Gun Control thread (merged many) [Archive]

Feuer Frei!

02-21-13, 07:07 AM

The N.R.A. (National Rifle Association) released an ad which takes a shot(excuse the pun) at Obama and Bill Clinton, and stating that: "Washington doesn’t give us rights, but we are the ones that grant them power".
After denouncing Obama and Bill as arrogant in which the NRA states that both of them made offensive remarks about gun owners.

Bill's comment, made at a speech for donors, which stirred the ire of the NRA:
A lot of these people…all they’ve got is their hunting and their fishing or they’ve been listening to this stuff for so long that they believe it all.and Barack, to a room of San Francisco elites in 2008:
And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religionAre there extremists in charge at the NRA? Probably not.
Imagining itself and its guns as the embodiment of all that is true and good in this world. That's a feeling one might get, certainly this (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/nra-spits-graves-new-shoot-em-up-app-article-1.1240207) would give some weight to the argument that arrogance, and a an aura of "hey look at us, we can do what we like, when we like because we fund the politicians" or is it something other than arrogance or a feeling of being untouchable hence the arrogant attacks and media exposure and the slogan of the ad, saying pretty much what i believe, and has caused me to start this thread.
Today it is arguably the most powerful lobbying organization in the nation’s capital and certainly one of the most feared.
These are people that say no.
They are absolutist in their interpretation of the Second Amendment. The NRA learned that controversy isn’t a problem but rather, in many cases, a solution, a motivator, a recruitment tool, an inspiration.
Gun-control legislation is the NRA’s best friend. It uses fear when necessary to motivate supporters. The ultimate goal of gun-control advocates, the NRA claims, is confiscation and then total disarmament, leading to government tyranny.
“We must declare that there are no shades of gray in American freedom. It’s black and white, all or nothing,” Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said (http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/speeches/2002-nra-annual-meeting-speech-by-wayne-lapierre.aspx?s=&st=&ps=) at an NRA annual meeting in 2002, a message that the organization has reiterated at almost every opportunity since.
“You’re with us or against us.”
Timothy McVeigh’s April 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building killed 168 people, including 19 children in a day-care center, and although the NRA had nothing to do with the terrorist attack, the association’s strident anti-government rhetoric drew national attention. News reports focused on a fundraising letter, signed by LaPierre and sent to NRA members before the bombing, that said the new assault-weapons ban “gives jackbooted Government thugs more power to take away our constitutional rights, break in our doors, seize our guns, destroy our property and even injure and kill us.”
Even staunch NRA members began to get queasy. Former president George H.W. Bush resigned his NRA membership. Former NRA president Richard Riley, who headed the association from 1990 to 1992, told The Post at the time, “We were akin to the Boy Scouts of America . . . and now we’re cast with the Nazis, the skinheads and the Ku Klux Klan.”

Fortune magazine ranked the NRA as the most powerful lobbying group in Washington, surpassing even AARP. That was in 2000.
The NRA is now headquartered outside the Beltway, in Fairfax, and, according to its 2010 filing with the IRS, has 781 employees and 125,000 volunteers. Annual revenue tops $200 million. It’s a tax-exempt, “social welfare” organization with the self-described mission “to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution, to promote public safety, law and order and the National defense.”
Here (http://www.news1130.com/2012/12/21/nras-comments-are-arrogant-prof/)
is an article which seems to give creedence to it's 'more guns is the answer to everything' line.
So, "We are America", the title of the video for the ad, which is here: http://www.nrastandandfight.com/video/we-are-america

A group who questions and attempts to hold the State accountable or a too powerful and arrogant group who thinks it can do and say what it feels like?

GoldenRivet

02-21-13, 07:21 AM

I've been an NRA member though I am not currently... All they ever expressed any interest in doing is defending my second amendment right and promoting firearm safety.

Fanatics? Arrogant? Well I guess that depends on where you stand in the firearms debate.

mookiemookie

02-21-13, 07:33 AM

The NRA used to be about gun safety. Now it's about lobbying and agenda pushing.

They attempt to make any legislator that brings up the topic of any sort of gun law as being a jackbooted government thug that's coming to rape your family and take your guns to melt down and be turned into instruments that are to be given to gay doctors in order for them to provide abortions for free for illegal immigrants. If ownership of nuclear weapons and bunker buster bombs wasn't already illegal for private citizens, I suspect the NRA would be leading the charge against any law that tried to make them so.

Tribesman

02-21-13, 08:06 AM

Arrogant or Fanatics?
It is a big group with a varied membership.
Like any big group it is going to contain some who fit the bill .
La Pierre is a compelete twat though who is probably very fitting for the "arrogant" title.

They are absolutist in their interpretation of the Second Amendment.

No they are not, they just claim to be absolutist when they think it is making their point.
The fact that they are not absolutist means that all their arguements based on the absolute position are actually false.

Fanatics? Arrogant? Well I guess that depends on where you stand in the firearms debate.
Not really, it depends on which NRA member you are talking about.
That fat bloke Moore who makes films is a member isn't he, most people across the spectrum would probably call him arrogant and a fanatic.

Skybird

02-21-13, 08:35 AM

The NRA is about securing and boosting profits for the firearms-producing industry, it is no amendment-defending lobby at all but a business lobby putting profit above everything else.

This it is, and nothing else - everything else they claim to be is just alibi, deception, misleading of the public, blackmailing politicians, and hijacking the 2nd amendment.

I could be for rights of owning a firearm - and by European standards I am more in favour of that than is considered politically correct over here - and still would not wish to have anything to do with this highly dubious organisation.

Lobbyism should be understood as a capital crime, because in my book it is conspiration against the people. In case of the NRA, the conspirators are powerful enough to blackmail the representatives who got "legitimated" through public elections - whatever that is worth in today's prolocracy, but let'S ignore that for the moment. When lobbies draw the laws and design the policies, a democracy is no more a democracy where majority decisions by and on behalf of the people decide things. It is a hidden form of tyranny by a small, hidden elite bypassing the democratic rules completely, and abusing them. That'S why I consider lobbyism to be a capital crime. That is true for business lobbies. That is true for grassroot movement lobbies. Lobbyism always is aiming at bypassing the majority vote, or manipulating it. That's what makes it criminal.

August

02-21-13, 08:39 AM

The NRA used to be about gun safety. Now it's about lobbying and agenda pushing.

I firmly believe that if the NRA weren't doing those things the American people would have no use for gun safety because they would not be allowed to own them. Handguns would have been banned in 1968 and semi-autos in 1994 and we'd be debating the need for people to have bolt action sniper rifles, erm I mean hunting rifles.

As for who grants rights to whom the NRA is correct about that as well. The government does not grant rights to the American people. They derive their powers from the consent of the governed. Inalienable rights are inalienable.

mookiemookie

02-21-13, 08:45 AM

Armistead

02-21-13, 09:32 AM

Singed

02-21-13, 10:11 AM

A group who questions and attempts to hold the State accountable or a too powerful and arrogant group who thinks it can do and say what it feels like?

Both and neither, it is like any other PAC and it's primary purpose is ensuring it's own existence so those in leadership positions can keep drawing their salaries. It's a pretty typical American lobbying group in that regard.

I do think however it does something important, support what it fights for and am a member, I just have a very cynical view of any such organization.

Singed

02-21-13, 10:19 AM

Deleted: Double post somehow.

Takeda Shingen

02-21-13, 10:23 AM

The problem isn't so much with lobbies, but people that won't stand up for what they believe, like many politicains that would sell out.

I think you're totally wrong there. The problem across the board are lobbies and interest groups. Our politicians enter their first term with the intention of serving the people, but end up being bought and paid for by the end of their first week in office. It's why we can't make any progress on energy -- in any direction. It's why we can't do anything about the budget. The influcence of these groups have caused our politicians to lose the ability to actually negotiate long-term solutions.

Armistead

02-21-13, 10:48 AM

I think you're totally wrong there. The problem across the board are lobbies and interest groups. Our politicians enter their first term with the intention of serving the people, but end up being bought and paid for by the end of their first week in office. It's why we can't make any progress on energy -- in any direction. It's why we can't do anything about the budget. The influcence of these groups have caused our politicians to lose the ability to actually negotiate long-term solutions.

I agree, but the problem is corrupt politicians, not lobbies. Lobbies are simply groups of people combining together to push their beliefs. You start a lobby, I start one to counter you, it's the American way.

The NRA isn't really a big lobby itself, it's a force because millions of non-members believe in many of it's principles. The anti-gun people can't compete with this force. I'm sure they're many Dems in gun states that are really anti-gun, but rather than stand up for what they believe, they pretend to be pro-gun. Probably why Reid won't bring up a gun vote, scared if he forces these Dems to vote with the party, they'll lose their upcoming elections...If he does call a vote, he'll lose and he knows it, politicians would rather keep their seats.

The fact America is a gun nation has little to do with the NRA, but because most want to own guns for numerous reasons.

Takeda Shingen

02-21-13, 10:58 AM

I agree, but the problem is corrupt politicians, not lobbies. Lobbies are simply groups of people combining together to push their beliefs. You start a lobby, I start one to counter you, it's the American way.

That's like saying that the problem isn't the drug pushers, it's the drug users. And just because something is traditionally done does not mean that that tradition is the best, or even right way to go about it. History is littered with harmful traditions.

The NRA isn't really a big lobby itself, it's a force because millions of non-members believe in many of it's principles. The anti-gun people can't compete with this force. I'm sure they're many Dems in gun states that are really anti-gun, but rather than stand up for what they believe, they pretend to be pro-gun. Probably why Reid won't bring up a gun vote, scared if he forces these Dems to vote with the party, they'll lose their upcoming elections...If he does call a vote, he'll lose and he knows it, politicians would rather keep their seats.

The fact America is a gun nation has little to do with the NRA, but because most want to own guns for numerous reasons.

The NRA is an extremely powerful lobby. It's not like the oil lobby (no other lobby is anywhere near that powerful), but it is has a lot of influence.

America is a gun nation. Huh. That's an odd phrase, but a telling one.

Ducimus

02-21-13, 11:04 AM

I don't necessarily agree with everything the NRA says or does, but they are the best organization to defend the second amendment.

I think you're totally wrong there. The problem across the board are lobbies and interest groups. Our politicians enter their first term with the intention of serving the people, but end up being bought and paid for by the end of their first week in office. It's why we can't make any progress on energy -- in any direction. It's why we can't do anything about the budget. The influcence of these groups have caused our politicians to lose the ability to actually negotiate long-term solutions.

All too true, and while i don't like how this is how things are in this manner, it isn't going to change anytime soon. It is also why I gave the NRA a two year membership and other monetary donations to begin with. The real power in our government is not in the voting booth. If you want the real power, just follow the money. Contributing money to the NRA is tantamount to going to a voting booth, only much more effective.

edit:
I agree, but the problem is corrupt politicians, not lobbies.

Also true in my opinion. Politicans don't care about anything but keeping their jobs and maintaining power and prestige. They are little more then puppets, and more often then not, are not representative of their people. They get into office, then do what they want anyway if they think they can get away with it.

Armistead

02-21-13, 11:18 AM

That's like saying that the problem isn't the drug pushers, it's the drug users. And just because something is traditionally done does not mean that that tradition is the best, or even right way to go about it. History is littered with harmful traditions.

The NRA is an extremely powerful lobby. It's not like the oil lobby (no other lobby is anywhere near that powerful), but it is has a lot of influence.

America is a gun nation. Huh. That's an odd phrase, but a telling one.

Well, I would say it is the drug users. I choose not to do drugs and obey the law. If people are willing to commit crimes, someone will be there to meet their needs. Supply only exist because of demand.

The NRA only has 4 million members. That leaves over 100,000,000 gun owners not members. That is where the real power lies. However, the NRA is growing and will always be a force.

Ducimus

02-21-13, 11:40 AM

The NRA only has 4 million members.

Over 4 million now. They got quite a few new memberships since Feinstien and Obama starting running their mouths.

Ducimus

02-21-13, 12:03 PM

America is a gun nation. Huh. That's an odd phrase, but a telling one.

I think the gun, in America, has taken on a symbolic meaning of freedom and independence that has been woven into our national fabric even before the founding of our country with the revolutionary war.

edit:
This is why I say even before the revolutionary war, I think this is the beginning of our national image and tapestry.
http://castle.eiu.edu/~wow/classes/fa09/Plimoth/Pilgrim2.jpg

Takeda Shingen

02-21-13, 12:12 PM

I think the gun, in America, has taken on a symbolic meaning of freedom and independence that has been woven into our national fabric even before the founding of our country with the revolutionary war.

edit:
This is why I say even before the revolutionary war, I think this is the beginning of our national image and tapestry.

To you, it does. America is a large and diverse nation, and as such the meaning of American freedom and independence varies per person or group. On the Fourth of July I don't think of guns. You do. Both are fine, but I resent people trying to tell me what America means.

Ducimus

02-21-13, 12:18 PM

To you, it does. America is a large and diverse nation, and as such the meaning of American freedom and independence varies per person or group. On the Fourth of July I don't think of guns. You do. Both are fine, but I resent people trying to tell me what America means.

Well, On the fourth of July, I don't think of guns either. I think July 4th, 1776, declaration of independence. Do you really think all gun owners think about is guns? If so your sterotyping just as bad as the people I think your admonishing.

Also you can't tell me the pilgrims aren't part of, if not the start of, our national fabric. It's taught in schools, its in the history books, and celebrated every year in November. Just because it isn't in your frame of reference, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Something like this, you might see somewhere during the thanksgiving holiday, every year.
http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_309/1220926620lw6cU7.jpg

Takeda Shingen

02-21-13, 12:30 PM

Well, On the fourth of July, I don't think of guns either. I think July 4th, 1776, declaration of independence. Do you really think all gun owners think about is guns? If so your sterotyping just as bad as the people I think your admonishing.

Well then we're back to that narrative that America is a gun nation. Not a nation that permits gun ownership; a gun nation. The connotation is that if you are a real American, you own a gun. You can see language of that sort right here in this very thread, and all over GT for the past two months. That's the kind of narrow interpretation of what it means to be American that has hamstrung the GOP. There are a lot of Americans that don't think that way.

Also you can't tell my the pilgrims aren't part of, if not the start of, our national fabric. It's taught in schools, its in the history books, and celebrated every year in November. Just because it isn't in your frame of reference, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Something you might see somewhere during the thanksgiving holiday, every year.

Then there's the other part of the pilgrim mythos; the part where they were unable to use those guns to feed themselves adequately and were relieved by the Native Americans, (who were then ultimately betrayed, but that is another issue and one that, if I recall, we both agree on). In other words, it is not so simple to say that America is a gun nation. Firearms have been present throughout American history, but they are but one small thread in a tapestry made of millions of equally small threads.

Ducimus

02-21-13, 12:36 PM

Tak, I think were arguing over interpretation of words. I *think* your arguing against the idea that guns define our national identity, when taking issue with the word of "gun nation"; and I would agree, guns do not define who we are.

What i'm arguing is that "The gun", has been with us, and part of our society since it's first beginnings. They don't define who are, but they have always been with us, and because of that, you'll see guns represented in symbolic ways throughout our history. As such, the gun as come symbolic in and of itself, and while not defining the American identity, certainly part of the American tapestry.

EDIT:
And yes i'm well aware of the Pilgrim mythos. I don't agree with all the puritan bible toting symbolism in the first picture I linked, I only use it as an example of how guns are woven into our national fabric.

Tribesman

02-21-13, 12:40 PM

Strange turn. Gun nations eh?
This nation was also born by the gun, there are still those in the country that believe freedom equals an armalite and a ballot box.
Most people consider those people to be nuts.

NeonSamurai

02-21-13, 01:40 PM

What I find ironic is that Canada was also a gun nation too. Things were not a whole lot different up here (in some ways it was more harsh). Yet the results were quite different in several ways. We don't quite have the same level of paranoia that seems to exist in the states in relationship to government, or are as concerned about possessing firearms. Now it could also be argued that our biggest issue is political apathy (we tend to shrug our shoulders and go back to our daily lives when it comes to our idiot scum sucking politicians).

All countries and cultures have their mythologies, and all have difficulty accepting that these things are myths.

Tchocky

02-21-13, 02:45 PM

The NRA are in the business of fundraising and influence-raising through incessant conspiratorial messaging.

You wouldn't take seriously anyone who talks like an NRA spokesman.

“There exists in this country, sadly, a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells and stows violence against its own people through vicious and violent video games.”

Honestly, where do you start with somebody who talks like this?

There are issues with exposing young people to incessant violence, and damaging their psychological health.

Probably more issues due to the let's-all-go-to-war attitude prevalent in the NRA's pet political party, but there are also some in the nation's civilian population.

I'll wager more people lead damaged lives due to being shot, shot at, seeing someone else being shot etc than due to playing too much Grand Theft Auto.

“We have blood-soaked films out there, like ‘American Psycho,’ ‘Natural Born Killers’ that are aired like propaganda loops on splatter days.”Lots of other countries seem to get along better with similar levels of violent movies. Ever seen Irreversible?

It also makes no sense to blame a violent culture, listing off Call of Duty, Natural Born Killers, Manhunt and American Psycho - if you don't also mention Leyte Gulf, Abu Ghraib, Okinawa, Oklahoma City, Fallujah, Malmedy.

mookiemookie

02-21-13, 03:09 PM

I've played video games, violent and non, for over 25 years and I have never had the urge to go on a shooting spree.

The NRA truly wanted to end gun violence while protecting the second amendment, they would lobby for a universal mental healthcare system where anyone with mental health issues could be treated at low to no cost.

