Gun Industry Profits Off NRA’s Fearmongering About Obama Gun Policies
Gun Industry Profits Off NRA’s Fearmongering About Obama Gun Policies
Gun stores across the nation are reporting a surge in gun sales since the election of Barack Obama. Customers are convinced that Obama either seeks to limit or revoke entirely Americans’ rights to bear arms. As the Chicago Tribune reports today:
Some say they are worried that the incoming Obama administration will attempt to reimpose the ban on assault weapons that expired in 2004. Others fear the loss of their right to own handguns. A few say they are preparing to protect themselves in the event of a race war.
Some gun sellers like Wild West Guns in Anchorage, AK are holding “Obama Sale” events to take advantage of their customers’ misinformed fears and news outlets from NPR to Fox News have produced reports documenting the gun buying binge:
The FBI reported that from November 3-9, they “received over three hundred and seventy thousand requests for background checks on gun buyers” — a 49 percent increase since last year. Moreover, “reports from around the nation suggest the sudden surge of November gun-buying is far surpassing the normal hunting-season spike that often occurs this time of year.”
What the major media outlets overlook is that the Obama gun sale boom appears to be the result of a multimillion dollar effort launched by the National Rifle Association last summer to misinform voters about Obama’s gun policy proposals. As Politico reported in June:
The National Rifle Association plans to spend about $40 million on this year’s campaign, with $15 million of that devoted to portraying Barack Obama as a threat to the Second Amendment rights. … This fall, NRA members will get automated phone calls, mail pieces and pre-election editions of the group’s three magazines making the case against Obama.
The NRA claimed of Obama, “[N]ever in NRA’s history have we faced a presidential candidate … with such a deep-rooted hatred of firearm freedoms.” As FactCheck notes, however, the NRA’s campaign is based almost entirely on falsehoods. Indeed, FactCheck writes, much of the NRA’s campaign “dismisses Obama’s stated position [on gun rights] as ‘rhetoric’ and substitutes its own interpretation of his record as a secret ‘plan.’”
The “political uncertainty” created by the NRA’s misinformation campaign may have more to do with making a sale than it does with shaping gun policy. The New York Times explained last week:
What is clear is that every gun seller — not to mention every advocacy group for gun ownership that depends on dues-paying members — has an incentive to stoke the concern that can prompt a gun sale. Political uncertainty, gun dealers say, is great for business. … “Clinton was the best gun salesman the gun manufacturers ever had,” said Rick Gray, owner of the Accuracy Gun Shop in Las Vegas. “Obama’s going to be right up there with him.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
The blogg is mightier than the gun.
November 12th, 2008 at 6:22 pm“Gun Industry Profits Off NRA’s Fearmongering About Obama Gun Policies”
- - Great, that'll mean more stories like an 8-year old boy shooting and killing his father.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,449044,00.html
November 12th, 2008 at 6:24 pmCan someone tell me why anyone would have a burning need to own an assault weapon? It can't be for any good reason.
November 12th, 2008 at 6:25 pmWhat wisedup said...Blessings
November 12th, 2008 at 6:25 pmGuess this is one industry that isn't going to have to be bailed out. Geez.
November 12th, 2008 at 6:26 pmCan someone tell me why anyone would have a burning need to own an assault weapon? It can’t be for any good reason.
---
November 12th, 2008 at 6:27 pmWell I suppose you might need one to let an eight year old try out at a gun show...
Bilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
Can someone tell me why anyone would have a burning need to own an assault weapon? It can’t be for any good reason.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I tell my gunnut friends that if they need an AK47 to shoot Bambi, they are doing it wrong.
November 12th, 2008 at 6:27 pmWe don't want your guns. We just want your women.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aypMFARJW84
November 12th, 2008 at 6:28 pmWith any luck there will be quite a few darwin awards being granted to these scared little men I just hope that their kids wont be the majority of recepients
November 12th, 2008 at 6:30 pmI guess we can look forward to more accidental kid shootings, and impulsive teen suicides.
Thanks, wingnuts!
November 12th, 2008 at 6:31 pm/sarc
NRA- Simple-minded morons with little weenies. I was just talking today with 2 hunter friends of mine. They were laughing at this story and all the idiots falling for this BS. One said he had a gun he needed to buy, but now was going to wait until after Obama takes office and all the fear-mongering claims are proven to be nonsense and the price comes back down.
November 12th, 2008 at 6:31 pmdbadass Says:
Can someone tell me why anyone would have a burning need to own an assault weapon? It can’t be for any good reason.
bears...
yes, it's true.
the only way to stop a marauding polar bear is with a multiple-round burst from an m-16. And they're getting pissed, what with the disappearance of the arctic ice and all...
