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


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

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.

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.

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".



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.

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

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

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".

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

A little something first pushed by Lincoln.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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:

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.

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.

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/...#ixzz2O1PfL4Yl

^^^^^

That's pretty interesting :hmmm:

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.

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/201...DA54CHIG4.html

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

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

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.

Father of Newtown victim begs senators to ban assault weapons
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...icle-1.1274978