Then you'd see random shootings drop, gun owners would be happy that no one would be taking their guns, and we could be past this whole thing.

Ducimus

02-21-13, 03:19 PM

As much as it pains me to admit it, I think there is credibility to claims that violent video games have some place in all this. Though I know opponents to this idea will be quick to point out there is no collaborating evidence. I think this, because when I grew up, the only mass shootings I ever heard about, where "drive-by's" done by gang bangers, and there was no visually realistic interactive media.

As i said, when i was growing up, there was no such thing as games like Call of Duty. I can recall in my earlier 20's playing on LAN parties the very first First person shooters. I played ALL the dooms and expansions, I remember Duke Nukem 3d, Quake, etc. In terms of Quake or DN3, it was more like the First person shooter as competative sport, or in place of the friday beer and card game with the guys. There wasn't this big strive for realism, it was just all good fun between friends. Today we have the "Modern FPS". I never had that in my "formative years". Now, I've been gaming on PC's since the earliest beginnings, I hate having my games censored, and even I am surprised at some of what makes it into modern FPS's.

A couple examples:
Call of Duty: World at war, the very first 2 minutes of the game. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXxmTxo7IFQ)
I was surprised at that level of personal violence.

The classic example,
Call of duty Modern warfare - No russian (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NMnnMRWJ-0)
I was amazed this even made it past a storyboard stage in design.

Now, I realize that video games this day and age are not just for kids. In fact, ill be the first one to say so. I love my games and I don't want them under the congressional axe. The problem i think is not enough parents realize this, and allow their kids to play this stuff when they may not be mature enough to handle it.

As movies go, I'm not so sure movies are as much as part of the problem as video games might be, because movies are NOT INTERACTIVE. Movies, do not make illustrate it as "this is you, you are there, and this is what your doing, you pull the trigger" illustration. In movies, your just watching a story unfold.

Now having said all that, I have always found it amusing that in our society, we have all manner of violence in video games, movies, televison, etc. In this country I can watch on national TV an autopsy of someone who was brutally murdered in all it's gory detail, and yet, a showing a woman's breasts is strictly taboo. I also find amusing how far behind the times MR LaPierre is in the examples of games and movies he cited. My thought was, "seriously dude? that was ages ago, I can come up with far better examples then that".

August

02-21-13, 03:20 PM

I've played video games, violent and non, for over 25 years and I have never had the urge to go on a shooting spree.

And I've possessed and used firearms for almost twice that time and i've never had the urge to go on a shooting spree either. Yet my own government is trying infringe on my right to keep them. Go figure.

The NRA truly wanted to end gun violence while protecting the second amendment, they would lobby for a universal mental healthcare system where anyone with mental health issues could be treated at low to no cost.

As far as I can tell the NRA is the only side in this argument even talking about mental health. To most Democrats privacy concerns outweigh preventing nuts from getting their hands on firearms.

Then you'd see random shootings drop, gun owners would be happy that no one would be taking their guns, and we could be past this whole thing.

I'd bet dollars against donuts that even if there weren't any random shootings this administration would still try and disarm the American people.

August

02-21-13, 03:23 PM

I find it interesting that the same people who claim that hours spent watching violent videos and playing violent games have no effect on people belong to the same industry that is geared to influencing people with just a 30 second commercial.

Cybermat47

02-21-13, 03:48 PM

That fat bloke Moore who makes films is a member isn't he, most people across the spectrum would probably call him arrogant and a fanatic.

He joined after Columbine, hoping to become President of the NRA then dismantle it. I've gotta admire that.

August

02-21-13, 03:59 PM

He joined after Columbine, hoping to become President of the NRA then dismantle it. I've gotta admire that.

You admire useless publicity stunts?

No way would Moore ever hold any elected or appointed office in the NRA. Joe Biden has a bigger chance of that and it's still miniscule.

Skybird

02-21-13, 04:20 PM

See you're a MSNBC lover..

No, I prefer jazz, swing and classic.

I'm not a member, was years ago, but the NRA has evolved over the years as more gun control came about. They certainly turned into more of a lobbying force, but the question is why?

Lobbies are made of people defending their beliefs, that's why the supreme court says they're lawful. The problem becomes when one side gets radical, the other side gets as radical. In the end this is supposed to balance things out.

The problem isn't so much with lobbies, but people that won't stand up for what they believe, like many politicians that would sell out.
Lobbies are what renders the electorate powerless and their votes pointless. And business lobbies are not about what they believe, but about what they are being payed for by their paying customers.

They corrupt the very idea of majority decisions in a democratic context - that your court has ruled them to be legal just shows that it already is corrupted and abused itself and that your system is hijacked and has tuned the rules to serve the interests of those who have hijacked and now abuse the system.

Appearances are deceptive. Look beyond.

Tribesman

02-21-13, 05:51 PM

Cybermat47

02-21-13, 05:52 PM

You admire useless publicity stunts?

No.

I admire his balls.

August

02-21-13, 06:07 PM

No.

I admire his balls.

And what exactly about joining the NRA takes balls?

The NRA will give a membership to anyone with $25 bucks. The only question they ask besides payment information is which of their monthly magazines you want them to send you.

Yeah a real gutsy move alright. :)

Platapus

02-21-13, 06:17 PM

The NRA only has 4 million members. That leaves over 100,000,000 gun owners not members. That is where the real power lies. However, the NRA is growing and will always be a force.

The number I read was closer to 50 million gun owners (gun owners not guns). But in any case, the NRA represents less than 10% of the gun owners in this country. That is something worth considering.

I have been an active gun owner for over 30 years and I have never been, nor want to be, a NRA member.

The NRA is a powerful lobby only because politicians think they are powerful. But that could be said about pretty much any lobby.

Armistead

02-21-13, 07:03 PM

The number I read was closer to 50 million gun owners (gun owners not guns). But in any case, the NRA represents less than 10% of the gun owners in this country. That is something worth considering.

I have been an active gun owner for over 30 years and I have never been, nor want to be, a NRA member.

The NRA is a powerful lobby only because politicians think they are powerful. But that could be said about pretty much any lobby.

No one really knows for sure, but most studies believe about 50% household in the US own guns. Many reports state they're about 300 million guns in the US, but in reality it's probably triple that.

The NRA is a powerful lobby, but the real power is all the gun owners. Politicians don't just think they're powerful, they are.

Feuer Frei!

02-21-13, 08:53 PM

Membership of the NRA is last rumoured to be around 4.5 million. Although the NRA has been known to inflate membership numbers.
Others are saying it's true membership number is closer to 3 million.
The NRA picked up in the month following the Newtown, Conn. shooting 250, 000 new members. Apparently.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/15/nra-membership-has-grown-by-250000-in-one-month
Business was good for them. No matter how you slice or dice the true numbers.
It seems that everytime President Obama opens his mouth new members flock to the NRA.
A 1-year membership, normally costing $35 costs $25 and you have a choice of picking between 3 free gifts when signing up! Errm, right.
https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp?campaignid=bonusgiftwy&EK=Y1CRPPBC&pubID=272.7&hid=6137499

Reps for the NRA recently sat down with Joe Biden and stated that the administration had an "agenda to attack the Second Amendment."
The administration has since drawn criticism and concern from pro-gun advocates, who have taken Obama's declaration that he'll seek executive action on the issue of gun violence as a signal that his administration is preparing to mount a "gun grab."

I'm sure members of congress still think that negative NRA ratings and a flood of NRA money could sink their political careers faster than you could say AK-47.
But let's look at what is actually really happening. People and members of congress i'd say are waking up to the fact that there really isn't much behind the NRA's curtain of invincibility and magical aura but the voice of a special interest bully who gets his power mainly from perception rather than reality.
Officers and Lobbyists of the NRA actually representing weapons manufacturers, not gun owners, that's why they seem to refuse to support common sense restrictions military style assault weapons, magazines that hold a hundred bullets, or background checks for anyone who buys a gun.:hmmm:
They love to frighten law-abiding gun owners with the prospect that common sense measures to reduce gun violence put America on the "slippery slope" to end the right to bear arms and to the confiscation of your hunting rifle. Their attempts to develop paranoia about confiscation -- and about government tyranny -- are good for business; it's that simple.

Frightening gun owners with the false or phony line of confiscation.

P.S.: Some statistical data in relation to gun ownership etc

47% Percentage of Americans who say they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property, according to Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx), the highest reported number in two decades
310 million Estimated number of firearms in the U.S., according to the federal government (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32842.pdf), which includes 114 million handguns, 110 million rifles, and 86 million shotguns
3,252,404 Number of firearms imported into the U.S. (529,056 shotguns, 998,072 rifles, and 1,725,276 handguns) in 2010, according to the ATF (http://www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/050412-firearms-commerce-in-the-us-annual-statistical-update-2012.pdf)
846,619 Number of firearms imported into the U.S. in 2011 from Brazil, the leading gun importer to the U.S., according to the ATF (http://www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/050412-firearms-commerce-in-the-us-annual-statistical-update-2012.pdf)
6,808,538 Number of background checks on firearm purchasers conducted by the FBI (http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/12/11/industry-report-all-time-high-gun-sales-recorded-in-november/) this year through November, an all-time record
78,211 Number of firearm purchase denials by the FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/2011-operations-report/operations-report-2011) in 2011, about 0.48% of all attempted purchases
899,099 Number of firearm purchases that have been denied by the FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/2011-operations-report/operations-report-2011) between November 30, 1998 (when the FBI began processing background checks) and December 31, 2011. Of those, 7,879 were denied because of issues relating to the would-be purchaser’s mental health
62% Percentage of private gun sellers who agreed to sell a firearm to a buyer who couldn’t pass a background check, according to an undercover investigation by New York City public officials (http://www.nyc.gov/html/cjc/downloads/pdf/nyc_pointclickfire.pdf)
And....................................
$14 million Amount of money the National Rifle Association spent during the 2012 election in an attempt to defeat President Obama, according to The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/nyregion/silent-since-shootings-nra-could-face-challenge-to-political-power.html)

SOURCE for data: http://business.time.com/2012/12/18/americas-gun-economy-by-the-numbers/

August

02-21-13, 09:31 PM

Officers and Lobbyists of the NRA actually representing weapons manufacturers, not gun owners, that's why they seem to refuse to support common sense restrictions military style assault weapons, magazines that hold a hundred bullets, or background checks for anyone who buys a gun.

You've got the anti-gunner meme down pretty pat there Frei. Even to the use of the "common sense" term so popular among those circles these days.

But lets look at it:

"Military Style Assault Weapons" A very nebulous term. Could be applied to anything including your great grandfathers Brown Bess Musket. That's like the anti gunners previous gun ban attempts like "Saturday night specials" but I guess that's the point of the ban right? Could and would be applied to anything. Already people are finding major inconsistencies in the list as created. Functionally identical versions of a rifle finding their way onto both Feinsteins ban list as well as the accompanying hunting rifle exemption list. Apparently it only becomes dangerous to public safety if it looks scary. Duck and turkey guns qualifying as AW's because they have a pistol grip. That kind of thing.

"Magazines that hold a hundred bullets" Were they to limit their ban attempt to a magazine of such size there wouldn't be much opposition to it at all but they're talking banning over 10 bullets. In New York, their shining example of how gun control should be done, it's down to 7 with mandatory disarmament of those previously legally owned and the sky is the limit how much further it could and will be pushed.

"Background checks for everyone that buys a gun". The only reasonable proposal the left has made thus far but the devil is in the details. Privacy advocates are already indicating they will oppose any mandatory inclusion of mental health records in a Firearms no sell list so even if it's enacted it's unlikely to prevent the mass killings it's being sold as a cure for. Just another expensive federal boondoggle that will further erode our supposedly inalienable and uninfringeable constitutional rights.

NeonSamurai

02-21-13, 10:19 PM

I think that the argument that violent video games cause this, is utter rubbish, and there is absolutely zero conclusive empirical evidence (that isn't full of hundreds of confounds) supporting the argument that they do. I have played every violent video game you can think of, and it has not either increased my levels of aggression (which are pretty low) or desensitized me to real violence and death. One thing that I have a lot of difficulty doing, is watching incidents of real death. Heck my profession (clinical social worker) is all about sympathy and compassion. I play video games for fun, and I enjoy them... why? Because... they are not real, at all.

This video does a decent job of expressing the concept. Warning, the following video contains a segment where a real person kills themselves. You can skip that part (as I did), and instructions are included in the video. It also contains swearing.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/6692-Desensitized-to-Violence

August

02-21-13, 10:31 PM

Feuer Frei!

02-21-13, 10:39 PM

If violence in video games, movies or music 'makes' people do crazy crap, then that is not the big picture. To say otherwise is courting ignorance.
There has to have been a deep-rooted mental condition in the first place, before listening or playing games or music which includes images or words of violent conduct.
Before is the operative word.
To suggest that, even with supposed studies, and let's face it, these studies are not conclusive, never have been, never will be, then i think ignorance is a word i would use for that summation.

NeonSamurai

02-21-13, 10:47 PM

I don't pretend to second guess the experts Neo but what I can't understand is how can a person be affected by a 30 second commercial but not be affected by a 2.5 hour long violent movie or a violent video game that goes on for hours even days.

People have died from being unable to stop playing them. Like a crack head they play until they keel over from physical exhaustion. But it doesn't have a negative effect on them mentally?

Yeah maybe you and me and nearly everyone else isn't affected but we're a nation of 300 million people. Even if it's one in a million that for whatever combination of other factors is affected it's still 300 potential would be adam lanzas being created out there. I don't like those odds.

Well the experts have been arguing over that point forever (kind of like gun control). Lots of experts think video games increase peoples tolerance to violence and increases aggression. There have been piles of studies, with results that go either way, and all of these studies frequently having more holes in them than a sieve (aka confounds).

Disturbed individuals who are likely to murder will go off no matter what medium they focus on (helter skelter for example). Plus like I said, everyone knows video games are not real, even at a subconscious level. Honestly I think the news media bears the biggest brunt of things as for causing these events, they are the ones that go nuts with coverage over events like this, and sometimes, what they are covering are actual events.

Also like it or not, guns (and other weapons) are what kill people in the end. That point is inescapable. There is logic in wanting to restrict the implements that make these events possible. Freedom versus a safer society... not an easy call.

Also honestly, I seriously question the effectiveness of advertising, I think its effectiveness is way overblown by the advertising industry. For myself, advertising can so enrage me that I will make it a point never to buy that product or any other products by that company ever again (like if they insult my intelligence, or endlessly bombard me).

Tribesman

02-22-13, 02:56 AM

long list there Feuer Frei
One part of it is important.
62% Percentage of private gun sellers who agreed to sell a firearm to a buyer who couldn’t pass a background check
If that number was even only 10% it would demonstrate that a significant proportion of "legal" gunsellers are criminals.
It shows why LaPierre is nothing but an idiot as he flatly refuses any measure which would affect this criminal activity.

"Background checks for everyone that buys a gun". The only reasonable proposal the left has made thus far but the devil is in the details.
That August is reasonable no matter who makes the proposal.

Privacy advocates are already indicating they will oppose any mandatory inclusion of mental health records in a Firearms no sell list so even if it's enacted it's unlikely to prevent the mass killings it's being sold as a cure for.
Do they oppose all other regular transactions which require disclosure of medical information?
If not then that is just a smoke screen.

Just another expensive federal boondoggle that will further erode our supposedly inalienable and uninfringeable constitutional rights.
Yet since you agree that they are not inalienable and unifringable you have already rejected the arguement you are once again falling back on.

Dowly

02-22-13, 06:30 AM

Armistead

02-22-13, 08:39 AM

"Winning"

http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu235/Armistead1424/untitled-2_zpscfbee19f.png

CaptainHaplo

02-22-13, 08:52 AM

August

02-22-13, 12:11 PM

So because one idiot in a leadership role of the NRA proves his personal fanatacism and arrogance, the entire organization must be?

So what does that generalization say about the Democratic Party, headed by Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Or Democratic legislators led by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi?

Care to stop blasting everyone that you disagree with using baseless and wrong generalizations?

Of course he doesn't. You take away the insults and the anti-gun side doesn't have anything. After all it's not like they have a record of accomplishment to concentrate on.

Tribesman

02-22-13, 02:01 PM

You take away the insults and the anti-gun side doesn't have anything.
Yet as the "pro gun" crowd repeatedly base their arguement on a position they have already rejected they appear to have nothing at all.

Armistead

02-22-13, 07:48 PM

The anti gun lobby has yet to do anything to save one life, yet they've cost many.

Tribesman

02-22-13, 09:06 PM

The anti gun lobby has yet to do anything to save one life, yet they've cost many.

The antis say the same aout the pros.
You need to get away from that and climb to the middle ground for a clearer view.

Sailor Steve

02-23-13, 12:22 AM

The antis say the same aout the pros.
You need to get away from that and climb to the middle ground for a clearer view.
But that would require looking at both sides and thinking about them. And then you risk getting called "fence-sitter" or "non-commital". Haven't you heard the catch-phrase "The man who stands for nothing will fall for anything?" Of course that is usually said by someone who already fell for something and is now afraid to let go of it.

But be reasonable. The middle ground is also no man's land, and that's the most frightening ground of all.

Tribesman

02-23-13, 04:49 AM

But that would require looking at both sides and thinking about them. And then you risk getting called "fence-sitter" or "non-commital".
I know.
You called me that recently, but hey I can live with that risk:03:

Of course that is usually said by someone who already fell for something and is now afraid to let go of it.