Support the right to arm bears...
November 12th, 2008 at 6:33 pmSince all these gun sales still need to undergo a background check, then it won't be hard to round up all those people that purchase weapons between the election and the inauguration and hold them in those Halliburton detention camps secured by Blackwater guards. Tell that to those paranoid delusional gun nuts and they'll hide in their bunkers until Cheney gives the all-clear.
November 12th, 2008 at 6:33 pm#10
November 12th, 2008 at 6:34 pmDon't forget the drunken SuperBowl Sunday spousal abuse incidents. They're always fun...
EugeneDebs Says:
Bilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
Can someone tell me why anyone would have a burning need to own an assault weapon? It can’t be for any good reason.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I tell my gunnut friends that if they need an AK47 to shoot Bambi, they are doing it wrong.
The assault rifles are the those liberal, marxist, Islamofascist Bambi's, don't cha know?
November 12th, 2008 at 6:38 pmThe assault rifles are for those liberal, marxist, Islamofascist Bambi’s, don’t cha know?
I should really proofread before hitting submit, lol
November 12th, 2008 at 6:41 pmtoo bad these rabid second amendment assclowns can only count to 2 or they'd be some pissed off when they saw what their tin idol in the white house did to the fourth.
November 12th, 2008 at 6:44 pmA gun collector friend of mine told me he'd gone by one of the local sporting goods stores a couple of days ago and half their stock was gone.
If there was ever any question that the NRA was in the bag for gun dealers and manufacturers, this ought to put that to rest. Obama wants to restore the ban on assault weapons that should never have been lifted, and he's been very clear that he's not against people owning guns, even handguns.
November 12th, 2008 at 6:52 pmi guess what obama said on the campaign trail was true, in times of economic trouble white trash clings to their god and guns.
November 12th, 2008 at 6:57 pm#3
"Can someone tell me why anyone would have a burning need to own an assault weapon? It can’t be for any good reason."
Same reason you feel the need to own a car (a potential lethal weapon BTW), have security system for you house, a good surround sound system for you home, a big screen TV, or own a computer for posting here in this blog....they want it for their own personal use. In the grand scheme of things, however it's really none of your business why they want it. If they have a criminal record they can't legally purchase any firearm anyway.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:01 pmthese stupid white trash hillbillies think guns will protect them from the government...yet all the government has to do is tell them that some smelly guys in a cave are going to bomb thier trailer park at they will drop down at the presidents feet and obey his every whim without question. hey rednecks, put down your meth pipe and realize that guns wont protect you from irrational fear....saddam hussiens iraq was awash in firearms, how well did that protect them against a dictator?
November 12th, 2008 at 7:03 pmSame reason you feel the need to own a car (a potential lethal weapon BTW),
When was the last time you hopped on your AK-47 to pck up groceries, Tracy?
The cars MAIN function isn't to kill people quickly, the assualt rifle's is... see the difference?
they want it for their own personal use.
Should we allow people to puchase Morphine for personal use? How about plutonium? Where do we draw the line, Trace?
November 12th, 2008 at 7:06 pmWe luvs us sum AK 47's for home security and varmint sniping!
November 12th, 2008 at 7:07 pmWow! Fear-mongering to gun-nuts for profit??!!! Who would have thought you could get away with something like that? I mean gun-nuts are some of the sharpest tacks in the box.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:07 pmThese are exactly the type of people who should be allowed to own guns.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:07 pmDuz Rapture Reddy need an AK47 for shooting baby deer?
November 12th, 2008 at 7:08 pmTracy: "Same reason you feel the need to own a car"
Yes! Tracy's right. Sometimes an automobile can indeed be a more effective way to kill a person.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:09 pmRapture Ready has an oozie in his shorts.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:10 pm“Can someone tell me why anyone would have a burning need to own an assault weapon? It can’t be for any good reason.”
>Same reason you feel the need to own a car
I own a car because its the only way to get from point A to point B in a reasonable amount of time...its pretty hard to
function in most communities without one..
>have security system for you house,
you need an assault weapon for security? who are you expecting to come calling? a swat team?
let me guess, you're also a big fan of armor piercing bullets, also?
how about silencers? you think those should be legal also?
>a good surround sound system for you home,
right, certainly one could rationally and logically compare the desire to listen to music to the desire to rip things into pieces with heavy caliber weaponry
> a big screen TV, or own a computer for posting here in this > blog
right, because certainly, theres are as many legitimate things you can do with a computer as there are with a gun..
trac, do us a favor and see if you can clean you're teeth with an ak-47 please?
November 12th, 2008 at 7:10 pmfess up tracy, are you and your ilk in a mass suicide pact led by rush limbaugh to happen on jan 20th, 2009? if so, where do i donate to the bullet fund?
