phreddy wrote:

You just violated your own thread lock Em.  Time to move on.  There will be no ban of "assault rifles".

You could lock the thread until the big 75th convention rolls around. Or you could line up in a circle. Ready, aim...

Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

Mind if I park this musical arse-nal here? A gun for everyone, minus one for fun and we'll crown the last man standing.

Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

Interesting fact, was reading about the Henry Repeating Rifle today as I wiki-surfed and noticed that the original cost of the rifle (in inflation adjusted dollars) was $14,000 per rifle.  I know the muskets for the revolutionary war were even more expensive but I can't find that number right now.

But today you can buy an AR-15 for less than a grand.  Says something about weapons proliferation and the military industrial complex.  So when the 2nd Amendment was penned only the wealthy or the government could afford military grade weapons, now any slouch working at McDonalds can; makes you wonder if it would have been written different had they known...

Johnny_Rotten wrote:

And they sure as shinola never anticipated the guided trigger assembly on a semi-autonomously firing weapon.

If they could get some doppler sensing LIDAR integrated with the laser range finder, they wouldn't even have to dope for the wind. It could dial in windage and elevation for you. Rich sailors have handheld units already.

The rough estimate of the price of a musket like the Brown Bess would have been about equal to a month's wages for a skilled worker, though that means little when comparing between a time that had no taxes or regulations on manufacture.

But the founding fathers don't seem like a group that would proclaim the right to liberty that is inherent in all men, then quibble over price.

GooberMcNutly wrote:

But the founding fathers don't seem like a group that would proclaim the right to liberty that is inherent in all men, then quibble over price.

The Founding Fathers wrote:

A well regulated militia

You might want to note that they didn't lead out with "A heavily armed mob", regulated being the key term here.  Choosing to ignore a leading and key portion of the amendment is very hypocritical.  Read the amendment slowly and savor every word, stop being so damned stubborn about something that is so blatantly obvious; the fucking politicians and manufacturers only care about your money not your rights.

Regardless of all that, semi-autonomous targeting is scary shit; we can expect within a decade you'll be able to purchase that as a $200 optional feature on every weapon.  I vote for strict regulation and limitations for sell to only certified firearms experts, not hobbyist - real motherfucking experts.

GooberMcNutly wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

Read the amendment slowly and savor every word...

So who's the one that's hanging on the every word of the Founding Fathers now?

You have been steeped in the need for a "well regulated" centralized government for so long that you can't even see that there are other meanings of the word "regulate" other than as a prefix to "regulation". It's like how you can't say "Podiatrist" without thinking "Pederast". (Or maybe that's just me...)

I'm just asking you to admit there is a problem and to discuss it, you fell back on the 2nd amendment.  I just don't want the idiots in congress to not discuss and decide in private as the line between sling-shot and sea-shrike is arbitrary and should be discussed in public without the ranting and raving of the corporate lobbyist who pay both sides.

Last edited by Emmeran (2013-04-04 18:10:57)

GooberMcNutly wrote:

Oh, and in recognition of the Senate discovering 4 Democrats with common sense:

Four Republicans supported it, and four Democrats voted no.

Or, as Democrats like to say, opponents of the bill joined in a bi-partisan effort to ensure its defeat.

But the kids below weren't white, so they don't count, and almost none of the weapons involved were properly registered to the shooters.

More young people are killed in Chicago than any other American city

Since 2008, more than 530 youth have been killed in Chicago with nearly 80 percent of the homicides occurring in 22 African-American or Latino community areas on the city’s South, Southwest and West sides.

You cannot have a piece of legislation that is favored by about 90% of the population go down to defeat without it being based on money and fear.  What else would oppose the popular will of a nearly unanimous electorate?

Baywolfe - Then you need to pay attention.

The same tired, old story. Do you really live in fear like that? There is no chance the government would try to confiscate all legally owned guns in the US.

And if your son is a nutjob or a criminal, then yes, I would like to know that if you are leaving a gifting him a gun.

phreddy wrote:

Fled wrote:

You cannot have a piece of legislation that is favored by about 90% of the population go down to defeat without it being based on money and fear.  What else would oppose the popular will of a nearly unanimous electorate?