Easily and frequently demonstrated.
On the one extreme you have the "its the guns".
You can drag them to reality where they agree its some guns, some people, those people, not those people, not those guns, not that situation.
Then they get frightened and fall back to "its the guns"
On the other extreme you have the "no restrictions"
Likewise you can drag them to reality where they agree to these restrictions, those restrictions, these people, those people, those situations.
Then they get frightened and fall back to "no restrictions".

Both extremes manage to destroy their own arguements, but still run away to try and cling to them again and again.

But be reasonable. The middle ground is also no man's land, and that's the most frightening ground of all.
Not really since the two extremes are shooting so far beyond their targets the flak the middle gets is just harmless noise.

Quite a comical process really isn't it.:D

Sailor Steve

02-23-13, 12:15 PM

I know.
You called me that recently, but hey I can live with that risk:03:
No, I said I couldn't tell where you stood.

Armistead

02-23-13, 12:20 PM

I know.
You called me that recently, but hey I can live with that risk:03:

Easily and frequently demonstrated.
On the one extreme you have the "its the guns".
You can drag them to reality where they agree its some guns, some people, those people, not those people, not those guns, not that situation.
Then they get frightened and fall back to "its the guns"
On the other extreme you have the "no restrictions"
Likewise you can drag them to reality where they agree to these restrictions, those restrictions, these people, those people, those situations.
Then they get frightened and fall back to "no restrictions".

Both extremes manage to destroy their own arguements, but still run away to try and cling to them again and again.

Not really since the two extremes are shooting so far beyond their targets the flak the middle gets is just harmless noise.

Quite a comical process really isn't it.:D

Finally agree, two extremes, but the fact is the pro gun people have given in numerous times to hundreds of restrictions. The problem is every study shows they don't work.

Tribesman

02-23-13, 02:10 PM

The problem is every study shows they don't work.
To show that you would need at least two identical samples to work from.
Since there are none that match due to the huge amount of variables studies cannot have shown that.
They may portray it as shown, but they have not shown it.

Steve
No, I said I couldn't tell where you stood.
May I be so bold as to ask you to try and define non-commital?

Sailor Steve

02-23-13, 02:20 PM

Tribesman

02-24-13, 04:49 AM

Sure. Non-commital consists of not being committed to one side or the other. I didn't say that was you; in fact, that's often me. I said that from your posts I couldn't tell if you were for one side, the other, or somewhere in between, meaning not that you had no opinion but that you seemed to want to hide it, or at least not bring it out.
Perhaps "pro gun" and "anti gun" are actually meaningless when you look at it?

While we're on the subject, exactly what do you think of the gun-control issue?
I think its mainly hot air.
I think both sides supporters recycle the same meaningless catch phrases(parrot fodder), use the same cut and pastes of dubious "proof" without actually reading it, checking the sources or even thinking.
I think too many people start with an emotional arguement and then progressively(or regressively) get more emotional on the topic.
I think that the first stage must be getting fundamental to establish the basic truths then developing the details on from that level.
I think that far too often people accept the basics, but then reject the basics when their emotions get the better of them once it comes to the details.

That is what I think of the gun control issue.

So is your next question going to be on "basics"?

Sailor Steve

02-24-13, 08:04 AM

Perhaps "pro gun" and "anti gun" are actually meaningless when you look at it?
That's a good point.

That is what I think of the gun control issue.
And Tribesman is now guilty of one of the best posts I think I've read on the subject.

Thanks. :sunny:

So is your next question going to be on "basics"?
No. I wanted to ask what your definition of "is" is. :O:

Ducimus

02-24-13, 10:38 AM

Betonov

02-24-13, 11:26 AM

Warning To American Gun Owners From Canadian News Anchor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=_52pMg8qQcc)

Intersting link.

Now really, how come Canada has such a lower gun violence rate than the US, despite allowing Canadians to bear arms ??

Washington1331

02-24-13, 12:29 PM

I am at the point where I wish all sides of this debate would just live and let live.

I miss NRA president Charelton Heston, "Guns don't kill people... damn dirty apes with guns kill people." (Think Planet of the Apes)

As a lifetime member of the NRA, Wayne LaPierce is not my favorite and I definately do not think that the organization handled recent events in the best they could. The publicist who came up with that statement about Sandy Hook Elementary should be slapped.

I don't think that in today's political landscape the NRA can afford not to be a little arrogant. Politicans will do what they can to milk every tragedy or situation to make a name for themselves and support the agenda of the people who contribute to their electorial campains. Its a slippery slope and if you give too easy on any one issue, that inch you conceded will suddenly become a mile. That is why I believe that the NRA fights over everything so hard, makes assine statements, and at times even bewilders its members with what comes out of Wayne LaPierce's mouth. It makes those members of Congress think twice about wanting to deal with a long and protracted fight. Being that way allows the NRA to suffer a minor defeat and still win a tactical victory.

Now there's talk about having each firearm owner being required to purchase a million dollar insurance policy to cover both accidental and intentional injuries caused by that person's guns. So, I and people like me pay more money for something that the majority of people doing the murdering will never purchase. Go and try to find an insurance company that will underwite intentional/criminal use of a firearm. You won't. BRILLIANT!

I personnally think that each member of Congress should be required to pay for insurance against visits from the "Bad Idea Fairy". The premium should be calculated to cost the exact amount of their 100% pension and cadillac health care value. DO I HEAR A SECOND?!?!?

Wolferz

02-24-13, 12:42 PM

Maybe non-committal is the entire problem...
Non committal of the mentally ill that is.

It seems to me that 100% of the actors in these mass murder sprees is mentally ill. Restriction of gun ownership will not stop the insane from doing what they do. There are far too many ways available to mass murder people. The NRA serves its function. The Federal government, not so much.

The only gun control I subscribe to is hitting what I aim at and insuring that my guns are not accessible to a wack job.

Finger pointing is a self deprecating exercise because you will notice that you have three more fingers that are pointed at yourself.

Technically, the only cause of gun violence is desperation coupled with hatred and a glaring lack of long term mental health infrastructure to head off the borderline psychotic before he stews long enough to pop the pressure cooker lid of modern society.

NRA arrogant? No. Fanatics? Yes. But I loathe labels so I place none on the NRA other than their moniker.

If one freedom is surrendered for a false safety, the rest will slip through our fingers like sand.
The founders were adamant and thorough in their drafting of the constitution and the amendments that followed. They should not be given up so lightly, just because a few crazy people abused them.
Possession of firearms is a freedom that also comes with an obligation.
Freedom is only an inch away from anarchy. Denial of freedom will insure it.

u crank

02-24-13, 01:01 PM

Warning To American Gun Owners From Canadian News Anchor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=_52pMg8qQcc)

The 'Sun News Network' is a slightly to the right organization that is sometimes refered to as "Fox News North." A little biased.

Intersting link.

Now really, how come Canada has such a lower gun violence rate than the US, despite allowing Canadians to bear arms ??

Canada has different gun laws to begin with. Canada's Gun laws are federal and uniform across the country. Most U.S. laws vary from state to state. That being said, Canada and Connecticut have very similar stances when it comes to back ground checks, safety courses and mental health history. Connecticut has very restrictive gun controls but it didn't stop the Sandy Hook killings.

Canada has about 1/3 the guns per capita than the USA. I've lived here all my life and have never felt the need to arm myself for protection.

Different culture, different mindset. Maybe I'm not sure. But don't think for a moment that a 'Sandy Hook' type incident couldn't happen here. God forbid, but it could happen anywhere.

Tribesman

02-24-13, 02:09 PM

Warning To American Gun Owners From Canadian News Anchor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=_52pMg8qQcc)
So the first bit, when he was facing charges he had to give up his guns, when he was aquitted he got his guns back.
Sounds exactly like that law they have in "no restrictions" Vermont.
Middle bit, scary stories.
Last bit, if you choose to operate a criminal business enterprise your assets can be siezed as the proceeds of crime.

Glock30Eric

02-24-13, 02:42 PM

If we lose our 2nd amendment for everyone and then you should be expecting a second civil war. I will be there fighting for the 2nd amendment's right.

NeonSamurai

02-24-13, 02:59 PM

Intersting link.

Now really, how come Canada has such a lower gun violence rate than the US, despite allowing Canadians to bear arms ??

As mentioned, there are some pretty big cultural differences. We don't have quite the same gun culture that the states does. There are also cultural differences in how we interact with others, we tend to be more conciliatory, and are less prone to standing our ground (unless there is good reason to). Fights are less common too I think.

Other differences are much lower poverty rates and levels, and far fewer numbers of weapons are available, and most firearms that are available are not well suited for criminal acts.

Canada has had it's share of school shootings as well, but they have generally had much lower casualty numbers, due to the shooters being limited to 5 round weapons.

Canadian criminals also do not have very good access to firearms. Typically only organized crime members have access to serious firearms (full size clips, pistols, smg's. assault rifles, etc.) and those weapons are not very common and expensive to acquire since they have to be smuggled in from the States.

Also our national gun laws prevent what is a serious problem in the US, and the major source of most firearms used by criminals. Since gun laws are state imposed, there is wild fluctuation in the laws and standards. Most criminal arms dealers in the US, buy their weapons from states that have very lax gun laws and no registration or background check (particularly at gun fairs). They then smuggle these weapons into other states with tighter gun laws (like New York), or other countries (Canada and Mexico primarily).

I think its mainly hot air.
I think both sides supporters recycle the same meaningless catch phrases(parrot fodder), use the same cut and pastes of dubious "proof" without actually reading it, checking the sources or even thinking.
I think too many people start with an emotional arguement and then progressively(or regressively) get more emotional on the topic.
I think that the first stage must be getting fundamental to establish the basic truths then developing the details on from that level.
I think that far too often people accept the basics, but then reject the basics when their emotions get the better of them once it comes to the details.

That is what I think of the gun control issue.

Well said

As for the "news" article Ducimus posted. To be honest, that guy likely receives a ton of ridicule in Canada, as he sounds like he is trying to be the Canadian version of Glen Beck. I couldn't even finish the clip it was so bad.

Cybermat47

02-24-13, 04:54 PM

I will be there fighting for the 2nd amendment's right.

The second amendment doesn't have any rights. It is a right.

Glock30Eric

02-24-13, 05:13 PM

The second amendment doesn't have any rights. It is a right.

Yeah. The point is that the liberals are crushing the second amendment right now. I was trying to say that if they take the second amendment out so they should take me out as well.

Takeda Shingen

02-24-13, 05:21 PM

Let's all try to stay away from the insurrection talk. Thanks.

The Management

Tribesman

02-24-13, 05:34 PM

I was trying to say that if they take the second amendment out so they should take me out as well.
So will it be dinner or a trip to the theatre to see a show?

@Samurai
I couldn't even finish the clip it was so bad.
You should watch it to the end, it is worth it.

yubba

02-24-13, 06:19 PM

So will it be dinner or a trip to the theatre to see a show?

@Samurai

You should watch it to the end, it is worth it.
And after can we have a nice walk through the park. Glock take it easy don't give these guys any more fodder they will just turn and twist it around on you, the best way to get under their skin is to tell the truth and show the truth, as sun light is to a vampire,, so is the truth to a liberal, so the world is coming to a end because the government has to cut spending by 2% wow,, I guess that's 2% less chance I get groped at the airport, keep up the good fight.

Nippelspanner

02-24-13, 06:33 PM

Intersting link.

Now really, how come Canada has such a lower gun violence rate than the US, despite allowing Canadians to bear arms ??

Canadians don't live in fear...

Oberon

02-24-13, 06:40 PM

Canadians don't live in fear...

No, they live in Canada, eh?

yubba

02-24-13, 06:54 PM

No, they live in Canada, eh?
to cold up there to go out and kill anyone,,, here in central Florida that's another story 6 or 7 shootings in the Orlando area this weekend I guess we want to give Chicago a run for their money

yubba

02-24-13, 09:04 PM

Or that people die in fist fights, so lets cut everybodies hands off, that would be a 2 for 1 no fists and no trigger fingers look at all the lives I've saved damn I should get the peace prize for that..

Feuer Frei!

02-24-13, 09:11 PM

yubba

02-24-13, 09:23 PM

But i heard you're a supporter! How will you receive your prize then. :haha:
well I guess they could stick it:o

Ducimus

02-25-13, 10:31 AM

The 'Sun News Network' is a slightly to the right organization that is sometimes refered to as "Fox News North." A little biased.

Yeah I figured as much. I think every country's news sources are biased one way or another. Countries aside, id guess nearly anything that is pro-gun, will be biased to the right. Lately one of my past times has been comparing CNN to Foxnews, just to see for myself how bad the bias really is, and it is really bad. Disgustingly so. Politics is todays "masterpiece theater" .

If we lose our 2nd amendment for everyone and then you should be expecting a second civil war. I will be there fighting for the 2nd amendment's right.

There's a ton of civil war talk going around, and I think most of it is paranoia or just political posturing in the form of chest beating. That said, if worst fears were to be realized (an Orwellian styled tyrannical government), I would not be idle, and I'll just leave it at that.

As mentioned, there are some pretty big cultural differences. We don't have quite the same gun culture that the states does.

Even between States, within the United States we have big cultural differences.

As for the "news" article Ducimus posted. To be honest, that guy likely receives a ton of ridicule in Canada, as he sounds like he is trying to be the Canadian version of Glen Beck. I couldn't even finish the clip it was so bad.

Nobody's as bad as Glen Beck. At least, nobody I ever bothered to listen to. Yeah he has a biased to the right. That much is obvious, but I don't see him frothing at the mouth sputtering a bunch of conspiracy theory garbage. Hmm, maybe i"m thinking of Alex Jones. Meh. Either way, this guy doesn't appear to be as irrational as our own talking heads.

The second amendment doesn't have any rights. It is a right.

Former Secret Service Agent on the 2nd Amendment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrrsYc0O9N8)

I'm gonna have to get my ass to the voting booth this year. :shifty: I doubt it will do much good, but my conscience will be clear for having done everything I can possibly do as a law abiding citizen. I wonder what the voter turnout will be the next presidential election. My hope is the progressive's have slit their own throats, and election results swing congress and the white house more to the right. I hope this, because I think it would send a resounding message to ALL politicians - do not screw with constitutional rights.

Let's all try to stay away from the insurrection talk. Thanks.

The Management

Insurrection talk tends to make people uncomfortable, as it is an uncomfortable thought, and certainly one that is at an extreme. Just so my position is clear, though i won't dismiss them outright, I do view such discussion with skepticism, because i think it on the extreme end of the political posturing scale. I have to add though, I think the reason insurrection talk isn't a welcome discussion (even on gun forums), is because everyone's afraid of becoming a blip on the Government's radar. (insert dramatic pause here) There's a word here that is applicable because of this, but I can't quite place it. Irony maybe? I'm not sure.

Canadians don't live in fear...

Well, I think that's because Canuk's don't have certain things that we do.

- Do they have the history and level of violence in their inner cities that the US does? (Gang violence being one example, While i'm sure they have some, I doubt it's to the extend of ours.)
- Mohammad didn't park a couple of airliners into any of their skyscrapers. So began our current era of "politics of fear" in earnest here in the US.
- I think, generally speaking, most American's tend to be a bit more paranoid of an over reaching government to begin with.

mookiemookie

02-25-13, 11:03 AM

Comparing gun statistics across countries is an unfair comparison. There are too many confounding variables there.

Cybermat47

02-25-13, 03:36 PM

I wonder what the voter turnout will be the next presidential election. My hope is the progressive's have slit their own throats, and election results swing congress and the white house more to the right.

From an Australian point of view, I prefer Democrats, seeing as Australians don't really have a good history with Republicans. We lost two men in Iraq, and 39 dead and 242 wounded in Afghanistan. And, while I think that the Taliban and al Qaeda should be crushed, I'm rather doubtful if they can be.

Ducimus

02-25-13, 03:57 PM

From an Australian point of view, I prefer Democrats, seeing as Australians don't really have a good history with Republicans. We lost two men in Iraq, and 39 dead and 242 wounded in Afghanistan. And, while I think that the Taliban and al Qaeda should be crushed, I'm rather doubtful if they can be.

I just don't like to see either party hold too much power, or at the very least, hold power for very long. I think either condition opens the door to the "good idea fairy" and causes long term damage to our country as a whole as asinine legislation is made.

Now, I don't know what political parties are called in Australia, so I'm assuming you mean the US political parties since we have a bad habit of dragging our friends into a fight they probably didn't want to be involved in, particualy when the Republicans are in control. On that view, i tend of have isolationist tendencies in my beliefs. I could care less if afganistan, or Iraq, or any other country, implodes upon itself in the bloodiest of affairs. I think we are far better off taking care of our own, and staying out of the affairs of other nations.

Funny, as much as a "gun nut" i appear to be, I think i'm still quite centrist in my views. I'm sure that is shocking to some.

Cybermat47

02-25-13, 04:01 PM

I just don't like to see either party hold too much power, or at the very least, hold power for very long. I think either condition opens the door to the "good idea fairy" and causes long term damage to our country as a whole as asinine legislation is made.

Now, I don't know what political parties are called in Australia, so I'm assuming you mean the US political parties since we have a bad habit of dragging our friends into a fight they probably didn't want to be involved in, particualy when the Republicans are in control. On that view, i tend of have isolationist tendencies in my beliefs. I could care less if afganistan, or Iraq, or any other country, implodes upon itself in the bloodiest of affairs. I think we are far better off taking care of our own, and staying out of the affairs of other nations.

Funny, as much as a "gun nut" i appear to be, I think i'm still quite centrist in my views. I'm sure that is shocking to some.