November 12th, 2008 at 7:10 pmNevar Says:
"Rapture Ready has an oozie in his shorts."
due to his ruptured rectum
November 12th, 2008 at 7:10 pmI suppose it's too much to hope that these folks will remember their hysteria later, when *absolutely nothing* happens to their right to bear arms. And I know it's too much to hope that they might learn to take standard Republican fearmongering with a big ol' grain of salt.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:12 pmFear & Commerce. A winning combination...
====
November 12th, 2008 at 7:12 pmTracy: "In the grand scheme of things, however it’s really none of your business why they want it."
Did you support legislation and initiatives to take the right to get married away from gays? Just wondering. Because gun-nuts always talk about how horrible it would be for the majority to take away their rights so I'm going to assume that NRA members and gun-nuts everywhere are outraged about how we've treated gay people.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:12 pmCan someone tell me why anyone would have a burning need to ban an assault weapon?
Also, the definition of "assault weapon" is deceiving. Do you know how many weapons defined as "assault weapons" are actually used in commission of crimes, as opposed to other guns? Giving something a scary name so as to make it easier to ban doesn't actually make that item any more dangerous.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:18 pm#22
"When was the last time you hopped on your AK-47 to pck up groceries, Tracy?
The cars MAIN function isn’t to kill people quickly, the assualt rifle’s is… see the difference?"
Yeah but what is the number of people killed by drunk drivers vs. those killed by people with assult rifles? The functional intent of the object is irrelevant. I have an AR-15 that I use for target practice as well as a ParaOrdinance 45 but I don't go around shooting at people.
"Where do we draw the line, Trace?"
You get the 2nd Amendment overturned by the Supreme Court and then we can talk. The right to bear arms was not written into the U.S. Constitution so I can go hunting and since you are smart I will let you answer as to why the 2nd Amendment was created. Having said this a hunting rifle is not to be used as a means of personal self defense.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:20 pmGiving something a scary name so as to make it easier to ban doesn’t actually make that item any more dangerous.
Very well, I propose banning handguns and all semi-automatic guns... if you really need that weapon for sport you should be able to cock it yourself. It was good enough for the founders, damnit, isn't that what all the conservatives say?
November 12th, 2008 at 7:21 pmtracy, answer me this: recently an 8 year old shot himself to death at a gun show with an uzi here in new england. should his parents and/or the "gun instructor" be tried for murder or criminal negligence of a child? just curious.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:22 pmhttp://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=6121915&page=1
#27
"Yes! Tracy’s right. Sometimes an automobile can indeed be a more effective way to kill a person."
Wow! So we need to ban cars? How about you take the lead in this endeavor.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:22 pmAre they buying more guns and not more Bibles?
I thought they were supposed to be clinging to both according to Obama...He was wrong...RePugniScums don't cling to Bibles...They sh|t on them and use them for political cover and target practice...
Jesus was a liberal!!!
November 12th, 2008 at 7:25 pmLuckily the decision isn't up to you. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean everyone should roll over. It has nothing to do with "sport", it's the 2nd Amendment and the National Firearms Act of 1934.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:26 pmYeah but what is the number of people killed by drunk drivers vs. those killed by people with assult rifles?
What is the number of people exposed to cars everyday vs. those exposed to assualt rifles? If we adjust for exposure I'm willing to bet the car is still safer than the gun...
RE: the 2nd amendment-
November 12th, 2008 at 7:27 pmReturning to original intent shouldn't you be using a muzzle loader? The founders only intended us to consider exactly whatever the situation on the ground was when they wrote the Constitution, right?
And I assume you are also against a standing army? Militia's will get the job done, right?
Red herring....but the adults should be held criminally negligent.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:27 pmTracy_5, the sarcasm impaired troll, strikes back...
November 12th, 2008 at 7:28 pmNo. Not at all. Show me where it says that in the 2nd amendment. I'll wait.....
November 12th, 2008 at 7:28 pmapparently not, the state of mass give parents the RIGHT to hand their kid an assault rifle to play with as long as there's a licensed instructor present. does this child have the right to bear arms?
November 12th, 2008 at 7:29 pmWhere are age restrictions for the Bill of Rights? My copy doesn't have any.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:31 pmLuckily the decision isn’t up to you. Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t mean everyone should roll over. It has nothing to do with “sport”, it’s the 2nd Amendment and the National Firearms Act of 1934.
Sure- but just 'cause you like it, doesn't mean that everyone should roll over either and just 'cause you say that's what the 2nd amendment means don't necessarily make it so. I happen to think the meaning is pretty clear and would support local militia's instead of a standing army- Swiss style. If you need that assault rifle you should use it to defend your country, not shoot stuff just 'cause you're 'merican...
