone who wants complete elimination, because every compromise is simply a step in that direction.
I suggest we keep the National Firearms Act of 1934, which instituted measures to prevent the wrong person from buying full auto firearms.
I suggest we require training/instruction for the ownership of firearms, with graduated scales for different weapons.
I suggest we require added training for concealed carry, involving enhanced practical tests and legal briefings.
I suggest we make storage requirements to prevent accidental deaths among children
In exchange, we all agree:
We completely eliminate the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968, that states guns with "no sporting purpose" are illegal.
Machine guns made after 1986 be allowed for purchase by private citizens at reasonable prices.
There should be no limits on magazine capacity, rate of fire, barrel length, overall length, silencing, caliber, etc.
I should be able to own as many guns and as much ammunition as I want.
But this will never happen.
Interesting idea. I propose we try it out. Here's how.I myself favor smart guns. We engineers could invent the technology. Basically if you point the gun at a person, the gun doesn't fire. If you want to use the gun for personal protection, you can beat your attacker over the head with it.
Another idea, only allow atheists to own guns. Gun murder rate would go to zero almost instantly. Just saying...
Thank you for your service, and for going through your own little piece of hell for the rest of us.Luckily we were at least 80 yards away from those trying to snipe as we we made our way to the Marine barracks in Beirut after it was blown up. Some of us were lucky and only took rounds or shrapnel. One lost his life from a shot that hit just above his flak jacket and hit a major vein in his throat. Marine Cobra finally arrived and took them out.
Hamilton was against a bill of rights in the first place, per federalist 84. Take a few min to ponder that before quoting him again.
I there ever a post that you make that does not have the word liberal involved ?
That has nothing to do with the topic either.
don't let facts get in the way of a lefty trying to ban guns.
Is that better?
Overall its liberals that want to take/ban guns. Or are you going to deny that reality as well?
Sure, but not taking someone seriously because they lack any compelling argument is different from claiming it out of spiteful ignorance.
The stems from fundamentally different interpretations of what goes on in a discussion forum. For some people discussion means coherent arguments wherein facts & reasoning matter. For others it's a way to recite their beliefs because mere repetition reinforces things in their mind. For example, you instinctively believe anyone with strong opinions opposing yours must be a blowhard, and no factual reality is going to change that.
The AR15 is just the gun du jour if you really want to make a difference ban handguns
Reminds me of the old question about catching syphilis in public restrooms. "My doctor assured me that I cannot contract syphilis in a public restroom. So when I'm going to screw a stranger, I always insist on doing in a public restroom."
Canada's minimum size thingy is interesting, but not applicable to our current problem. Minimum size is geared toward concealability, and mass shootings are typically carried out by people who intend to not survive.
The bolded, exactly.
Interesting idea. I propose we try it out. Here's how.
Each enlightened atheist shall erect a sign not less than eight square feet in his front yard (four square feet on the front door for apartment dwellers) reading, in large red letters: THIS HOUSE IS A GUN FREE ZONE. TO COMBAT GUN VIOLENCE, THE GOVERNMENT HAS SEARCHED THIS HOUSE, CERTIFIED THAT THERE ARE NO OPERABLE GUNS HERE, AND LISTED IT IN THE FREE ONLINE SEARCHABLE DATABASE, AND I HAVE AGREED TO SERVE A MANDATORY TERM OF LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE IN PENITENTIARY SHOULD I EVER USE A GUN, EVEN IN SELF DEFENSE, EXCEPT AS A CLUB.
Be sure and let us know how that works out for you. Oh, and no cheating. No gated communities and no security guards, and make sure you only patronize establishments which are similarly enlightened and have posted their signs and listed their properties in the database.
Most gun crimes are not mass murders. The really dumb incidents of people shooting at movie screens are always done with some 9mm pistol or smaller. They're rarely carrying a .338 lapua into the movie theater. That would make one hell of a story though. Bring extremely powerful rifle just to shoot the screen and yell at the protagonist. It's also a lot harder to accidentally shoot yourself in the face with a long rifle.Canada's minimum size thingy is interesting, but not applicable to our current problem. Minimum size is geared toward concealability, and mass shootings are typically carried out by people who intend to not survive.
That obviously won't happen so why bring it up other than as distraction?