Good post!

So you don't know what our political parties are? We've got:

The Greens

Labour (In power)

Liberal (Australian Tories)

The Shooting party

The Sex party (:o)

Some new party that blames abortion laws for bushfires

Hundreds of independents

At least you Americans only have to choose between two!

Takeda Shingen

02-25-13, 04:20 PM

Funny, as much as a "gun nut" i appear to be, I think i'm still quite centrist in my views. I'm sure that is shocking to some.

Not shocking at all. I think, by and large, the 'right winger' and the 'left winger' are stereotypes and nothing more. Most Americans balance out as being right-leaning on some issues and left-leaning on others, which tends to even out as having a large number of centrists in the country. I, for example, am right-leaning a number of fiscal issues but left-leaning on a number of social issues. I am left of you on the gun issue, but right of Dianne Feinstein. All in all, I am probably something of a centrist as well.

Ducimus

02-25-13, 05:22 PM

Well I must admit, I am definitely leaning far to the right when it comes to gun issues. If i was to rank myself on a number scale of how far to the right in a 1 through 10 value system, i'd place myself somewhere around 8. I dock myself -2 points or so because I don't see the practical value (in the lawful defense of self and others) with things like Beta mags. (http://www.betaco.com/) If those got banned, it wouldn't get my undies in a bunch. (going after standard 30 round mags though, does, lol )

I was thinking about the much lauded speech that Bill Clinton gave to a democratic dinner some weeks ago. I think his message to them was that the democrats have the opportunity to accomplish much on their agenda, but if they go after guns, they'll put what could be possible in jeopardy, and maybe not accomplish much at all as a result.

Now, this gun control issue has revealed something to me. I cannot deny that I am a "one issue voter". Never in my entire life have I been more politically active then I have in the last few months; and while I still think "we have the best government money can buy", ( and voting mostly a symbolic gesture) I will vote this next election so that I can truly say I did everything i could on this issue, and I won't be voting democratic.

I will vote republican, out of spite, and out of principle. While I could care less about many social issues (gay marriage, abortion, etc), I do care about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I don't know how many people like myself are out there, but I hope there are enough to send the democrats a clear message come next election - don't screw with our inalienable rights.

(edit: as an aside, and more to the topic title, this issue got a two year membership to the NRA out of me. The longer it continues, the longer my membership is liable to be. )

nikimcbee

02-25-13, 05:52 PM

@ Ducimus

Do you get a lot of junk mail from them? They seem like they would be the junkmail list from hell. But, I'd imagine it's pretty cool junkmail though.:hmm2: :ping:

Ducimus

02-25-13, 06:11 PM

@ Ducimus

Do you get a lot of junk mail from them? They seem like they would be the junkmail list from hell. But, I'd imagine it's pretty cool junkmail though.:hmm2: :ping:

Depends on what you consider junk. They do keep you advised on pretty much everything on the political front, so yeah i get a lot of email from them. But not anything like product advertisement, penis enlargement pills, date russian girl, get rich quick money making schemes, and other assorted spam. (I get all that in my company email lol ).

u crank

02-25-13, 06:34 PM

Canadians don't live in fear...

Well, I think that's because Canuk's don't have certain things that we do.

- Do they have the history and level of violence in their inner cities that the US does? (Gang violence being one example, While i'm sure they have some, I doubt it's to the extend of ours.)
- Mohammad didn't park a couple of airliners into any of their skyscrapers. So began our current era of "politics of fear" in earnest here in the US.
- I think, generally speaking, most American's tend to be a bit more paranoid of an over reaching government to begin with.

I would definitely agree with those points.

Most Canadians are connected to the US in some way. I have relatives in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania. Most of us have been there at least once. Some of us actually like American culture. In my case it's music. All the good music started in America.

I've always felt that Canada has a big brother who has our back. No one is going to mess with us. Uncle Sam just wouldn't stand for it. That might be for his benefit more than ours but the result is the same.

Thanks. Oh and it's spelt 'Canuck'. :O:

Glock30Eric

02-25-13, 07:27 PM

Ducimus

02-25-13, 08:24 PM

I think you are more of Libertarian or Constitutionalist which I am.

I guess, Hell i don't even know what I am polticially speaking. I grew up in a republican family, but my views shifted after my stint in active duty. I don't really identify with either party.

Anywho, I found a video that nails this gun control issue perfectly in my opinion. I wish this was what our current president was saying. Hell, it probably deserves it's own thread.

GUNS (Virtual State of the Union 2013) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=_T-F_zfoDqI)

I don't know who this "Mr virtual President" guy is, but id vote for the guy giving that speech in a heartbeat. Hell, i'd be camping out at the voting booth the night before like some black friday shopper.

NeonSamurai

02-25-13, 10:38 PM

Yeah I figured as much. I think every country's news sources are biased one way or another. Countries aside, id guess nearly anything that is pro-gun, will be biased to the right. Lately one of my past times has been comparing CNN to Foxnews, just to see for myself how bad the bias really is, and it is really bad. Disgustingly so. Politics is todays "masterpiece theater" .

I agree, I don't think the divide in Canadian news sources is quite as big though. I really miss the days where you could watch news without the newscaster telling me how I must think about the news being reported. I can for my self thank you, and generally far better then the pablum you are trying to feed me

Even between States, within the United States we have big cultural differences.

Yep I know, been to several different states, even lived short term in a few. Same goes for Canada, heck if you want gigantic cultural differences, look at Quebec. I was looking more at the broader cultural flavor so to speak.

Nobody's as bad as Glen Beck. At least, nobody I ever bothered to listen to. Yeah he has a biased to the right. That much is obvious, but I don't see him frothing at the mouth sputtering a bunch of conspiracy theory garbage. Hmm, maybe i"m thinking of Alex Jones. Meh. Either way, this guy doesn't appear to be as irrational as our own talking heads.

I don't know, from the Canadian perspective (or at least what I would consider it to be) I think most people would find him rather irrational. It is why I could not finish watching, because it was full of so much utter nonsense in my opinion. Maybe not as bad, which is why I used the term the Canadian version ;)

Well, I think that's because Canuk's don't have certain things that we do.

- Do they have the history and level of violence in their inner cities that the US does? (Gang violence being one example, While i'm sure they have some, I doubt it's to the extend of ours.)
- Mohammad didn't park a couple of airliners into any of their skyscrapers. So began our current era of "politics of fear" in earnest here in the US.
- I think, generally speaking, most American's tend to be a bit more paranoid of an over reaching government to begin with.

Well lets see, we had 2 biker gang wars in Montreal where they were using car bombs and trying to blow up buildings (I was living in Montreal during a lot of it... fun times), we are having gang problems in all of our major cities (many of these being import gangs like the bloods, crips, etc.). Only reason why the bloodshed is so much lower, is due to how hard it is to get guns in the Canadian black market. Not many criminals can afford it or have the connections to get guns or ammo (ammo is a bit easier though). Most use knives and other melee weapons instead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Biker_war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangs_in_Canada

Maybe not to the same extent as the US, but I think the bigger question is why is there so much of a difference in crime rate? Personally I think the biggest reason is poverty and lack of opportunity.

The terrorist action against the US freaked us out too, and made us far more paranoid than we use to be as well. There were Canadians in the tower too (along with other foreign nationals).

Yes, that is pretty different from Canada. I always find it interesting that government is feared so much, but not business entities, which I think is a much larger threat to the the pursuit of life, liberty, and all of that. Government is one of the few things that protects its citizens from the unrestrained greed of buisness (and I do not believe greed is a good thing).

Tribesman

02-26-13, 02:33 AM

They do keep you advised on pretty much everything on the political front, so yeah i get a lot of email from them.
Just wondering, does the NRA keeping you informed on the topic explain the recent rash of somewhat dubious links on the subject?

Glock30Eric

02-26-13, 07:32 AM

I guess, Hell i don't even know what I am polticially speaking. I grew up in a republican family, but my views shifted after my stint in active duty. I don't really identify with either party.

Anywho, I found a video that nails this gun control issue perfectly in my opinion. I wish this was what our current president was saying. Hell, it probably deserves it's own thread.

GUNS (Virtual State of the Union 2013) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=_T-F_zfoDqI)

I don't know who this "Mr virtual President" guy is, but id vote for the guy giving that speech in a heartbeat. Hell, i'd be camping out at the voting booth the night before like some black friday shopper.

Sorry to inform you this, I really don't think we are able to steer USA in the right direction at anytime soon. The lesser of two evils is too strong in America which that is why Obama won the second term. It is beyond of turning back. They haven't learned anything from McCain and now with Mit Romney. They are going to repeat the pattern. I gave up. Ron Paul or Rand Paul is the go.

Stock up water filter, food, ammo, guns, and learn how to evade. SHTF is coming.

Cybermat47

02-26-13, 03:54 PM

and learn how to evade

http://imageshack.us/a/img831/3950/photofeb27075211.jpg
Wheeeeeee!

Ducimus

02-27-13, 06:31 PM

August

02-27-13, 07:51 PM

Since I don't feel like being the instigator of "yet another gun thread", i'll just post this interesting video I found here instead. Because, I find it interesting what a County Sheriff / career LEO has to show about magazine bans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2Upjn5DR0o

Very interesting and professionally done. I don't see how anyone would support either a semi-auto or magazine ban after watching it.

BTW I never heard of a New York reload before. Awesome concept. I suddenly have a much greater respect for the utility of wheel guns.

Sailor Steve

02-27-13, 09:18 PM

BTW I never heard of a New York reload before. Awesome concept. I suddenly have a much greater respect for the utility of wheel guns.
I've never heard it called that before, but it was the only way to go back in the days of single-shot pistols (read The Renaissance) and was quite popular among raiders on both sides of the Civil War, since those revolvers were muzzle-loaders and you had to wait for the chamber to cool and then take thirty seconds or more to reload each cylinder.

Look at some photos of the men of that period. They didn't carry three or four guns just because it looked cool. :sunny:

Oh, yeah. Excellent video.

NeonSamurai

02-27-13, 10:56 PM

Since I don't feel like being the instigator of "yet another gun thread", i'll just post this interesting video I found here instead. Because, I find it interesting what a County Sheriff / career LEO has to show about magazine bans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2Upjn5DR0o

That video lost a lot of credibility to me when the instructor fired significantly faster in the demonstrations with smaller clips. Then there is the issue of how they were reloading off a bench (not realistic in real situation and significantly speeding up the reload process).

Though, there were some valid points, their presentation and logic is flawed.

August

02-27-13, 11:50 PM

That video lost a lot of credibility to me when the instructor fired significantly faster in the demonstrations with smaller clips. Then there is the issue of how they were reloading off a bench (not realistic in real situation and significantly speeding up the reload process).

Though, there were some valid points, their presentation and logic is flawed.

I think you're being overly critical. There is no set pace for firing, there will always be variations in the speed with which one pulls the trigger. As for quick changing magazines they also didn't show them using doubled or tripled up mags either so maybe they weren't as slow as they could have simulated it but it wasn't as fast either. Besides except for the "rush them while they're reloading" test this wasn't a speed contest but a comparison of time differences in reloading different size magazines.

It scales somewhat but the differences aren't that great. Yes a less practiced and/or scared person will take a little longer to reload but that's a lot bigger issue to those defending themselves than it is to someone who is on a killing rampage. They tend to be cool and methodical and they are prepared for a fight.

There are over 30 million standard and high cap mags out there in American hands already that they know of and I believe there are way more that they don't. Either way limiting magazine size will limit the firepower of a victim not the aggressor.

Wolferz

02-28-13, 07:17 AM

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere and applying all the wrong remedies.
Groucho Marx

Legislation to ban high capacity magazines will do little to nothing to curb the next murderous lunatic.

It's just the typical DC dog and pony show that uses fear to push an agenda for disarming the people. Once that is completed the next step won't be far behind.

More stringent background checks at all levels of retail points might curb the insanity. I think the more logical approach would be registration and penalties for irresponsible ownership. Newtown was the result of irresponsible ownership plain and simple. It cost the owner her life too. It doesn't matter what remedy Congress attempts to pass because you can't fix stupid.

Feuer Frei!

02-28-13, 07:28 AM

Here's some more food for discussion:
http://www.examiner.com/article/dianne-feinstein-semi-automatic-weapons-are-unnecessary-personal-pleasures

Unnecessary pleasure :hmmm::o:haha:

Ducimus

02-28-13, 08:10 AM

That video lost a lot of credibility to me when the instructor fired significantly faster in the demonstrations with smaller clips.

Smaller magazines, or "mags" for short. (ill explain why the word is important below). Now as to the instructor firing faster, you have to remember that this guy is a prrofessional shooter. He shoots for time. He reloaded faster because he tried harder then he normally does. The best comparison was the woman who was not a pro shooter.

Then there is the issue of how they were reloading off a bench (not realistic in real situation and significantly speeding up the reload process).

The point in the portion where they were shooting the different magazine sizes wasn't to show how many bullets they could get off in a time period, but how much time it took to fire X number of rounds with magazine changes, all other variables being equal except for the skill of the shooter.

As for access to mags, If one doesn't have all the tacticool gear like a Molle vest and other assorted chest rigs, all you really need is a bag slung over your shoulder like a bandoleer bag. Reach in, and grab one, it doesn't take much time.

Back to clips. Whenever someone says something like, "They should do away with high capacity clips that hold 30 bullets" I laugh my ass off. So awhile ago i made this picture to illustrate a point in terminology, and how the the improper use of it shows ignorance.

(I made it 25, because I ran out of space in the photo editor, and i was too lazy to start over and resize the layers. :O:)
http://www.ducimus.net/temp/25_bullet_clip.jpg

Ban high capacity clips that hold lots of bullets? Sure go ahead, but one might have hard time finding them to begin with since they don't exist.

EDIT:

It scales somewhat but the differences aren't that great. Yes a less practiced and/or scared person will take a little longer to reload but that's a lot bigger issue to those defending themselves than it is to someone who is on a killing rampage. They tend to be cool and methodical and they are prepared for a fight.

Have to tell you, one of the coolest "features" on my M9A1 service pistol, is on a reload, it doesn't take much force while slapping a new magazine in to release the slide and have the next round chamber. Slingshotting or slide release lever not required! LOL I'm not sure if that is an intended feature, but what the hell, it works in my favor. The other "feature" i have, is since the decocker broke, I could actually carry it "cocked and locked" like a 1911 and bypass the double action pull. However i don't because thats not how the gun was designed. I really need to get my pistol serviced. :shifty:

There are over 30 million standard and high cap mags out there in American hands already that they know of and I believe there are way more that they don't. Either way limiting magazine size will limit the firepower of a victim not the aggressor.

Yup, I have 3 more mags from checkmate industries arriving tomorrow to add to, and top off, our mag cache.

Tribesman

02-28-13, 11:53 AM

Legislation to ban high capacity magazines will do little to nothing to curb the next murderous lunatic.

It's just the typical DC dog and pony show that uses fear to push an agenda for disarming the people. Once that is completed the next step won't be far behind.

More stringent background checks at all levels of retail points might curb the insanity. I think the more logical approach would be registration and penalties for irresponsible ownership.
Well put, however your sensible suggestion is one that the hardcore fanatics among the NRA members strongly oppose.
Unfortunately it is those hardcore fanatics which make up the leadership and make the most noise on the subject.

August

02-28-13, 12:50 PM

State Supreme Court wants NYS to show good cause that gun law is constitutional

BUFFALO, N.Y. (WKTV) - The Buffalo-based attorney who is spear-heading a lawsuit against Governor Andrew Cuomo's recent gun laws said that Wednesday was "monumental," as a State Supreme Court Justice issued an order requiring New York State to show good cause that the law is constitutional.

New York State has until April 29 to respond or else an injunction will be issued.

http://www.wktv.com/news/local/State-Supreme-Court-wants-NYS-to-show-good-cause-that-gun-law-is-constitutional-193664911.html

I would love to see them overturn such an obviously unconstitutional law.

August

02-28-13, 12:58 PM

Tribesman

02-28-13, 01:23 PM

:roll:
Indeed.
Though a partial transcript delivered via the Beckian world does not paint it very well

Ducimus

02-28-13, 01:54 PM

More self defense advice from our illustrious Vice President:

“Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.” Most people can handle a shotgun a hell of a lot better than they can a semi-automatic weapon in terms of both their aim and in terms of their ability to deter people coming. We can argue whether that’s true or not, but it is no argument that, for example, a shotgun could do the same job of protecting you. Now, granted, you can come back and say, “Well, a machine gun could do a better job of protecting me.” No one’s arguing we should make machine guns legal."

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/27/joe-biden-has-more-gun-advice-just-fire-the-shotgun-through-the-door/

:roll:

I am convinced, that Biden has handled firearms, maybe once or twice in his life, if at all; because he clearly has no idea what he's talking about. One of the cardnal rules of firearms saftey

BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET AND WHAT'S BEHIND IT.

Fire through the door indeed. What an idiot.

There are three things I find scary with Biden, and i'm not sure which is worse.
1.) That he gives out such stupid moronic advice to the entire nation.
2.) That he knows nothing about guns, yet is in charge of Obama's "Gun control task force"
3.) That he was put into office to begin with.

NeonSamurai

02-28-13, 11:59 PM

I think you're being overly critical. There is no set pace for firing, there will always be variations in the speed with which one pulls the trigger. As for quick changing magazines they also didn't show them using doubled or tripled up mags either so maybe they weren't as slow as they could have simulated it but it wasn't as fast either. Besides except for the "rush them while they're reloading" test this wasn't a speed contest but a comparison of time differences in reloading different size magazines.