November 12th, 2008 at 7:32 pmso, essentially you are saying an 8 year old has the right to fire an automatic assault rifle? that is morally void and reckless.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:33 pmTracy_5:
November 12th, 2008 at 7:33 pmWanna tell me how you define arms? Are there any you belief should be restricted.
No. Not at all. Show me where it says that in the 2nd amendment. I’ll wait…..
Tell me all the automatic weapons available at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment... I'll wait.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:33 pmTracy_5:
November 12th, 2008 at 7:34 pmWould you agree that the wording of that ammendment leaves much to be desired and could be interpretted in a multitude of ways?
Which guns did Ghandi, Jesus, Budha, Mohammed or Moses own? I'll buy a boat load of those!
November 12th, 2008 at 7:35 pmStraw man argument. You're losing and desperate. Try again. I'll wait....
November 12th, 2008 at 7:36 pmIt doesn't matter what you "think", because you're wrong on this matter. The supreme court has decided it. You're no better than the anti-abortion nuts. If you need to ban an assault rifle you should move to Canada or some other country that doesn't has a bill rights. I have served my country, have you? Just because you don't like my rights have a weapon, it doesn't mean I should bend over to placate you.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:36 pm#29
"I own a car because its the only way to get from point A to point B in a reasonable amount of time…its pretty hard to
function in most communities without one."
Oh so it's only a matter of PERSONAL convenience...that isn't a good enough reason for you to be in possession of such a potential lethal weapon though. You could go out an kill somone in a crowded shopping mall right not with you car just as easy as I could go out an do the same with my AR-15.
"you need an assault weapon for security? who are you expecting to come calling? a swat team?"
No, I use my AR-15 for target practice. The .45 is for personal protection.
"let me guess, you’re also a big fan of armor piercing bullets, also?"
No...don't have any, but they might be fun to see what they can do....to non-live target of course.
"how about silencers? you think those should be legal also?"
I see no problem with silencers. It sure would put and end to all the loud noise polution the that AR-15 makes.
"right, certainly one could rationally and logically compare the desire to listen to music to the desire to rip things into pieces with heavy caliber weaponry"
Again it's none of your business what others like or dislike. Get it?
"right, because certainly, theres are as many legitimate things you can do with a computer as there are with a gun.."
And you think posting in this blog is a productive use of your time?
November 12th, 2008 at 7:36 pm#30
"fess up tracy, are you and your ilk in a mass suicide pact led by rush limbaugh to happen on jan 20th, 2009?"
No we will just bide our time untill 2012? It will be a short one like Carter's.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:37 pmThis is why I refuse to call myself a liberal, because the ignorance of arsehole wimps like Belac et al. You're no different from the extreme reich-wingers, wimp.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:38 pmTracy__5 Says:
Wow! So we need to ban cars? How about you take the lead in this endeavor.
This is proof again why we say conservatives are devoid of humor and why FOX's attempt to copy the Daily Show failed.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:38 pmTracy_5
"Again it’s none of your business what others like or dislike. Get it?"
Does this apply to recreational drugs and gender preference as well? How about assisted suicide?
November 12th, 2008 at 7:39 pm#34
"Did you support legislation and initiatives to take the right to get married away from gays? "
Absolutely not. I might have voted for a candidate that did but like everyone you or I vote for they probably don't support or share ALL of your views.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:39 pmIt doesn’t matter what you “think”, because you’re wrong on this matter.
Oh, cool- I didn't know I was wrong... thanks! Since it's decided and settled I'll just shut up now.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:39 pmWhew, I almost looked like a real jerk there! Thanks for setting me straight!
You're a chief!
This is why I refuse to call myself a liberal, because the ignorance of arsehole wimps like Belac et al. You’re no different from the extreme reich-wingers, wimp.
This is why I refuse to call myself a Dr. on blogs, because of the pompous arsehole ranting of jerks like you. You ruin the title for everyone, Dr. Matt...
November 12th, 2008 at 7:42 pm#37
"Very well, I propose banning handguns and all semi-automatic guns… if you really need that weapon for sport you should be able to cock it yourself."
This is an opinion of someone who doesn't even own a firearm?
November 12th, 2008 at 7:42 pmDr Hussein Matt:
November 12th, 2008 at 7:43 pmMaybe you can field the question of how "arms" should be defined relative to the 2nd ammendment. It seems you feel some expertise in this area. Might you enlighten me. Thanks. See I have had my eye on this cool rocket launcher for awhile now and I just wanna have it cause it is cool and besides Tracy tells me it really isn't anybodies business. Besides I have powerful enemies and might feel that myself and my family is more secure if I had one. I promise to use it responsibly...