For the purposes of civilian massacres the features of 5.56 semi auto carbines are unmatched in the civilian market. They basically can't be beat for that purpose.
Unlike handguns, even neophytes can hit what they aim for when the range is measured in feet rather than yards. It's not like that firearm configuration is really useful for much of anything else in civilian life. 20 round detachable magazines aren't really a feature of hunting rifles while the round is too big for rabbits & too small for big game. They're fun for putting lead downrange but I'm not sure that really overrides the societal disadvantages of making them easily available.
When confronted with civilian ownership of fully automatic weapons of similar usefulness we banned sale of those weapons 70 years ago. With the world as it is, it's hard to see a compelling argument not to do the same wrt 5.56 carbines today or military style carbines of any caliber for that matter.
You're right within your (very) limited understanding.
Hamilton's argument was that anything the Gov't was not EXPLICITLY given power over in the constitution was not in its sphere of control in the first place.
In other words, since the constitution didn't grant power over the press, or over gun ownership, there was no point in saying that it didn't have that power because it was redundant.
His fear was that future nutjobs like you would interpret the explicit limitation of federal power to mean in some way that it had any kind of power over those things to begin with.
Sounds like he was correct.
why the attempt to seem like you actually have a clue when its clear you have no first hand experience...just own it buddy, just be open and say you have no idea what your am talking about and are basing your opinions on stuff you have read on the internet.
They're all I need for the occasional hunt and the trips to the range to keep the edge honed. Afterall, ammo prices are now way too high for me to do anything more than that.
All the crazies stockpiling ammo for the final showdown when the gubmint gunna come take their guns. Thanks Obama.
Thanks, I did not realize we had a minimum overall length.Just for clarification, the US has length limits.
Rifles 16" barrel and 26" over-all length
Shotguns 18" barrel and 26" over-all length
Been this way since 1934. Seen it mentioned a few times but not addressed.
Edit: Minimum lengths.
But the people screaming for a ban on assault rifles don't particularly care about the people shooting each other with pistols, since they are usually black on black.Most gun crimes are not mass murders. The really dumb incidents of people shooting at movie screens are always done with some 9mm pistol or smaller. They're rarely carrying a .338 lapua into the movie theater. That would make one hell of a story though. Bring extremely powerful rifle just to shoot the screen and yell at the protagonist. It's also a lot harder to accidentally shoot yourself in the face with a long rifle.
A local range has a guy with an M2HB and an M-60 pintle mounted in a Jeep. (At least I think it's the same guy.) It's definitely weird to get passed by a technical. And I can't even imagine the cost of firing .50 BMG on full auto. Although I suppose if one can afford the licenses, one can afford the ammo.Right or wrong, I see a whole lot of media attention being paid to Eugene Stoner's family purporting that Stoner himself never intended that his AR design be made available for civilian use, and that Stoner's only intention was to give the US military an advantage over the AK47.
For myself, I had all the use of an AR full-auto, a couple of it's upgrades and those sturdy technicals I could ever want or imagine what with being in the military for so long, so that owning a semi-auto AR just seemed like owning something made by Mattel or Hasbro. I dunno, each to his own.
Such being the case, I'm perfectly happy with having my scoped rifle, shotgun and Korth Magnum <---(took three trade-ups to get it).
They're all I need for the occasional hunt and the trips to the range to keep the edge honed. Afterall, ammo prices are now way too high for me to do anything more than that.
As an aside, watching those guys at the range burn off BMG rounds like throwing pennies in a wishing well makes me a wee bit jealous but then I don't suffer from lingering shoulder pain like those guys do.
It is difficult to believe that much stupid wrapped up in a single skin as an act of nature. I'm imagining a super villain in a secret underground lab . . .You are so ignorant and confrontational it's impossible to take you serious. Always spouting false data and insulting people by name calling or another way.
That obviously won't happen so why bring it up other than as distraction?
For the purposes of civilian massacres the features of 5.56 semi auto carbines are unmatched in the civilian market. They basically can't be beat for that purpose. Unlike handguns, even neophytes can hit what they aim for when the range is measured in feet rather than yards. It's not like that firearm configuration is really useful for much of anything else in civilian life. 20 round detachable magazines aren't really a feature of hunting rifles while the round is too big for rabbits & too small for big game. They're fun for putting lead downrange but I'm not sure that really overrides the societal disadvantages of making them easily available.