It scales somewhat but the differences aren't that great. Yes a less practiced and/or scared person will take a little longer to reload but that's a lot bigger issue to those defending themselves than it is to someone who is on a killing rampage. They tend to be cool and methodical and they are prepared for a fight.

There are over 30 million standard and high cap mags out there in American hands already that they know of and I believe there are way more that they don't. Either way limiting magazine size will limit the firepower of a victim not the aggressor.

In a sense you are right, it is not that big of a deal. But the difference was pretty damn noticeable to me. By my count of the pace of shots, he was shooting twice as fast on average with the smaller magazines, compared to the large one, and he did it with both weapons used. If that was a scientific study (which they were kind of presenting it as one) its a confound so serious it throws out all the results from that shooter. It also was a speed test, as they were timing not the reloading, but the entire sequence.

I never argued that limiting mag size is a solution. I just don't like it when I see stuff like I did in the video. As it looked to me like he did it purposely (not sure if this was conscious or not on his part), which will automatically make me suspicious and question it.

I also agree with your mag argument, would be very difficult to eliminate even half of them.

Smaller magazines, or "mags" for short. (ill explain why the word is important below). Now as to the instructor firing faster, you have to remember that this guy is a prrofessional shooter. He shoots for time. He reloaded faster because he tried harder then he normally does. The best comparison was the woman who was not a pro shooter.

I agree, the female shooter was a far better example, her fire rates were pretty consistent. What you said still doesn't explain why he shot faster and scored times with a very significant difference (he was faster on the smaller mags in total time by a very large margin). Statistically I would expect variance, but not on that level (the difference was so large I actually found it hard to kept watching).

The point in the portion where they were shooting the different magazine sizes wasn't to show how many bullets they could get off in a time period, but how much time it took to fire X number of rounds with magazine changes, all other variables being equal except for the skill of the shooter.

As for access to mags, If one doesn't have all the tacticool gear like a Molle vest and other assorted chest rigs, all you really need is a bag slung over your shoulder like a bandoleer bag. Reach in, and grab one, it doesn't take much time.

I think it would be slower than using tactical gear, as you have to fish around for a mag, and grab it the right way up or reorient it after pulling it out, unless the bag had mag pockets sewn in. Both are slower than grabbing a mag from the bench in front of you.

Back to clips. Whenever someone says something like, "They should do away with high capacity clips that hold 30 bullets" I laugh my ass off.

Ya, I actually do know the difference and what a clip actually is, and yes a 30 round stripper clip is quite silly. I was rushed for time and just wrote the first word that came to mind. We all knew what I meant.

Anyhow I am not saying their point is invalid, just pointing out some issues I noted with the video. I also agree that Biden's statements are moronic. As for gun control, I'm still pretty neutral, I see merits in both arguments.

August

03-01-13, 09:27 AM

In a sense you are right, it is not that big of a deal. But the difference was pretty damn noticeable to me. By my count of the pace of shots, he was shooting twice as fast on average with the smaller magazines, compared to the large one, and he did it with both weapons used. If that was a scientific study (which they were kind of presenting it as one) its a confound so serious it throws out all the results from that shooter. It also was a speed test, as they were timing not the reloading, but the entire sequence.

I think the take away here is that to an experienced shooter, changing magazines does not impose a significant time penalty. He can and will just shoot a bit faster with little or no corresponding loss of aim.

There is a much larger difference when it's an inexperienced shooter which would be exacerbated by fear and stress but considering the Newtown, Sikh temple, Aurora and Columbine shooters all practiced with their weapons extensively before committing their crimes so I can't see how a magazine ban would hinder them in any significant way.

Most of them were armed with more than one firearm too so the"New York reload" method was within their capabilities as well.

Dowly

03-01-13, 10:03 AM

The only thing that struck my eye in the video was the "tackle the attacker" scene.
Especially when the woman was shooting, the guy didnt even make an effort
to reach her while she was reloading. :doh:

Feuer Frei!

03-18-13, 09:18 PM

Assault Weapons definition, a list of 157 Rifles, and after defining what is actually considered illegal, everything is perfectly legal and dandy. IF you are an agent of the law.
Policemen (incl. campus police), military and former Policemen are all exempt.
Not former military though, because Fenstein stated in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yuy64j6Xcrg
that Veterans might be incapable of rational thought.

It seems, after a stupid 100 pages of listing exempt weapons from the bill that it's sole purpose is to attempt to shut down any and all criticisms.

Example at hand would be the Iver Johnson commemorative shotgun:
http://images.cabelas.com/is/image/cabelas/2344111_iverm1_01?hei=380&wid=380

or the Shilo Sharps 1874 Rifle:
http://www.eabco.com/ShilohQuigley_small.gif

How they can be classed as Assault Rifles is beyond me :hmmm:

Also making the cut are hand-made double barrel shotguns, which can be very expensive, a few thousand dollars at least.

Also the SKS, dirt cheap Russian weaponry, with a holding capacity of a massive 10 rounds :haha::
http://www.hk94.com/images/albanian-sks-1.jpg

But it seems, not all is lost because the Bill finishes on a very high and positive note, describing the brilliant use of tax-payer's dollars to buy high capacity magazines from the citizenry. :haha::up:

Good work Fenstein, good work.

Here is the Bill, in it's entirety:

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=9a9270d5-ce4d-49fb-9b2f-69e69f517fb4

Happy reading.

Red October1984

03-18-13, 09:43 PM

This makes me sick. Like I actually get a bad feeling in my stomach when I think about it.

Guns aren't the problem. WHEN WILL YOU LEARN!?!?!?!?!

GoldenRivet

03-18-13, 09:43 PM

these politicians are morons... every single one of them. especially that feinstein horses ass.

i wont post my true feelings on her here

but i think that considering i own an SKS, AK47, AR15 and Sig M400 among about 60 other such long rifles and various pistols you can pretty much guess my position.

Feuer Frei!

03-18-13, 09:59 PM

Cybermat47

03-18-13, 10:02 PM

Stiff resistance by Democrats and some Republicans.

Shouldn't that be the other way round? :hmmm:

Red October1984

03-18-13, 10:11 PM

Fret not, gun owners, after clearing the Senate panel 10 to 8, it still has to be brought to the full Senate.
Unlikely it will pass.
A vote on the bill is expected sometime mid April.
Stiff resistance by Democrats and some Republicans.

I hope it doesn't pass...but with the re-election of Obama....anything could happen.

With him building Homeland Security into his little private army and everything.... I don't know what will happen.

Oberon

03-18-13, 10:23 PM

Guns - check
Obama - check
Democrat - check
Republican - check
Conspiracy - check
Communism - Dammit!

:down:

Red October1984

03-18-13, 10:45 PM

Guns - check
Obama - check
Democrat - check
Republican - check
Conspiracy - check
Communism - Dammit!

:down:

Stop...

You are reminding me of my History Teacher...but she won't admit to anything. You can tell though the way that she forces Liberal views down our throats every day.

She talks about how great Harry S. Truman and Obama are and loves conspiracies. We learned more about conspiracies of the Holocaust, Pearl Harbor, the entire war against the Germans and the entire Korean War. She doesn't teach what actually happened. I learned more from 5 minutes on Wikipedia than I did in an hour in History Class. Oh...and did I mention that she also said that nobody cares about dead soldiers?

Just the other day, I was absent for a doctor appointment and made it back just in time for the tail end of her lesson on the Cuban Missile Crisis about Soviet Submarine B-59.

I ALMOST destroyed her entire lesson. I easily could have. She was talking about how the sub "dived real deep where the surface naval ships couldnt find it below this thing where the water makes it to where they cant find the sub"

:/\\!! THERMAL LAYER! It's where the water changes temperature and refracts sound waves. I know that isn't common knowledge...but when you are teaching a lesson about Submarines....you can at least know the correct name for depth charges, periscopes, THERMAL LAYERS!, and basic naval terms.

Then, she says "The surface naval ships used sonar to freak the guys in the sub out." She obviously had no idea what Sonar is. Friday, she was talking about the Gulf Of Tonkin Incident where the USS Maddox exchanged fire with the North Vietnamese Torpedo Boats....well...use your imagination on how it went. When she started talking about shooting guns at radio signals....I just laid my head down and took a short nap.

She hates me cause I corrected her more than a few times during the WW1, WW2, and Korean War chapters. I even brought in a Declassified CIA report on the Warsaw Pact in the Korean War... She just looked at me and said "ohhh.....cool...."

And she went right back to teaching conspiracy theories about Korea. Sometimes, I'll ask a question that challenges her theories and she says "Thats a reeallly good question!" and just continues.

Sorry if I derailed the thread...but I can't stand History Class. It's horrible. :/\\!!

Sailor Steve

03-18-13, 10:58 PM

Communism - Dammit!
Don't get ahead of yourself. The thread is young yet. :sunny:

August

03-18-13, 11:02 PM

Communism. Now that your little game is done can we go back to the threads subject?

Sailor Steve

03-18-13, 11:07 PM

Sure, until the 346th thread on gun control, when the subject gets banned along with several people over topic spamming.

Besides, my little game is more fun.

Or is it more fun to say "Feinstein is an idiot" over and over and over again?

les green01

03-18-13, 11:15 PM

how in the well can a sharps be consider a assault rifle,next my 50cal flintlock be one oh wait on a good day I maybe can get two rounds off within a minute,now with the 44-40 and the 30-30 both level actions I can John Wayne them good.politicians are morons and they wonder why the country is going to hell in a hand basket.

Cybermat47

03-18-13, 11:30 PM

You know, I've made my opinion on gun control abundantly clear in the last 125284786537 and 1/2 threads about gun control, but it certainly seems rathe strange that they would ban shotguns in an assault weapons ban.

Also, in my opinion, the Government and NRA should be working together to find a solution to gun crime that everyone agrees on.

August

03-18-13, 11:34 PM

em2nought

03-18-13, 11:45 PM

Passing a Gun Shop lately is like passing a Halmark store when beanie babies were the big thing. :D Wonder when we'll get the V-8 ban? That should really stimulate the economy! :yeah:

So where do I get a 3D printer? lol

eddie

03-18-13, 11:46 PM

Guns - check
Obama - check
Democrat - check
Republican - check
Conspiracy - check
Communism - Dammit!

:down:

LOL:rotfl2:

razark

03-18-13, 11:53 PM

Example at hand would be the Iver Johnson commemorative shotgun:
http://images.cabelas.com/is/image/cabelas/2344111_iverm1_01?hei=380&wid=380

Isn't that shotgun an M1 Carbine?

Cybermat47

03-19-13, 12:00 AM

Isn't that shotgun an M1 Carbine?

That's what I was thinking. I didn't say anything because of my lack of firearms knowledge, and I did once think that the AR-15 was an assault rifle. :oops:

TFatseas

03-19-13, 12:05 AM

Isn't that shotgun an M1 Carbine?

Yeah, it's a Carbine.

Still an Iver Johnston commemorative though, and it still would be under the ban-hammer with Feinswine's bill.

Feuer Frei!

03-19-13, 12:48 AM

Sure, until the 346th thread on gun control
346th? And which one of them has provided the members with a link to the bill? As it stands before the Full Senate.
I understand what you're saying Steve, apologies beforehand on sounding defensive, or if i've misinterpreted your intent to post that. :yep:
The Topic may be saturated onto the forums (which is understandable with every new event, be it world event or US-based), but if 'new(er)' material or information comes to hand i think it is not unreasonable to assume and perhaps even expect a new thread about said subject, with not-previously released information included of course.
You know, I've made my opinion on gun control abundantly clear in the last 125284786537 and 1/2 threads about gun control :haha: Well, is it 346 or is it an almost infinite number of threads on this topic? but it certainly seems rathe strange that they would ban shotguns in an assault weapons ban.Strange? No, it's Feinstein, remember?

Also, in my opinion, the Government and NRA should be working together to find a solution to gun crime that everyone agrees on.Working together? Not in a million years. If you remember my post on the NRA http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=202410&page=8
you will get an insight into the motifs and reasons how the NRA 'operates', for lack of better word.
The NRA is a hypocritical Lobby at the best of times and to 'cut off the hands that feed it', meaning the gun manufactures, and working with the Government on a common ground? Fat chance.

Feuer Frei!

03-19-13, 01:05 AM

And an update:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said on Monday that a controversial assault weapons ban will not be part of a Democratic gun bill that was expected to reach the Senate floor next month.
After a meeting with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Monday, a frustrated Feinstein said she learned that the bill she sponsored — which bans 157 different models of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines — wouldn’t be part of a Democratic gun bill to be offered on the Senate floor. Instead, it can be offered as an amendment. But its exclusion from the package makes what was already an uphill battle an almost certain defeat.

SOURCE (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/assault-weapon-ban-for-gun-control-loses-steam-89046.html)

Tribesman

03-19-13, 03:35 AM

Yeah, it's a Carbine.

Still an Iver Johnston commemorative though, and it still would be under the ban-hammer with Feinswine's bill.
It isn't under the ban hammer, its on the exempt list.

Hottentot

03-19-13, 03:47 AM

Guns - check
Obama - check
Democrat - check
Republican - check
Conspiracy - check
Communism - Dammit!

:down:

Besides, my little game is more fun.

Clearly this means we need an extended edition with more words and possibilities. I'm up for suggestions. :yep:

Takeda Shingen

03-19-13, 04:50 AM

346th? And which one of them has provided the members with a link to the bill? As it stands before the Full Senate.
I understand what you're saying Steve, apologies beforehand on sounding defensive, or if i've misinterpreted your intent to post that. :yep:
The Topic may be saturated onto the forums (which is understandable with every new event, be it world event or US-based), but if 'new(er)' material or information comes to hand i think it is not unreasonable to assume and perhaps even expect a new thread about said subject, with not-previously released information included of course.

When I start getting carried away with things, and we all do from time to time, I take one of my statements and tag on the words here, on this forum dedicated to video games. It tends to provide the overall context of importance and keeps me on the from turning preacher.

Red October1984

03-19-13, 06:30 AM

Yeah, it's a Carbine.

Still an Iver Johnston commemorative though, and it still would be under the ban-hammer with Feinswine's bill.

Only cause it has "High Capacity" with that 15 round magazine.

Thank god my Savage only has a capacity of 5 and no pistol grips.

I wonder if they'll ban tactical scopes too.... I can read a book across my house and then switch settings to count leaves on a tree 200 yards away. It's nice...no mildots though. It's a Sweet .223. One of those that calculates for bullet drop. :cool:

Ducimus

03-19-13, 08:01 AM

Reguarding Fienstien, (aka "The googly eyed Harpy")

I, and many others have noticed how she seems to think that PTSD is "relatively new advent" as a "result of the Iraq war". In one sentence, she eloquently exemplified her ignorance and the old saying, "Better to be thought of a fool then to open ones mouth and remove all doubt".

Also, in my opinion, the Government and NRA should be working together to find a solution to gun crime that everyone agrees on.

One reason no one is never going to see both sides of "the gun argument" working together, nor even a true "national discussion" is because of the language and positioning of the anti-gun crowd. By their very choice of words, and actions, they immediately put gun owners on the defensive and as result permanently remove the people most knowledgeable about the subject from the conversation. What you end up with is idiots that think a barrel shroud is "the shoulder thing that goes up". (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSPrHl_6bO4) Or more recently, according to Joshua Boston (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6O-z3FOwDc) (the guy famed for his letter to Fienstien), the Chicago tribune thinks the front sling swivel of an AR-15 is for mounting a grenade launcher or bayonet. Seriously? I'll just toss this tidbit about Politics and ignorance (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY_DuBZLG38) out while I'm at it.

In my opinion, this is not just about guns. It's about the constant and steady erosion of our civil liberties. We're already at the point where:
- legislature exists that is (poorly) worded in such a way where it is conceivable for the government to haul US citizens away and detain them indefinitely without due process.. (Patriot act and NDAA)
- We have politicians who seem to think that the contents of the Bill of Rights is subject to their interpretation.

Now their chipping at the Second Amendment. If successful there, what's next? Eventually the second amendment will disappear entirely. At which point there is not a doubt in my mind that the 4th Amendment would be subject to "interpretation" next. The only thing I wonder is how long would it take to get to that point. After the 4th, what would be next? Who knows, but if our politicians were to be left unchecked, it's not a question of if our government turns completely tyrannical, but when. I doubt this turn to complete tyranny ( nor any justification to move from the ballot box to the cartridge box) will happen in our lifetimes; however it will be our descendants and future generations who will bear the burden and the price if we don't stop the erosion of our civil liberties in the here and now.

Taking the long view, this isn't about guns, its much larger then that.

Armistead

03-19-13, 08:38 AM

They'll spend all this time posturing, but this bill won't pass in the end, except in some water downed fashion, but that's probably the goal.

03-19-13, 11:25 AM

and I did once think that the AR-15 was an assault rifle.

Not that it matters but what is it then?
Ok....it is not like call of duty i agree.:haha:

August

03-19-13, 11:31 AM

Reguarding Fienstien, (aka "The googly eyed Harpy")

I, and many others have noticed how she seems to think that PTSD is "relatively new advent" as a "result of the Iraq war". In one sentence, she eloquently exemplified her ignorance and the old saying, "Better to be thought of a fool then to open ones mouth and remove all doubt".