Had the Dems not jammed the bill with other onerous bullshit, they may have had a chance at it.  But when you require a background check on your son before you can give him your gun or leave it in your will, you have overstepped the bounds of privacy.

There was no such requirement in the legislation.  The background check provisions applied to gun shows and internet sales.  Transactions between family and friends were exempt.  The NRA was quite aware of this but put out a lot of phony advertising to the contrary.  At least be honest about reasons for opposing the bill.  It was a compromise bill, and there is no credible argument that the Democrats "jammed it" full of onerous provisions.  That is simply wrong.  They wanted to get the thing passed and very deliberately avoided poison pills.  Are you just repeating a claim you read somewhere?   That would be so unlike you, phreddy.

Those who are worried about confiscation are being silly.  It would be an absolute nightmare to attempt confiscation.  I also believe it would violate Heller.

GooberMcNutly wrote:

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos- … 5544_n.jpg

I assume you mean "Lt. Cononel Jeff Cooper"?  The guy was passed over and forced out of the Corps.

A little research helps to make your fancy quotes stand up to scrutiny - just sayin.

A letter to the NRA from a member

Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

phreddy wrote:

doesyourpussyhurt wrote:

The same tired, old story. Do you really live in fear like that? There is no chance the government would try to confiscate all legally owned guns in the US.

Apparently the majority of Americans agree with me, not you.  And there is a big difference between fear and diligence.  Fortunately, the right of free speech and a free press allow us to keep an eye on the workings of government and industry alike.  Without diligence and a constant fight to retain our rights, every aspect of our lives would be regulated by those who see freedom as a nuisance to their agenda.  If you don't know this, you are living in La La land.

The majority of Americans are being fed the lies from the right/NRA and apparently believing them. And I agree that there would be a bloodbath before the government would successfully confiscate all weapons. What you call diligence, I call fear. And really, if you think we have a free press in this country, you are sadly mistaken. The press is owned and ruled by the corporations and they report only what they are told to report. Yes there are some websites which attempt to get the real stories, but they are mostly not even close to reality either as the information they seek is unavailable.

I remember someone saying this, cannot remember who, but he said if reporters were actually honest with us they would stand in front of the White House and say: I am not sure what is really happening in there, but what they tell me is happening is......  This is the reality of reporting today. They report only what they are told.

Dmtdust wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/18/adolphus-busch-iv-nra_n_3112750.html

Well, some people see the truth of it, even if they were life long members.  Others dear Phwedd, will always be what they are.

Adolphus Busch IV is drunk and a total fuck up.  The NRA is far better off without his support.

Dmtdust wrote:

Oh come on, he sounds like any number of people.  So he didn't shoot them.  A failure on his part.

True.  After all, Teddy Kennedy managed to forget the water under the bridge and carry on.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/24/healt … ?hpt=he_c1

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 … fact-check

Baywolfe wrote:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership.

I am so happy these myths were dispelled.  Digging further I discovered that states with more cars have more car accidents.  And, states with more ski lifts have more skiing accidents per capita.  Not to mention, states with more tall buildings have more jumper suicides.  Wow, we're on to something here.

Dmtdust wrote:

phreddy wrote:

Baywolfe wrote:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership.

I am so happy these myths were dispelled.  Digging further I discovered that states with more cars have more car accidents.  And, states with more ski lifts have more skiing accidents per capita.  Not to mention, states with more tall buildings have more jumper suicides.  Wow, we're on to something here.

Yes we are.  Guns kill people.  Who would of thought?

If you are correct, then cars, ski lifts, and tall buildings kill people also.  Let's not forget pressure cookers.

Baywolfe wrote:

And stupid people probably shouldn't own guns.  They're legally allowed to but, they just shouldn't.

Although this sounds reasonable on its surface, you may discover that clever people are more dangerous.  Crazy people, yes, take their guns.  Stupid people? not so sure.

I was thinking about this today. You know how the latest Boston shit hitting the media fan made a whole new generation of rednecks hate on the vast majority of law-abiding Muslims because some unhappy, socially maladjusted Muslim did something bad?

Now you know how gun owners feel.