When confronted with civilian ownership of fully automatic weapons of similar usefulness we banned sale of those weapons 70 years ago. With the world as it is, it's hard to see a compelling argument not to do the same wrt 5.56 carbines today or military style carbines of any caliber for that matter.
Those in existence will be around for decades, no doubt, but they wouldn't be the kind of thing you can just put on the mastercard in many thousands of gun sellers in this country.
You're right within your (very) limited understanding.
Hamilton's argument was that anything the Gov't was not EXPLICITLY given power over in the constitution was not in its sphere of control in the first place.
In other words, since the constitution didn't grant power over the press, or over gun ownership, there was no point in saying that it didn't have that power because it was redundant.
His fear was that future nutjobs like you would interpret the explicit limitation of federal power to mean in some way that it had any kind of power over those things to begin with.
Sounds like he was correct.
It's not fair as AR-15s were not involved in any Mass Shootings....
That sounds reasonable.RCMP said:- Magazines designed to contain rimfire cartridges for use in a rifle do not have a regulated capacity.
- Magazines designed to contain rimfire cartridges for use in a semiautomatic handgun are limited to 10 cartridges.
- Magazines for both rifles and semiautomatic handguns are subject to the handgun limit of 10 cartridges.
RCMP said:- Magazines for centrefire cartridges for use in a semiautomatic rifle are limited to 5 cartridges.
- Magazines designed to contain centrefire cartridges for use in a semiautomatic handgun are limited to 10 cartridges.
- Magazines for use in both semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic handguns are subject to the limit of 5 cartridges.
An AR-15 or AK-47 in Canada would only have 5 + 1 bullets. If you're only going to kill 5 or 6 people, it doesn't seem like it's worth the effort. Might as well stay home and get high or something.
lmfao
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/firing-ar-15-horrifying-dangerous-loud-article-1.2673201
An AR-15 bruised his shoulder and a few rounds gave him PTSD. These gun grabbers dont help their cause with idiocy like the above.
It is not a distraction so much as it is the main point. Assault rifles are used in around 100 murders per year out of a total of 10,000+. For whatever reason, politicians and their useful idiots have decided that these 100 deaths matter more than the 10,000+ simply because of which tool was used to cause these deaths. Now those politicians want to force millions of law abiding people give up their tools or else become felons. And for what? Will all 100 of those deaths now NOT happen each year? In each case where an "assault weapon" was used, if they didn't have that particular weapon, would they not have simply used a different weapon? How many saved lives are we REALLY talking about here? 10? 20? Taking rights away from 10 million people doesn't sound like a good trade off to maybe possibly save 10 lives in a given year.
Do the people calling for a ban on these weapons truly only want to stop at a ban on assault rifles or is the end game really to get ALL guns banned? If they want to stop with the assault rifle ban, they are complete idiots and should not be listened to, as the effect will be miniscule. If they want all guns banned then they are lying assholes who should not be listened to.
This shit argument, when fully played out, ends in a total ban on all guns. Imagine you ban the AR-15. The next gun in line will take the place of "For the purposes of civilian massacres the features of 5.56 semi auto carbines are unmatched in the civilian market. They basically can't be beat for that purpose." Which of course, must be banned because the best massacre weapon at the time must always be banned, according to your logic. And so on and so forth until all guns are banned. If you truly believe that any gun that can't be beat for the purpose of civilian massacres should be banned then all guns will eventually be banned. So why not just state that as your ultimate goal? Else, if you don't believe that, then why even mention this point?
So then why is this completely useless firearm configuration the most popular rifle out there? Why do so many people spend so much extra money to own these over competing rifles? Especially considering that it is almost never used for the job you say it is so perfect for: civilian massacres.
I have yet to see a compelling argument as to why we SHOULD ban 5.56 carbines. And in a free society, the argument must successfully be made as to why would SHOULD ban something. You are demanding an argument as to why we should be ALLOWED to own something, which is condescending, tyrannical, and authoritarian. I like living in a society where I don't have to prove why my property should not be banned. Don't you?