One reason no one is never going to see both sides of "the gun argument" working together, nor even a true "national discussion" is because of the language and positioning of the anti-gun crowd. By their very choice of words, and actions, they immediately put gun owners on the defensive and as result permanently remove the people most knowledgeable about the subject from the conversation. What you end up with is idiots that think a barrel shroud is "the shoulder thing that goes up". (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSPrHl_6bO4) Or more recently, according to Joshua Boston (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6O-z3FOwDc) (the guy famed for his letter to Fienstien), the Chicago tribune thinks the front sling swivel of an AR-15 is for mounting a grenade launcher or bayonet. Seriously? I'll just toss this tidbit about Politics and ignorance (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY_DuBZLG38) out while I'm at it.

In my opinion, this is not just about guns. It's about the constant and steady erosion of our civil liberties. We're already at the point where:
- legislature exists that is (poorly) worded in such a way where it is conceivable for the government to haul US citizens away and detain them indefinitely without due process.. (Patriot act and NDAA)
- We have politicians who seem to think that the contents of the Bill of Rights is subject to their interpretation.

Now their chipping at the Second Amendment. If successful there, what's next? Eventually the second amendment will disappear entirely. At which point there is not a doubt in my mind that the 4th Amendment would be subject to "interpretation" next. The only thing I wonder is how long would it take to get to that point. After the 4th, what would be next? Who knows, but if our politicians were to be left unchecked, it's not a question of if our government turns completely tyrannical, but when. I doubt this turn to complete tyranny ( nor any justification to move from the ballot box to the cartridge box) will happen in our lifetimes; however it will be our descendants and future generations who will bear the burden and the price if we don't stop the erosion of our civil liberties in the here and now.

Taking the long view, this isn't about guns, its much larger then that.

This ^

Ducimus

03-19-13, 11:57 AM

Not that it matters but what is it then?
Ok....it is not like call of duty i agree.:haha:

The more kind term is "Modern Sporting Rifle". This is after all a war of words is it not? :O:

Now, by military definition, a rifle has to meet three criteria in order to be classified as an assault rifle. Those are:
1.) Fires an intermediate cartridge.
2.) Uses a removable box magazine.
3.) Is selective fire. (Not found on a civilian AR-15)

What is selective fire you may ask? Here's a BIG hint:
http://i1303.photobucket.com/albums/ag147/four_six/FunSwitch_zpsb868ac27.jpg

Currently, Assault rifles (and any other weapon capable of automatic fire) are covered by the National Firearms Act. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act) They are incredibly expensive (because they don't exactly grow on trees), and you have to have a Class 3 Federal Firearms License (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Firearms_License) in order to posses them. Most people will never see an assault rifle, let alone own one.

03-19-13, 12:10 PM

geetrue

03-19-13, 12:23 PM

Crazy people are causing the problems and the guns are making people crazy ...

crazy with power

power over another persons life to end it or to obtain the proper respect
for the crazy person carrying it or brandishing it.

there is no answer ... look at all of the other problems
crazy people cause from drunk driving to murder to years of increasing insanity in our growing population.

just look at the news ... the media makes money off reporting
what crazy people do.

Your not going to run out of crazy people for the news to report, show off, and shock us with.

yet you can't blame the news media and get away with it

just blame the crazy people and leave the rest of us alone :o wait you can't do that can you :haha:

what we need here is a national sanity testing center ...

What is sanity testing? - Yahoo! Answers (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070302021928AAWbDhd)

Mar 02, 2007 · Best Answer: (m) A sanity test or sanity check is a basic test to quickly evaluate the validity of a claim

Buddahaid

03-19-13, 12:33 PM

On aother hand i personally do not think that naming an rifle magazine a clip or other way around makes person irevelant in discusing gun rights.
There is a lot of bullocks from so called gun experts/enthusiast as well.. who think that having a knowledge of all body parts and some shooting at range gains them better judgement.

On the second amendment issue you have a lot to talk about.
Question is if this is honest discussion.
I somehow doubt that someone who ownes several assault rifles can do it honestly although he might be so called an responsible owner.

And by this post you show that the language does matter. You've bought into the non-military definition of an assault rifle, or assault weapon as it is now. As long as any weapon can be reclassified as an assault weapon it can be banned.

Ducimus

03-19-13, 12:35 PM

On aother hand i personally do not think that naming an rifle magazine a clip or other way around makes person irevelant in discusing gun rights.

Calling a magazine a clip shows two things to the person on the otherside of the argument

1.) You've probably read a lot of disinformation. As the term "clip" is used mainly by the media.
2.) Your unfamiliar with the subject at hand, or at best have just a passing knowledge.

There is a lot of bullocks from so called gun experts/enthusiast as well.. who think that having a knowledge of all body parts and some shooting at range gains them better judgement.

Well, your either familiar with the subject at hand, or your not. Offhand id say someone who handles and uses firearms on a regular basis, probably has more of a leg to stand on then someone who does not. There's a lot more to owning, handling, and using firearms, then simple "gun anatomy".

On the second amendment issue you have a lot to talk about.
I have to admit, it's been near and dear to me for the last 4 months. In fact I have been more politically active then i have in these last 4 months then I have in my entire life. As I've said before, i don't see this as just a gun issue. It's much larger then that. Guns and the second amendment is just one piece of the overall picture. In other words, on the subject of the erosion of our civil liberties; I just happen to have chosen to draw my metaphorical "line in the sand " here.

Question is if this is honest discussion.

I've already stated what I believe, and what i know to be fact.

I somehow doubt that someone who ownes several assault rifles can do it honestly although he might be so called an responsible owner.

I don't own any assault rifles, though I do have one rifle that looks like one. Folks in the gun community tend to call it a "Modern Sporting Rifle". I think this is for three reasons. One, they don't fit the textbook definition of an assault rifle, two it strips away the "evil" label the media bestowed upon it, and three they are genuinly used in sporting competitions. One of which is called "3-gun".

Here's a link:
The Exciting Sport of 3-Gun Shooting (http://www.nssf.org/events/featurette/2012/0712.cfm)

Now, i do acknowledge that "Modern sporting rifle" (or MSR's for short) is about as grotesque in it's political intent as is "Assault weapon". It's not a term I use, I prefer to call them what they are, which is, "AR-15's".

Wolferz

03-19-13, 12:36 PM

Is it all being pushed toward Inter arma enim silent leges ?

A little something first pushed by Lincoln.

03-19-13, 12:45 PM

And by this post you show that the language does matter. You've bought into the non-military definition of an assault rifle, or assault weapon as it is now. As long as any weapon can be reclassified as an assault weapon it can be banned.

Yes i have bought to it because i had been caring guns and training with guns for a quite while...
Hmmm..... maybe some should be redefined because your current situation is ridiculous... to me.
Or maybe some others laws should be tightened like who may own what guns and why.

Buddahaid

03-19-13, 12:57 PM

More on the language issue. Take notice next time there is a reported shooting at what language is used in the reporting. If it is not an "assault rifle", it either isn't mentioned what gun was used, or it is mentioned later in follow up as in the two police officers who were murdered in Santa Cruz a few weeks ago. That was a Colt .45 M1911 type so it didn't make news.

Then we have police officers having their weapons stolen from their cars, or residences. One was stolen out of a car in SF recently and the gun was an AR-15 which was described as a semi-auto rifle. Why not an assault rifle? Was it because it wasn't used in a high profile shooting crime?

03-19-13, 01:04 PM

Then we have police officers having their weapons stolen from their cars, or residences. One was stolen out of a car in SF recently and the gun was an AR-15 which was described as a semi-auto rifle. Why not an assault rifle? Was it because it wasn't used in a high profile shooting crime?

Don"t know...maybe by chance or maybe not...but someone should be kicked hardly for leaving guns in a car.
I wonder how many responsible users like that there are within all the millions.
Then you also complain that only bad guys may have guns.
Is leaving gun in a car criminal offence?

Buddahaid

03-19-13, 01:10 PM

Don"t know...maybe by chance or maybe not...but someone should be kicked hardly for leaving guns in a car.
I wonder how many responsible users like that there are within all the millions.
Then you also complain that only bad guys may have guns.
Is leaving gun in a car criminal offence?

It was locked in the trunk of an unmarked police car. There seems to be a trend developing along these lines. The policeman's residence that was burgled involved poisoning his lab and police dog. When he took his lab to the vet the thieves stepped in.

Ducimus

03-19-13, 01:47 PM

Hell, lets bring this subject full freaking circle:

Lupica: Morbid find suggests murder-obsessed gunman Adam Lanza plotted Newtown, Conn.'s Sandy Hook massacre for years (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/lupica-lanza-plotted-massacre-years-article-1.1291408)

Law enforcement reportedly discovers a sickeningly thorough 7-foot-long, 4-foot-wide spreadsheet with names, body counts and weapons from previous mass murders and even attempted killings. 'It sounded like a doctoral thesis, that was the quality of the research,' an anonymous law enforcement veteran said

As an aside, my Father was very careful when it came time to teach me about, and introduce me to guns. He started me with a BB gun. When i showed maturity with that for a lengthy period of time, he graduated me up to my first gun, which was a single shot, 20 gauge break action shotgun. The object lesson I take from the mother of the shooter is, just because they're your precious snowflake, doesn't mean they're OK in the head. I will take similar steps my father took when I raise my own kid. If they aren't mature enough, they're not getting anywhere near ANY gun. Not even a BB gun. heh, let alone some video games.

Wife and I are planning on having a kid or two in the near future, and I made up my mind well before sandy hook, that they will not be playing any games that I have not approved of. As a gamer myself, I know what's in some of those games and they are not for young minds.

Platapus

03-19-13, 03:01 PM

First of all, there is no such thing as the "Assault Weapon Ban of 2013", there is only a draft being considered.

Second, like General Topics, there are few limitations on what any congress critter can submit for a law. Most bill submissions do not even get past committee and mostly serve only a political statements.

Third, this particular bill has been submitted to and reported by committee but there is no expectation that it will pass. Govtrack.us estimates that it has a 19% chance of passing

Fourth, the identical bill in the house has not even been submitted by committee and Govtrack.us estimates a 2% chance of passing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4ND1tBsMw0

Perhaps we should wait until at least one version of this bill gets out of committee before getting spun up. :yep:

Oberon

03-19-13, 03:04 PM

Sailor Steve

03-19-13, 03:50 PM

346th? And which one of them has provided the members with a link to the bill? As it stands before the Full Senate.
I understand what you're saying Steve, apologies beforehand on sounding defensive, or if i've misinterpreted your intent to post that. :yep:
No, and you're right. Bringing the bill to light and questioning it is fine. It's just that when Oberon made his joke about the references he was so right on the money that I had to laugh, and make my comment. That got Augusts dander up, and he had get serious, which made it all the funnier.

:haha: Well, is it 346 or is it an almost infinite number of threads on this topic? Strange? No, it's Feinstein, remember?
No, it's not even 34.6. I'm pretty sure it's more than 3.46, but you've been gone awhile and it seems like a new one crops up every week or so, but that's probably an exaggeration too. The point is a funny joke was made and I responded in kind. I apolgise if that's become a bad thing.

As for Feinstein, there have been some fun links to exchanges between her and her opponents, and I agree she's an idiot, and possibly a dangerous one. I just see that it's been said a lot, so there it is.

Ducimus

03-19-13, 04:08 PM

I found an interesting article.
-----------------------------------

The gun debate is a culture debate
By Trevor Burrus

( Trevor Burrus is a Research Fellow at the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies )

Nearly three months after the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, we are still debating the place of guns in American society. That debate is not just about statistics and laws—it is about culture.

In a recent appearance on PBS's "NewsHour," Vice President Joe Biden admitted an assault weapons ban would do little to stop crime, but argued the weapons should still be banned if they don’t have “real utility either in terms of any sporting or self protection needs[.]”

Here, Biden forgets a founding American principle: we permit the government to have guns, not the other way around. Citizens don’t need to justify owning an “assault weapon,” the government needs to justify taking it.

Biden should be applauded for his honesty, but this begs the question: If honest gun-control advocates know that laws they support are ineffective, why fight for them? Because the gun debate is fundamentally a cultural debate.

One cultural tradition believes government is a necessary evil, best kept small, contained, and subordinate to the people. The other tradition views government as a force for good that can often do better with fewer restraints.

One tradition views private gun ownership as important for resisting tyranny; the other views guns as, at best, a necessary evil, and at worst, something we should discard to become a fully civilized society.

Gun-control advocates scoff at the suggestion that personal arms can stand up to tanks and drones. But the anti-tyranny argument is not so much based on efficacy as it is on power: who has it and why.

In America, the government derives its power from the people. But the cultural divide goes deeper than the role of government.

Some Americans teach their children that gun ownership is a right a responsibility, and that guns are tools to respect and enjoy. Others discipline five-year olds for fashioning pretend guns out of pipe cleaners; they view guns with something resembling disgust.

Productive conversations about guns can thus be difficult because the anti-gun movement gives little to no weight to the values of private gun ownership. That is because “gun disgust” engenders a bias against guns.

In 2001, the American Medical Association recommended that doctors ask patients about gun ownership during office visits. They did not recommend that doctors ask about swimming pools or bicycles, both of which are much more likely to result in accidental deaths than a gun. Yet gun-control advocates have no problem “allowing” private swimming pools and bikes because they understand how someone could enjoy biking and swimming.

Gun disgust is also one of the primary reasons gun-control advocates promote laws that have little to no effect on reducing gun violence. On many questions, the debate over the effects of gun-control laws on crime is surprisingly uncontroversial.

The National Academy of Sciences found that gun-control laws have had no measurable effect on gun violence rates. The study was not written by gun-rights advocates—in fact, all but one member of the committee were gun-control advocates. Programs ranging from gun buybacks, to the famous “assault weapons” ban, to “gun-free zones,” were all found to be ineffective at curbing gun crime.

Gun disgust certainly explains the persistence of “gun-free zones” as a proposed solution to tragedies like Sandy Hook. If guns are viewed as contaminants, then the suggestion that teachers should be allowed to carry weapons on school grounds is revolting.

What is truly revolting, however, is when mass-shooters ignore the polite request to leave their guns at the door and take advantage of a building full of defenseless victims.

When challenged on the effectiveness of their proposed laws, many gun-control advocates will say, “Well, it’s a start.” And here is where gun-rights supporters get understandably worried about what “a start” means. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) recently said in response to a question about whether the assault weapons ban is “just the beginning”: “Oh absolutely. I mean, I’m against handguns.”

When it comes to guns, the much ballyhooed red state/blue state cultural divide is real. If we want to have a productive discussion on guns we must find a way to cross this cultural divide.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/03/19/gun-debate-is-culture-debate/#content#ixzz2O1PfL4Yl

Cybermat47

03-19-13, 04:14 PM

^^^^^

That's pretty interesting :hmmm:

Buddahaid

03-19-13, 04:15 PM

On aother hand i personally do not think that naming an rifle magazine a clip or other way around makes person irevelant in discusing gun rights.
There is a lot of bullocks from so called gun experts/enthusiast as well.. who think that having a knowledge of all body parts and some shooting at range gains them better judgement.

On the second amendment issue you have a lot to talk about.
Question is if this is honest discussion.
I somehow doubt that someone who ownes several assault rifles can do it honestly although he might be so called an responsible owner.

Sorry to quote this again, but on the point of knowing the terminology, what I find irritating are the people advocating the ban that can't find the fifteen minutes it takes to educate themselves on the object of their ban. They don't need range time, or to be marksmen, but they need to know what they are talking about above a comic book level.

Sailor Steve

03-19-13, 04:30 PM

Takeda Shingen

03-19-13, 04:33 PM

Grrrr.....and I was getting a snarky reply all ready. Now who will I zing?

Buddahaid

03-19-13, 04:39 PM

Grrrr.....and I was getting a snarky reply all ready. Now who will I zing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVWH01E2weA

Ducimus

03-19-13, 04:41 PM

And the main point is closed. The Senate has said that the ban will not be part of the bill.
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20130319/DA54CHIG4.html

Of course what the bill will entail might still be interesting.

Main point closed? Not really. This is a legislative battle without end. I've read some of the really fervent stuff posted by the anti-gun crowd. They will never quit, and never give up. If they can't get what they want one way, they'll try another. They won't stop until they see unicorns , rainbows, and the year becomes 1984.

Cybermat47

03-19-13, 04:43 PM

Father of Newtown victim begs senators to ban assault weapons
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/dad-newtown-victim-begs-senators-ban-assault-weapons-article-1.1274978

Ducimus

03-19-13, 04:47 PM

Father of Newtown victim begs senators to ban assault weapons
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/dad-newtown-victim-begs-senators-ban-assault-weapons-article-1.1274978

And another newtown father says something to the complete opposite in testimony.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRpYHzWiU8s

August

03-19-13, 04:49 PM

Thank God we tend to base our laws on reason rather than emotionalism.

Cybermat47

03-19-13, 04:55 PM

Thank God we tend to base our laws on reason rather than emotionalism.

Yep.

Ducimus

03-19-13, 05:01 PM

tend to... which means.. not always.

yubba

03-19-13, 05:01 PM

If you can't tell I'm doing my happy dance. Heard it on Rush, and went into the gun shop to spread the good news and got a new job, sorting brass well it ain't the mail room and it's better than peeling potatoes thanks Rush.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GUN_CONTROL_CONGRESS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-03-19-13-51-09 hope I didn't spell foiled wrong:woot::woot::woot::salute::up:

August

03-19-13, 05:09 PM

And the main point is closed. The Senate has said that the ban will not be part of the bill.