Straw man argument. You’re losing and desperate. Try again. I’ll wait….
I was pointing out the 'original intent' arguement is flawed and weak... not arguing that we should actually look to whatever weapons the founders used. You're lashing out... and wrong.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:44 pm#38
"recently an 8 year old shot himself to death at a gun show with an uzi here in new england. should his parents and/or the “gun instructor” be tried for murder or criminal negligence of a child?"
Whoever was in charge of securing that firearm should be prosecuted. Yes.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:44 pm#42
"If we adjust for exposure I’m willing to bet the car is still safer than the gun…"
That is irrelevant to the topic at hand, i.e. whether or not the asssult weapon ban should be reinstated.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:47 pm#43
"Red herring….but the adults should be held criminally negligent."
We agree...for once. Amazing.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:48 pmThe Tracy troll is talking to himself again...
So sad.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:49 pmThat is irrelevant to the topic at hand, i.e. whether or not the asssult weapon ban should be reinstated.
If it's irrelevant, why'd you bring it up?
November 12th, 2008 at 7:49 pmYou're trying to argue that cars are more dangerous than guns, right?
I'm trying to tell you that I don't think it's so...
#48
"...and just ’cause you say that’s what the 2nd amendment means don’t necessarily make it so."
The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment...not you.
"If you need that assault rifle you should use it to defend your country, not shoot stuff just ’cause you’re ‘merican…"
Says you? Again it's none of you business.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:52 pm"Again it’s none of you business."
Again does this also apply to gay marriage, assisted suicide, abortion, and recreational drug use?
November 12th, 2008 at 7:53 pm#50
"Wanna tell me how you define arms?"
Read the 2nd Amendment and the D.C. handgun ban decision.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:55 pmI asked you big guy...
November 12th, 2008 at 7:55 pm#51
"Tell me all the automatic weapons available at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment… I’ll wait."
That is irrelevant.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:55 pmThe NRA has nothing to fear from spineless centrist Obama. No gun eradication on his watch...
http://www.sunstateactivist.org/ssablog/
November 12th, 2008 at 7:55 pmwhy is it irrelevant?
November 12th, 2008 at 7:56 pm"Accuracy Gun Shop"??? There's a misnomer for these fear-mongers.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:56 pm#52
"Would you agree that the wording of that ammendment leaves much to be desired and could be interpretted in a multitude of ways?"
Yes and the Supreme Court just recently laid down the correct interpretation...in my opinion.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:57 pm>You could go out an kill somone in a crowded shopping mall
with a car? really? must be an awful thick vehicle to get
through those mall doors!
your argument is absurd, do you really
November 12th, 2008 at 7:57 pmwant to compare the number of homocides caused by fireams versus the number of intentional deaths caused by vehicles?
if a vehicle is such an effective killing weapon why dont we see “ramming sprees” more often? can you name any that have taken place?
and trac, I love your arguments for the legalization of silencers and armmor peircing bullets… “they might be fun”…never mind they could be easily used to aid the commission of crimes and dont seem to have any legitimate use other than “fun” and “noise supression”…I guess using that argument, we should legalize heroin too, because it “might be fun” and would certainly keep the baby quiet..
November 12th, 2008 at 7:58 pm"Read the 2nd Amendment"
Sure where does it define "arms"? Did I miss it?
November 12th, 2008 at 7:58 pm>Again it’s none of your business what
> others like or dislike. Get it?
Your right to like something ends when that thing has few, if any, legitimate uses and has the potential to seriously harm society, get it? If I like sh1ting in the stream you drink from, its none of your business, is it trac? Oh, and since you’re such a supporter of personal freedoms, i dont suppose you think we should tell gays they cant marry either, huh? I mean, its no one else’s business, right trac?
November 12th, 2008 at 7:59 pmthe benefits society derives from vehicles are immense..other than protecting people from other peopel with guns, how exactly does society benefit from firearms?
November 12th, 2008 at 8:00 pmTracy__5 Says:
So then the answer is NO you cant think of any reason they have a burning need for one just that they WANT one
November 12th, 2008 at 8:00 pm#59
"This is proof again why we say conservatives are devoid of humor and why FOX’s attempt to copy the Daily Show failed."
Chocolate Jesus wasn't trying to be funny.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:00 pmChocolate Jesus wasn’t trying to be funny.
Were you?
November 12th, 2008 at 8:01 pm'cause that's just lame...
The thing that is so sad about this is that these nuts and their families are much more likely to be killed by that gun than someone threatening them.