It can and likely will still be brought up as an amendment.

vienna

03-19-13, 05:12 PM

You're celebarting a non-event? Why? That bill was doomed before the ink was dry on the original submission. This is not a great victory anymore than the probable defeat of some of the GOPs measures in Congress is for the Dems. I get rather weary of either side touting a great victory when the outcome is already known. Now, if the bill had passed, that would be news. It all goes back to the old saw "Man Bites Dog? Now that's a story..."...

Better you concern yourself with the recently announced GOP scrapping of its "principles" and adopting a more (dare it be said?) Dem stance on issues. Save your anger for those in the GOP who are doing a 180 just for more votes...

BTW, I'm willing to guess you're probably a lousy dancer, too...

<O>

Ducimus

03-19-13, 05:15 PM

It can and likely will still be brought up as an amendment.

Looking back,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev6CDSo6Oio

I'd be more surprised if it wasn't brought up as an amendment. This ain't over. Not by a long shot.

Tribesman

03-19-13, 05:17 PM

Thank God we tend to base our laws on reason rather than emotionalism.
Yet both sides on the arguement seem to using far more emotion than reason.

Good result though, Feisteins bill was dumb.

Red October1984

03-19-13, 05:17 PM

WOOHOO! I'm happy too! I had hoped this would happen.

Takeda Shingen

03-19-13, 05:20 PM

Please read the forum before posting. The following thread was in the top 5 at the time of your post.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=203106

Platapus

03-19-13, 05:54 PM

Please read the forum before posting. The following thread was in the top 5 at the time of your post.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=203106

Yes but that was not a "yubba" thread so it does count.

Platapus

03-19-13, 05:56 PM

Thank God we tend to base our laws on reason rather than emotionalism.

What country do you live in? Can I move there? :D

Sailor Steve

03-19-13, 06:09 PM

Main point closed?
The point was the "2013 Assault Weapons Ban", which is now gone.

Not really. They will never quit, and never give up. If they can't get what they want one way, they'll try another.
That's also true. But that's for the next attempt.

It can and likely will still be brought up as an amendment.
Yes it can. An amendment is even less likely to become reality. I'm not saying they're not there, or that they won't stop trying. I'm just saying that what had everbody screaming this time around is now gone.

Sailor Steve

03-19-13, 06:11 PM

Please read the forum before posting.
You're joking, right? Do you think he ever reads these threads? That's not why he's here.

August

03-19-13, 06:16 PM

Looking back,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev6CDSo6Oio

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/577963_275529129246939_989740606_n.jpg

Cybermat47

03-19-13, 06:22 PM

I think this can all be summed up with this:

You enjoy your country's laws, and I'll enjoy my country's laws.

Cybermat47

03-19-13, 06:29 PM

It sounds like what you Yanks ended up with is the best thing. More unforgiving penalties for illegal gun owners/suppliers.

By the way, what's with illegal gun owners getting guns in the first place? Does a legal gun owner buy the guns, then sell the weapons to the criminals? Hopefully the increased penalties will reduce this, but perhaps background checks could work as well?

August

03-19-13, 06:35 PM

The point was the "2013 Assault Weapons Ban", which is now gone.

That's also true. But that's for the next attempt.

Yes it can. An amendment is even less likely to become reality. I'm not saying they're not there, or that they won't stop trying. I'm just saying that what had everbody screaming this time around is now gone.

I'm just trying to have a productive discussion about guns Steve. Isn't that what everyone wanted?

To me productive is defined as holding the Democrats feet to the fire on this issue until it can be translated into enough votes to remove control of Congress from their traitorous little hands.

Bill Clinton was right to warn them about this. Believers in RKBA have been asleep in recent years but no more.

Ducimus

03-19-13, 07:03 PM

I'm just saying that what had everbody screaming this time around is now gone.

Not entirely. Magazine restrictions and some of the specifics in the universal background check has many concerned.

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/577963_275529129246939_989740606_n.jpg
:har: :up:

By the way, what's with illegal gun owners getting guns in the first place?

They steal them, or buy them off someone who has already stolen them.

Does a legal gun owner buy the guns, then sell the weapons to the criminals?
Unfortunately, yes. It's called a "Straw purchase". That's where you legally buy a gun for someone else who can't legally buy one.

Hopefully the increased penalties will reduce this,

I hope so too.

but perhaps background checks could work as well?

Doubtful. There's already a background check system in place. Frankly i'm not really sure if it will or not.

geetrue

03-19-13, 07:14 PM

They should start off this ban with a simple law ...

one that says you can own and purchase any assualt rifle
you want semi or fully automatic and as many rounds as
you can afford with one stipulation ...

you have to keep it at the local national guard armory and
you can pick it up when everyone else has to pick up their rifle.

Simple :up:

Ducimus

03-19-13, 07:15 PM

geetrue

03-19-13, 07:35 PM

I have four words as a response to this idea:

Police state, no thanks.

This is now a mute arguement due to the party in question putting the law change on the back burner, but the way it was going down the law would've excempted certian officers of the law including security officers.

Now that's what i would call a police state

August

03-19-13, 08:35 PM

This is now a mute arguement due to the party in question putting the law change on the back burner, but the way it was going down the law would've excempted certian officers of the law including security officers.

Now that's what i would call a police state

The assault weapons ban here in Mass even exempts FORMER members of the police as well. Talk about a police state.

Ducimus

03-19-13, 09:02 PM

Not a mute argument yet, nor a long time to come. I am convinced if the progressives have their way, they will plunge the US into becoming a police state in every sense of the word. Probably a sad thing that I think this way now.
Before they started to push for gun control, i was middle of the road in my own personal views, center, but left leaning, and not politically active, nor even a sense of where I would lay on the political spectrum if i were.

Now look at me. I think i'm somewhere between a libertarian and a constitutionalist. Have joined and donated money to lobby groups, re-registred myself to vote as independent, have written my senators and representatives... twice, attended a rally and have had this issue on my mind every freaking day. When i go to vote, it will be for the republicans, but preferably any libertarian. Simply because the democrats pushed against my constitutional rights. Which makes me angry. Obama is no saint either. Before I was indifferent, but now, with his handling with the NDAA, and the push to infringe upon our civil liberties, im not quite so indifferent.

I wonder how many people have ended up similar to myself. I hope many, because any politicans or party who decides to screw with our civil liberties, needs to be put out of office right quick and in a hurry, and if every one of the bums lost their jobs, it would send a clear message to those rat bastards they shouldn't soon forget.

I am a citizen, I will not be a subject.

edit:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=132&pictureid=4470

Wolferz

03-19-13, 09:30 PM

>snippage<

I am a citizen, I will not be a subject.

Would you settle for peon?

Not to get into a political ideology discussion regarding which party has their heads up their wazoo's because basically, they all do.
Whether we like it or not, there is still the firm possibility that Americans have been subjects of the crown even after we declared our independence.

As an aside, the terms mute and moot are not interchangeable. We have more important things that need a little ironing than wasting time debating second amendment rights or weapon bans of any kind. These are mere distractions designed to focus attention away from the wholesale robbery and fiat money scheme that's been going on inside the DC beltway since the early 1900's

Sailor Steve

03-19-13, 10:35 PM

I'm just trying to have a productive discussion about guns Steve. Isn't that what everyone wanted?
And I was just pointing out that the "assault weapons ban" part has been shelved. That's all. Nothing more.

To me productive is defined as holding the Democrats feet to the fire on this issue until it can be translated into enough votes to remove control of Congress from their traitorous little hands.
And to me productive is trying to find a workable solution, not being so far to one side that there is no room to even discuss the issue reasonably.

Bill Clinton was right to warn them about this. Believers in RKBA have been asleep in recent years but no more.
And you talk about reason over emotion. You seem awfully emotional about this.

d@rk51d3

03-19-13, 10:50 PM

Funny how the US govt feels it can't trust its own citizens with assault rifles, yet was perfectly happy to commit to sending containers of them to Syrian rebel forces..........

August

03-19-13, 10:52 PM

And I was just pointing out that the "assault weapons ban" part has been shelved. That's all. Nothing more.

What ever floats your boat.

And to me productive is trying to find a workable solution, not being so far to one side that there is no room to even discuss the issue reasonablyDepends on what you seek to solve I guess. From what I can see the anti-gun people only want to solve the "problem" of Americans having access to firearms. My solution is to reject that completely. That ok with you?

And you talk about reason over emotion. You seem awfully emotional about this.So because I prefer that our laws be crafted by reason instead of emotion that means I have no right to strong beliefs on the subject of civil liberties? :roll:

geetrue

03-19-13, 10:56 PM

Funny how the US govt feels it can't trust its own citizens with assault rifles, yet was perfectly happy to commit to sending containers of them to Syrian rebel forces..........

That is ironic isn't it :yep:

Tribesman

03-20-13, 02:28 AM

So because I prefer that our laws be crafted by reason instead of emotion that means I have no right to strong beliefs on the subject of civil liberties?
I think it means that if you are calling for reason instead of emotion you shouldn't be getting emotional and should remain reasonable.

Ducimus

03-20-13, 07:35 AM

As an aside, the terms mute and moot are not interchangeable.

That's what happens when you drink, and post. Unlink drinking and driving, It's a harmless activity, with the only victim being oneself , running off at the mouth. :har:

Back to the gun control topic, another interesting article or thought:

Our Real Problem Is Cultural Decay, Not Guns (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-right/021213-644195-cultural-decay-not-guns-is-the-real-problem.htm?p=full)

On the subject of cultural decay, hell, a newcomer to our country (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZo4hbGJjVI) can point that out to us in about a minute and a half.

TarJak

03-20-13, 07:42 AM

By the way, what's with illegal gun owners getting guns in the first place? Does a legal gun owner buy the guns, then sell the weapons to the criminals?

According to the ATF stolen guns are near the bottom of the list of sources:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

Tchocky

03-20-13, 07:53 AM

Back to the gun control topic, another interesting article or thought:

Our Real Problem Is Cultural Decay, Not Guns (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-right/021213-644195-cultural-decay-not-guns-is-the-real-problem.htm?p=full)

Unmarried people having kids is a sign of "cultural deviancy"? Please.

According to this guy, every teacher that panics or overreacts to something gun-related is a willing agent of those who would rip up the Second Amendment.

EDIT - WOO YAY 5000 ETC

Tribesman

03-20-13, 07:54 AM

According to the ATF stolen guns are near the bottom of the list of sources:

When you can walk into a gun sale and buy a weapon with no backround checks there is no need to steal guns, plus if you are buying in the "legal" market you don't get stung by black market prices.

August

03-20-13, 08:09 AM

Unmarried people having kids is a sign of "cultural deviancy"? Please.

In the context he's discussing yes it is.

http://www.fatherhood.org/media/consequences-of-father-absence-statistics

According to this guy, every teacher that panics or overreacts to something gun-related is a willing agent of those who would rip up the Second Amendment.

There is a lot more truth to that than you think. These aren't isolated incidents they are in the news here all the time. "Gun free zones" weren't created by people who support the public's 2A right.

Tchocky

03-20-13, 08:13 AM

There is a lot more truth to that than you think. These aren't isolated incidents they are in the news here all the time. "Gun free zones" weren't created by people who support the public's 2A right.

I appreciate that, but holding them up as a comprehensive plan to erode the Second Amendment is silly.

It's like if I pretended Ted Nugent, Wayne LaPierre or any of a hundred certifiable gun nuts represented the mainstream opinions of gun owners.

Ducimus

03-20-13, 08:24 AM

And this isn't over. Not by a long shot.

AWB Amendment - Ultimate Play (Important) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoCD3rProHs)

Holy crap Obama is cunning.

les green01

03-20-13, 08:25 AM

no backgrounds checks bull hockey every time I have bought a gun I had to register it and do a background check they even want to know if your on probation and all that,far as i'm concern if folks can't pass the background check the idiots don't need them.well its pass my bedtime i'm going to bed

August

03-20-13, 08:28 AM

I appreciate that, but holding them up as a comprehensive plan to erode the Second Amendment is silly.

It's like if I pretended Ted Nugent, Wayne LaPierre or any of a hundred certifiable gun nuts represented the mainstream opinions of gun owners.

With Nugent you might have a point but calling LaPierre "certifiable" is ridiculous. The man keeps his job because almost 5 million gun owners see him as an effective voice for them.

This is why no discussion or compromise with the anti-gun side is really possible. Poisoning the well right from the start with such rude and insulting name calling only make people defensive.

I'm tired of being called a nut and worse just because I demand the rights supposedly guaranteed to me in the constitution.

Tchocky

03-20-13, 08:29 AM

And this isn't over. Not by a long shot.

AWB Amendment - Ultimate Play (Important) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoCD3rProHs)

Holy crap Obama is cunning.

Argh. "the sole pupose of OFA is to overthrow the House in 2014"

Funny when it's your own side it happens by elections and democratic means, but when it's the other side it's all conspiracy and "overthrow".

Load of rubbish.

With Nugent you might have a point but calling LaPierre "certifiable" is ridiculous. The man keeps his job because almost 5 million gun owners see him as an effective voice for them. I disagree but as you say there are plenty of NRA members who don't.

This is why no discussion or compromise with the anti-gun side is really possible. Poisoning the well right from the start with such rude and insulting name calling only make people defensive. I see it bad from both sides. Pro-gun types tend towards the prickly and ultra-defensive, from what I've seen. Probably because the discourse is so slanted right from the get-go.

I'm tired of being called a nut and worse just because I demand the rights supposedly guaranteed to me in the constitution. Last thing I'd call you is a nut.

Off to work, would type more but Father Time intervenes

Tribesman

03-20-13, 08:34 AM

no backgrounds checks bull hockey every time I have bought a gun I had to register it and do a background check
So are you saying that all the exempt points of sale which idiots like LaPierre insist on keeping don't exist?
You had better check with that girl doing the youtube blogs Ducimus posted, she rants about the evil attempt to close off the loopholes which exempt sales of firearms from backround checks.

Holy crap Obama is cunning.
I like her other videos, everyone needs to own a 4WD vehicle.:rotfl2:

August

03-20-13, 08:39 AM

I see it bad from both sides. Pro-gun types tend towards the prickly and ultra-defensive, from what I've seen. Probably because the discourse is so slanted right from the get-go.

Exactly. I personally have been watching the anti-gun sides repeated attempts to gut the 2A since the 1960's. Really, how many attacks can one be subject to before one becomes justifiably prickly and ultra-defensive?

Tribesman

03-20-13, 08:44 AM

how many attacks can one be subject to before one becomes justifiably prickly and ultra-defensive?
If you stick to rational counter points then there is no need to become prickly or ultra defensive.
Becoming prickly and untra defensive just means you are more liable to fall into giving emotional arguements instead of rational ones.
Once you stray into the emotonal all your rational points are lost in the nonsense which follows.

Sailor Steve

03-20-13, 09:08 AM

Depends on what you seek to solve I guess. From what I can see the anti-gun people only want to solve the "problem" of Americans having access to firearms. My solution is to reject that completely. That ok with you?
I agree with you. But...

So because I prefer that our laws be crafted by reason instead of emotion that means I have no right to strong beliefs on the subject of civil liberties? :roll:
No. The problem is that sometimes your "strong beliefs" come across sounding like unreasoning emotional responses. I don't think you're a nut, but I do think sometimes you seem overly excitable. Believe it or not, I'm on your side.

Ducimus

03-20-13, 09:20 AM

Argh. "the sole pupose of OFA is to overthrow the House in 2014"

Funny when it's your own side it happens by elections and democratic means, but when it's the other side it's all conspiracy and "overthrow".

Load of rubbish.

My side? Do you even know what side I am on? Way to make assumptions and fan the flames.

August

03-20-13, 09:32 AM

I agree with you. But...

No. The problem is that sometimes your "strong beliefs" come across sounding like unreasoning emotional responses. I don't think you're a nut, but I do think sometimes you seem overly excitable. Believe it or not, I'm on your side.

Your misinterpretations are really your problem Steve, not mine.

Sailor Steve

03-20-13, 09:38 AM

Your misinterpretations are really your problem Steve, not mine.
Okay, I'll drop it, and even apologize. But the next time you start complaining about people "attacking" you, you might want to think about it.

Takeda Shingen

03-20-13, 10:00 AM

We're seeing a good example of why Pride, of all things, was considered the most dangerous of the Seven Deadly Sins.

August

03-20-13, 10:35 AM

We're seeing a good example of why Pride, of all things, was considered the most dangerous of the Seven Deadly Sins.

Care to explain that comment?

Takeda Shingen

03-20-13, 11:11 AM

Care to explain that comment?

The comment refers to the fact that you display such a level of hubris that you are unable to come to terms with your shortcomings; in this case specifically your interpersonal shortcomings as it relates to this forum. As such, Steve did not create a mistrepresentation of you, rather he spoke the truth. It is simply a truth that you didn't want to hear.

I hope that is more clear for you.

August

03-20-13, 11:28 AM

The comment refers to the fact that you display such a level of hubris that you are unable to come to terms with your shortcomings; in this case specifically your interpersonal shortcomings as it relates to this forum. As such, Steve did not create a mistrepresentation of you, rather he spoke the truth. It is simply a truth that you didn't want to hear.

I hope that is more clear for you.

And I find you both biased and judgmental. You really are a terrible choice as moderator. I hope that is just as clear to you.

Takeda Shingen

03-20-13, 11:31 AM

And I find you both biased and judgmental. You really are a terrible choice as moderator. I hope that is just as clear to you.

If someone that acts like you thought I was a good guy and a good moderator, I would have failed in my job. People like you shouldn't like me.

Hottentot

03-20-13, 11:31 AM

You really are a terrible choice as moderator.

I disagree.