And to Tracy the idiot troll: I consider it to be my business because there is o legitimate reason for owning an assault rifle. They are made for one reason only, and that is to kill. There are already way too many racist nuts out there and arming them with assault rifles IS NOT a good idea. I have a vested interest in our new President, his family and I don't want to see them killed by some racist gun nut like you.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:01 pmTracy when you make the idiotic argument that guns are somehow as vital and necessary a part of society as cars, you ARE being funny, whether you are trying or not..
November 12th, 2008 at 8:02 pm"You could go out an kill somone in a crowded shopping mall"
And I intend to star with all those old bluehairs and bratty suburbia kids at the food court...
November 12th, 2008 at 8:03 pmWhen I was a kid, almost 50 years ago, I bought a .22 caliber rifle that was tube-fed, and could fire 19 rounds as fast as you could pull the trigger. It's called a 'semi-automatic rifle.' Me and a buddy of mine, who also had one, usta ride our horses out on pueblo ground and pot-shoot at prairie dogs, or shiny, aluminum cans.
I think that rifle--a Remington, which I still have--is now more or less against the law: as an "assault weapon," it might/could be banned. I also still own the first gun I owned, a bolt-action, single-shot, magazine-fed Mossburg .22.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:03 pmBLASPHEMY!!
OMG, Tracy troll claims to know the mind of Chocolate Jesus!
Sorry, I was channeling Daryll for a second...
November 12th, 2008 at 8:03 pm#60
"Does this apply to recreational drugs and gender preference as well?"
I don't think marijuana should be illegal. No different than alcohol. Operations to change gender is illegal?
"How about assisted suicide?"
How far off topic are you going to go?
November 12th, 2008 at 8:04 pmOh so cars are on topic?
November 12th, 2008 at 8:05 pm>How far off topic are you going to go?
I beleive the topic is taking your brilliant "what I want to do is none of your business" trainwreck of an argument
November 12th, 2008 at 8:06 pmto its logical yet absurd conclusion!
#65
"Besides I have powerful enemies and might feel that myself and my family is more secure if I had one. I promise to use it responsibly…"
You really have no understanding to the term personal liberty...do you? Are you actully and American or not?
November 12th, 2008 at 8:06 pm#70
"The Tracy troll is talking to himself again…
So sad."
Aren't you a little late to this discussion here skank?
November 12th, 2008 at 8:07 pmTracy__5 Says:
#22
“When was the last time you hopped on your AK-47 to pck up groceries, Tracy?
The cars MAIN function isn’t to kill people quickly, the assualt rifle’s is… see the difference?”
Yeah but what is the number of people killed by drunk drivers vs. those killed by people with assult rifles? The functional intent of the object is irrelevant. I have an AR-15 that I use for target practice as well as a ParaOrdinance 45 but I don’t go around shooting at people.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Ahh the old and stupid standby that cars kill more people than guns. The difference is that cars kill people almost exclusively when there is an accident when GUNS really have no other reason that killing and in fact THAT IS THEIR FUNCTION. Also cars are heavily regulated. You have to have a license to drive. There are police regulating HOW you drive by traffic laws cars are registered. In fact if guns were HALF as regulated as cars we wouldnt be having this conversation but let me guess. It sounded good when Rush said it didnt it Tracey?
November 12th, 2008 at 8:07 pmThe head of the NRA, Wayne LaPierre was my best friend from 1965-72. He lies about where he went to college his junior and senior years (1969-71) in order to hide his left-wing political activity and illegal drug use. He claims he went to Siena all four years, but he went to S.U.N.Y.--Albany the third and fourth years. I rode from Virginia to Albany with him in 1969.
He was on the Moratorium Committee which shut down SUNY-Albany in May 1970, after Kent State killings and revelation of taking war into Cambodia.
He absolutely agreed totally with the Chicago Eight (Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, David Dellinger, Tom Hayden, Rennie Davis, John Froines, Lee Weiner, and Bobby Seale). They were heroes to him. Tom Paxton, Arlo Guthrie, Joan Baez, Woody Guthrie, and Phil Ochs were, too. Wayne knew every word to the 18-minute "Alice's Restaurant" by Arlo Guthrie.
In the summer of 1972 I went to the draft physical with him. He had a low lottery number, meaning he would definitely be drafted and sent to Nam later in the year. But he said he got a friendly family doctor to say (falsely) that he had a nervous condition, and thus got a deferment.
Contrary to what he says now, he never touched a gun before he was 24 and always said how much he hated the 'gun nuts'. He is afraid of anyone who knew him his first 24 years.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:08 pm> Tracy troll claims to know the
> mind of Chocolate Jesus!
Right, and who could even beleive someone who
dubbed themselves the Mocha Messiah would be entirely
tounge in cheek with thier posts!
ps. Trac, blogging does have some benefit..in an ideal setting, it should give one some degree of mental stimulation...michelle malkins site being an exception..
November 12th, 2008 at 8:08 pmgender preference not gender reassignment. Come now Tracy_5. So are you going to define "arms" or not? I think I know the answer and I think you do too
November 12th, 2008 at 8:09 pmCall her a skank again and somebody will blast your ass with their "arms"
November 12th, 2008 at 8:10 pm#71
"If it’s irrelevant, why’d you bring it up?"
I didn't bring it up...gummitch did.
"You’re trying to argue that cars are more dangerous than guns, right?"
No.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:10 pm#Tracy__5 Says:
How far off topic are you going to go?
You're the one that went down that slippery slope of "it's one of your business". We are just trying to define when you feel it is society's business to set limitations on behavior.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:11 pmDr. Hussein Matt Says:
This is why I refuse to call myself a liberal, because the ignorance of arsehole wimps like Belac et al. You’re no different from the extreme reich-wingers, wimp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And this is why I dont care what you call yourself you are a big mouth jerk
November 12th, 2008 at 8:11 pm#73
"Again does this also apply to gay marriage, assisted suicide, abortion, and recreational drug use?"
Explain how all of those issues relate to the 2nd Amendment?
November 12th, 2008 at 8:12 pm#75
"I asked you big guy…"
I am not going to do your reasearch for you.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:13 pm>Dr. Hussein Matt Says:
Hey Hussien, I'm not blanket against all gun ownernship, but can we agree that gun ownership should limited to those who are sane and have 3 digit IQ's?
November 12th, 2008 at 8:14 pmThey don't. You are making the case that you believe in personal liberty. I am simply trying to ask if your beliefs are logically consistent. Now are you going to define "arms" or not?
November 12th, 2008 at 8:14 pm#78
"why is it irrelevant?
Why is it relevant?
November 12th, 2008 at 8:14 pm>Explain how all of those issues
> relate to the 2nd Amendment?
explain how your "its none of your busines" argument relates to the language of the 2nd amendment?
November 12th, 2008 at 8:14 pm"I am not going to do your reasearch for you."
This is hilarious. Thanks!
November 12th, 2008 at 8:15 pmTracy__5 Says:
#73
“Again does this also apply to gay marriage, assisted suicide, abortion, and recreational drug use?”
Explain how all of those issues relate to the 2nd Amendment?
It doesn't. It pertains to your assertion that it is none of our business if you want to own an assault rifle.
BTW idiot troll, you and your family are more likely to die by that assault rifle than anyone threatening you is.
My parents had friends who owned a handgun they kept in their bedroom. The husband was cheating on the wife. One night he came sneaking into the house in the middle of the night and she blew him away. And she wasn't prosecuted because she claimed she thought he was an intruder.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:15 pmTracy__5 Says:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#48
“…and just ’cause you say that’s what the 2nd amendment means don’t necessarily make it so.”
The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment…not you.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Why yes they are read Miller and Quillici v. Morton Grove then get back to us.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:16 pm"“why is it irrelevant?
Why is it relevant?"
This is even more hilarious. All joking aside you might wanna scroll back a bit and reread as you are starting to look silly and I don't want you too. I just want you to define arms and tell me if I should stop saving up for my rocket launcher
November 12th, 2008 at 8:16 pmI think it's funny to watch the "Chicken Little" right-wingers run around crying "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" since Obama won the election.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:17 pm>I am not going to do your reasearch for you.
Ah, Tracy has honed his debate skills under the wise tutelage of Joe the Plumber!
Yes, I will assert some ludicrious notion then fault YOU for not proving me wrong..
November 12th, 2008 at 8:18 pm#81
with a car? really? must be an awful thick vehicle to get
through those mall doors!
You actually think it would take a tank to go thru a set of Kawneer storefront aluminum doors? I just say video on TruTV that showed a man driving his car thru an empty mall after he crashed thru the doors.
This was easy...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aCtsv6aytw
want to compare the number of homocides caused by fireams versus the number of intentional deaths caused by vehicles?
Why are you trying to make this a matter of which can kill more and easier? Do you need a certain quota or something?
November 12th, 2008 at 8:19 pmThe sentence in the 2nd amendment say: "A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA".
The FBI statistics say that is gun in your home if far more likely to be used against a family member than against a criminal. These include homicides, suicides, and accidents.
Before a large number of guns began coming into Britain, there was fewer than one homicide per year for every million in the population. In Los Angeles in 1981, there were about 1,100 murders.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:19 pmRight... I mean if we are to read the 2nd amendment literally, we would probably have to let mentally deranged schitzophrenic that hear voices carry around rocket launchers!
after all, rockets launchers are "arms" and the peoples right to bear them "shall not" be infringed...