-Fanboi

August

03-20-13, 11:36 AM

If someone that acts like you thought I was a good guy and a good moderator, I would have failed in my job. People like you shouldn't like me.

Fine. We'll see what Neal thinks about your crap.

Platapus

03-20-13, 05:34 PM

That is ironic isn't it :yep:

Actually the word is hypocritical not ironic. :know:

Sailor Steve

03-20-13, 05:43 PM

And I find you both biased and judgmental.
I am biased and judgemental, and no I'm not proud of it. That said, I'll stand by my observations. Sometimes you seem totally reasonable and at others you seem to be more than a little excitable. Like now.

But I didn't plan to say all this in public. I made a joke, and you got your back up about it. As I said, I agree with you on this subject. Yes, Feurer Frei is right - this specific point hasn't been touched before. On the other hand it is just one more gun control thread. So I made my joke, and I made my comment about topic spamming. Right? Wrong? Some of both? Either way I'm sorry for the derailing.

CaptainMattJ.

03-20-13, 06:09 PM

Thank God we tend to base our laws on reason rather than emotionalism.
i've found this to be untrue in too many circumstance, especially recently.

In my opinion, there is no reason to own a military-grade assault rifle (and that means a rifle firing rifle rounds with selective fire and high capacity magazines). I have yet to see a single completely logical argument that would justify owning an assault rifle. That being said, the assault rifle is already a helluva thing to own for most people, therefore most people do not own assault rifles, making it a non-issue. If any legislation should be passed, it should be higher licensing standards, especially mandatory psychiatric evaluation, but again its already extremely difficult to legally own an assault rifle, making banning it outright a poor way of doing things. This half-assed undereducated mess of a bill is not going to solve anything.

Sailor Steve

03-20-13, 06:15 PM

In my opinion, there is no reason to own a military-grade assault rifle (and that means a rifle firing rifle rounds with selective fire and high capacity magazines). I have yet to see a single completely logical argument that would justify owning an assault rifle.
That's the whole point of the Bill Of Rights. You don't have to justify owning anything. The government has to justify taking it away from you. The British governor of Massachussetts didn't see any justification in common citizens owning cannons either, so he sent troops to confiscate them. That's what Lexington and Concorde were about.

August

03-20-13, 06:16 PM

I am biased and judgemental, and no I'm not proud of it. That said, I'll stand by my observations. Sometimes you seem totally reasonable and at others you seem to be more than a little excitable. Like now.

But I didn't plan to say all this in public. I made a joke, and you got your back up about it. As I said, I agree with you on this subject. Yes, Feurer Frei is right - this specific point hasn't been touched before. On the other hand it is just one more gun control thread. So I made my joke, and I made my comment about topic spamming. Right? Wrong? Some of both? Either way I'm sorry for the derailing.

"Both" as in Takeda is both biased and judgmental, not you "both" are biased and judgmental Steve. Reading comprehension FTW.

August

03-20-13, 06:18 PM

i've found this to be untrue in too many circumstance, especially recently.

In my opinion, there is no reason to own a military-grade assault rifle (and that means a rifle firing rifle rounds with selective fire and high capacity magazines). I have yet to see a single completely logical argument that would justify owning an assault rifle. That being said, the assault rifle is already a helluva thing to own for most people, therefore most people do not own assault rifles, making it a non-issue. If any legislation should be passed, it should be higher licensing standards, especially mandatory psychiatric evaluation, but again its already extremely difficult to legally own an assault rifle, making banning it outright a poor way of doing things. This half-assed undereducated mess of a bill is not going to solve anything.

Psychiatric evaluation to exercise a constitutional right? Lovely.

August

03-20-13, 06:27 PM

A clumsy oaf who has had four years of metal shop classes perhaps?:know:

:haha::har::rotfl2:

Sailor Steve

03-20-13, 06:36 PM

"Both" as in Takeda is both biased and judgmental, not you "both" are biased and judgmental Steve. Reading comprehension FTW.
So you want to continue this? Okay. I don't speak for anyone else. That said, if it's what you want I'll give you my take on you.

You're a nice guy. So is Skybird. So is Tribesman. I've made observations on them. That said, everybody has their opinions. Mine is that I'm usually wrong. Yours seems to be that you're usually right. That, to me, is dangerous. The guy who "knows" he's right can't deal with the possibility that he might not be. As I said, on one thread you can be reasonable and even logical. Sometimes. In my opinion you don't seem to understand how logic really works, or how debate really works. You say what seems reasonable to you, up to a point. When challenged enough you get your dander up and start to become antagonistic. When someone points that out you become defensive. Defense mode then leads to attack mode. When someone responds in kind you become downright hostile. Someone is always attacking you, never the other way around. And this is all because you don't seem to understand give and take.

Have you ever been wrong? Have you ever admitted that you might be wrong? Debate involves exploring an issue, not just making pronouncements on it.

The next time you jump on the Constitution bandwagon in defense of your opinions, remember this: The Constitution, every single word of it, was the result of compromise. I'm not saying we should compromise our rights or our freedoms, just that to truly grasp the situation you need to see it from the other side as well.

Oh, and "Reading comprehension FTW" is exactly the kind of arrogant, snarky attitude we were talking about.

August

03-20-13, 06:53 PM

So you want to continue this?

Says the guy who said he'd drop it but then brings it back up again by taking offense at a statement that wasn't even directed at him.

Okay. I don't speak for anyone else. That said, if it's what you want I'll give you my take on you.

I didn't ask you for your take on me Steve. Nor have I asked for your condescending lecture on the constitution so you and Takeda can go bother someone else. I'm done with you both.

Ducimus

03-20-13, 07:10 PM

i've found this to be untrue in too many circumstance, especially recently.

In my opinion, there is no reason to own a military-grade assault rifle (and that means a rifle firing rifle rounds with selective fire and high capacity magazines).

Close enough to pass as being correct. Though I would maintain that the magazine capacity is irrelevant when talking about Assault Rifles. Though i do wonder what you consider "high capacity" verses what you would consider a "normal capacity" magazine.

I have yet to see a single completely logical argument that would justify owning an assault rifle.

I didn't realize anyone was actually arguing for the possession real assault rifles. I know I never have. However people are arguing about rifles based on the civilian version of Armalite Rifle No. 15. Regarding that, I found a very humorous justification. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0IVSGctQIg)

That being said, the assault rifle is already a helluva thing to own for most people, therefore most people do not own assault rifles, making it a non-issue.

Also correct. Assault rifles don't grow on trees. You just can't go down to your local gunshop and buy one. They are rare, and incredibly expensive.

If any legislation should be passed, it should be higher licensing standards, especially mandatory psychiatric evaluation, but again its already extremely difficult to legally own an assault rifle, making banning it outright a poor way of doing things.

Yeah, you have to jump through hoops to get a class 3 as it is already. Fingerprints, mug shots, the whole ball of wax.

This half-assed undereducated mess of a bill is not going to solve anything.

When was the last time an assault rifle was used in a shooting anyway? Off the top of my head, I think that was the north Hollywood shootout. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout) Interestingly, the 1994 assault weapons ban was in effect at the time. Clearly it was working wonders. :rolleyes:

That's the whole point of the Bill Of Rights. You don't have to justify owning anything. The government has to justify taking it away from you. The British governor of Massachussetts didn't see any justification in common citizens owning cannons either, so he sent troops to confiscate them. That's what Lexington and Concorde were about.

Yes sir, it is called the Bill of Rights. Not the "bill of needs". I find myself rather tired of politicians wiping their asses with it.

Buddahaid

03-20-13, 07:22 PM

Useful reading. :arrgh!:

http://www.crucialconversationsapp.com/

Takeda Shingen

03-20-13, 07:33 PM

Crucial conversations blog app? :timeout:

August

03-20-13, 08:30 PM

Yes sir, it is called the Bill of Rights. Not the "bill of needs". I find myself rather tired of politicians wiping their asses with it.

Well said.

Sailor Steve

03-20-13, 09:26 PM

Says the guy who said he'd drop it but then brings it back up again by taking offense at a statement that wasn't even directed at him.
How does a comment made directly to me not directed at me, even indirectly?

I didn't ask you for your take on me Steve. Nor have I asked for your condescending lecture on the constitution so you and Takeda can go bother someone else. I'm done with you both.
Even when I back you up on other things? But fair enough.

August

03-20-13, 10:30 PM

How does a comment made directly to me not directed at me, even indirectly?

"Directly to you? I think you better go back and see who I was quoting. It's post #97 if you forget.

Even when I back you up on other things? But fair enough.

No because I never know when you'll turn and start lecturing me for something that you misunderstood, like you are now. Go back and read that post. It's pretty clear who I was talking to.

Oberon

03-20-13, 10:36 PM

Ah, I see what's gone wrong here.

The phrase 'I find you both biased and judgmental' has potentially been mistaken to refer to two people as opposed to two adjectives.

That being said though, the snide comment of 'Reading comprehension FTW' was uncalled for in the circumstances. A simple pointing out of the mistake made would have sufficed in my opinion, but what is done is done.

August

03-20-13, 10:41 PM

Ah, I see what's gone wrong here.

The phrase 'I find you both biased and judgmental' has potentially been mistaken to refer to two people as opposed to two adjectives.

He knows that Oberon, just like he knew the first time I explained it to him.

But that is par for the course for him and Takeda. They tag team people, deliberately trying to irritate them into saying something they can take action against. I've been around here for many years now and i've seen them do it to quite a few people.

Oberon

03-20-13, 10:48 PM

He knows that Oberon, just like he knew the first time I explained it to him.

But that is par for the course for him and Takeda. They tag team people, deliberately trying to irritate them into saying something they can take action against. I've been around here for many years now and i've seen them do it to quite a few people.

Such as?

August

03-20-13, 10:57 PM

Such as?

You know I have a terrible memory and i'm sure that I can't give you accurate enough details so I withdraw the "many other people" part, but they have done it to me twice now. That much I can say.

The problem really is that they make personal posts from a moderators bully pulpit. Special moderators icon and all. That's just wrong in my opinion and i'll do whatever I can to make Neal see that as well.

Sailor Steve

03-20-13, 11:04 PM

He knows that Oberon, just like he knew the first time I explained it to him.
Yes, I knew what you meant. I only responded for myself, admitting that I'm not perfect. I don't speak for others.

But that is par for the course for him and Takeda. They tag team people, deliberately trying to irritate them into saying something they can take action against. I've been around here for many years now and i've seen them do it to quite a few people.
Except for the times I've stood against him, and we've had confrontations over that. No one tag-teams anybody. That we happen to make the same observations or that we feel the same way about something is not the same thing.

I've disagreed with many people on many subjects. Unlike Takeda, I happen to agree with you more often than not. I made the observations I did because I believe them to be true. I could be wrong, but that's how I feel about it. The difference I see is one I mentioned earlier. People have said things about the way I post sometimes, and I always think about it and I'm always ready to admit that I'm wrong. I don't always do it as well as I could, but I do try. So I'll ask again: Can you name a time when you've ever looked at your own posting habits and thought you might be wrong? Have you ever apologized to anyone for anything. I'm not saying I think that makes me better, just that I admit the possibility. I could even be wrong here. Could you?

August

03-20-13, 11:15 PM

Yes, I knew what you meant. I only responded for myself, admitting that I'm not perfect. I don't speak for others.

So you're telling me that you responded to a post that was made to another person like it was made to you even though you knew it wasn't. Even edited it to make it look like I was talking to you, and then have the nerve to lecture me on my opinions? You're a real piece of work there bud.

So I'll ask again: Can you name a time when you've ever looked at your own posting habits and thought you might be wrong? Have you ever apologized to anyone for anything. I'm not saying I think that makes me better, just that I admit the possibility. I could even be wrong here. Could you?Yes I do that all the time.
Yes I have.
Yes I could, but based on our "discussion" today I don't think so.

Oberon

03-20-13, 11:25 PM

You know I have a terrible memory and i'm sure that I can't give you accurate enough details so I withdraw the "many other people" part, but they have done it to me twice now. That much I can say.

The problem really is that they make personal posts from a moderators bully pulpit. Special moderators icon and all. That's just wrong in my opinion and i'll do whatever I can to make Neal see that as well.

I can see where you're coming from, it's a bit like wearing a uniform, when you're wearing it what you say is a representation of whatever service you are wearing the uniform of, rather than a personal opinion. That's something that has gotten a lot of people in real life into trouble as well and caused a lot of anger.
However I don't think that either of them are using their 'uniform' as a shield to hide behind, in fact I think both of them would say exactly the same things without it, if I'm honest.
I believe, that when Takeda speaks as a moderator he signs his post with 'The management' as so:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/search.php?searchid=1537529

So, as long as it doesn't have 'The Management' attached to the end of the post, I think it's safe to assume that Takeda is speaking his personal opinion and not that of Subsim, likewise he is not acting in moderator fashion.

That being said, the breakdown in communications that has lead to this situation is from all parties, Takeda, Steve and yourself, it's like a cycle, one snide remark may lead to one in return, which creates a retaliatory response and we slowly climb the escalation ladder until someone gets brigged and/or the thread gets locked. I think that we have all got a little personal in the recent threads, and I think that all the members involved need to just step back and maintain a respectful distance from each other until the emotions and tempers have passed.

Just remember the old quote by a very wise old man:

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

August

03-20-13, 11:52 PM

I can see where you're coming from, it's a bit like wearing a uniform, when you're wearing it what you say is a representation of whatever service you are wearing the uniform of, rather than a personal opinion. That's something that has gotten a lot of people in real life into trouble as well and caused a lot of anger.
However I don't think that either of them are using their 'uniform' as a shield to hide behind, in fact I think both of them would say exactly the same things without it, if I'm honest.

I have no doubt that both of them speak from the heart. Just when they start mixing the personal with the official.

I believe, that when Takeda speaks as a moderator he signs his post with 'The management' as so:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/search.php?searchid=1537529

So, as long as it doesn't have 'The Management' attached to the end of the post, I think it's safe to assume that Takeda is speaking his personal opinion and not that of Subsim, likewise he is not acting in moderator fashion.

He didn't use that once today before he infracted me for defending myself against his personal attack. Maybe he just forgot.

That being said, the breakdown in communications that has lead to this situation is from all parties, Takeda, Steve and yourself, it's like a cycle, one snide remark may lead to one in return, which creates a retaliatory response and we slowly climb the escalation ladder until someone gets brigged and/or the thread gets locked. I think that we have all got a little personal in the recent threads, and I think that all the members involved need to just step back and maintain a respectful distance from each other until the emotions and tempers have passed.

Just remember the old quote by a very wise old man:

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

I appreciate what you're trying to do Ob and thank you. I've put the matter to Neal. He's a fair man. We'll see what he says about it once he has a chance to check it out.

Takeda Shingen

03-20-13, 11:58 PM

He didn't use that once today before he infracted me for defending myself against his personal attack. Maybe he just forgot.

Now that's just plain dishonest. You were infracted because you chased me into another thread, hijacked it and continued to fight with me, even after I posted a very specific warning. I didn't want to infract you, as you had been here since 2005 with a clean record but you forced my hand. And you can ask the other moderators; I wasn't happy about having to do it.

Now, I haven't been involved in this thread for awhile now, but I won't stand for falsehood. I know what I did, and it was both correct and within the bounds of moderation.

August

03-21-13, 12:04 AM

Now that's just plain dishonest. You were infracted because you chased me into another thread, hijacked it and continued to fight with me, even after I posted a very specific warning. I didn't want to infract you, as you had been here since 2005 with a clean record but you forced my hand. And you can ask the other moderators; I wasn't happy about having to do it.

Now, I haven't been involved in this thread for awhile now, but I won't stand for falsehood. I know what I did, and it was both correct and within the bounds of moderation.

Yeah like you never moved one of your arguments between threads.

Whether you think i'm being dishonest or not you did not use the title Ob said you used.

I want you out as moderator. I'll continue to advocate for just that.

Takeda Shingen

03-21-13, 12:06 AM

Yeah like you never moved one of your arguments between threads.

No, I haven't. I don't chase people around the boards. That's for kids.

Whether you think i'm being dishonest or not you did not use the title Ob said you used.

There was no doubt that I was speaking as moderator. Don't play games.

I want you out as moderator. I'll continue to advocate for just that.

Sounds good.

August

03-21-13, 12:10 AM

No, I haven't. I don't chase people around the boards. That's for kids.

Well you can count on me to point it out the next time you do it. :yep:

Takeda Shingen

03-21-13, 12:10 AM

Well you can count on me to point it out the next time you do it. :yep:

Deal.

Sailor Steve

03-21-13, 12:14 AM

So you're telling me that you responded to a post that was made to another person like it was made to you even though you knew it wasn't. Even edited it to make it look like I was talking to you, and then have the nerve to lecture me on my opinions? You're a real piece of work there bud.
Okay, I went back and reread all the relevant threads. Actually I really did misunderstand your meaning, and no, I guess I didn't know what you meant. I'm sorry about that, but it really was honest.

Oh, and while I've criticized your debating style and methods, I don't think I've called you names. "A real piece of work" is, I think, crossing the line. Also, I didn't lecture you on your opinions, just the way you sometimes express them. I've said more than once I mostly agree with your opinions.

Yes I do that all the time.
Yes I have.
Yes I could, but based on our "discussion" today I don't think so.
Let's not forget that this started with me playing on a joke by Oberon, and your polite and gentle correction:
Communism. Now that your little game is done can we go back to the threads subject?

So it started with you kicking me, and being rude and insulting, so I don't think you have the moral high ground here.