Trac, do you support the right of schitzphrenics to carry rocket launchers?
November 12th, 2008 at 8:20 pm#82
"I guess using that argument, we should legalize heroin too, because it “might be fun” and would certainly keep the baby quiet.."
Guns don't most people make you act crazy and irresponsible. Putting a narcotic in you blood like heroin has a direct affect on you behavior. Not a good comparison....at all. Try again.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:23 pm>Why are you trying to make this a matter of which
> can kill more and easier?
you're the one that started with the ludicrious notion that its easier and more practical to commit homicide with a car than it is with a firearm..
>Do you need a certain quota or something?
no.. i need you to describe a modern society that has no cars or other vehicles for high speed transport. tell me how well it will function.
then i need you to decribe a society devoid of firearms, and how it would function. id say if you look at europe you've got quite a few examples of that...
simple point.. modern society could not function without vehichles.. the same could not be said for firearms..and what do vehicles have to do with the 2nd amendment, either?
November 12th, 2008 at 8:24 pm#83
"Sure where does it define “arms”? Did I miss it?"
If you can't figure that one out then you are soooooo lost.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:24 pmokay since we are equating guns with cars, let's compare alcohol related deaths with heroin related deaths. Does this logic work for you Tracy_5?
November 12th, 2008 at 8:26 pm>Guns don’t most people act crazy and irresponsible.
But giving guns to crazy and irrresponsible people is ok as
long as they are naturally irresponsible and crazy?
>Putting a narcotic in you blood like heroin
> has a direct
>affect on you behavior.
and alchohol doesnt? are you saying we should ban aclohol also?
so firearms and alchohol are a great idea, even mixed, but heroin..thats somethign totally different. .,right?
November 12th, 2008 at 8:27 pm"“Sure where does it define “arms”? Did I miss it?”
If you can’t figure that one out then you are soooooo lost."
November 12th, 2008 at 8:28 pm--------
Yup. That must be it? What does everyone else think? Did I miss it or is Tracy_5 just trying desperately to dodge a perfectly reasonable question? Survey says? By the way Tracy_5 I have no issues with hunting....
#84
"Your right to like something ends when that thing has few, if any, legitimate uses and has the potential to seriously harm society, get it?"
Potential is the key word here. Your car has the "potential" to cause harm...should we ban you from it?
"If I like sh1ting in the stream you drink from, its none of your business, is it trac?"
Yes, it is my business because your actions does affect directly what is going into my body.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:28 pmwell honorable hunting for food consumption of sustainable species that is....
November 12th, 2008 at 8:28 pmZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ [Oh Zooey, you're right, we were made for each other...]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...
SNERK!---
What? TP's posting a story that McClatchy ran a week ago?
Better late than never, I guess.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ [No, dbadass, put her down, I said!]...
November 12th, 2008 at 8:28 pmTracy, guns don't make most people act crazy and irresponsible?
I know that most people at Columbine High School or Virginia Tech don't act crazy. But a minority can create extreme danger, don't you think?
November 12th, 2008 at 8:29 pm>If you can’t figure that one out then
>you are soooooo lost.
Why dont you explain it to us Trac....because what I think he's getting at is that rocket launchers, heck, even tactical nuclear weapons could be considered "arms"....he's asking where you draw the line as far as what type of weaponry a private individual should be allowed to own. Do you think private individuals should be allowed to own nuclear weapons?
November 12th, 2008 at 8:29 pm#86
"So then the answer is NO you cant think of any reason they have a burning need for one just that they WANT one"
Exactly. But I wouldn't expect you to understand the concept of personal liberty either.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:29 pm"Exactly. But I wouldn’t expect you to understand the concept of personal liberty either."
Which sort of brings us back to my rocket launcher and my heroin...
November 12th, 2008 at 8:30 pm#89
"I consider it to be my business because there is o legitimate reason for owning an assault rifle."
That is your irrelevant opinion.
"...and I don’t want to see them killed by some racist gun nut like you."
Don't worry he isn't worth it.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:31 pm>Yes, it is my business because your actions does affect >directly what is going into my body.
Bullets don't go into the bodies of other people?
November 12th, 2008 at 8:32 pmTracy & Mocha Messiah, The sentence in the 2nd amendment says: “A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA”.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:32 pm>Which sort of brings us back to my rocket launcher
Come on dude, rocket launchers are for p#ss1es... I think we can all agree that the country would be better off if we let criminals and paranoid schitzphrenics own nuclear weapons...right trac?
November 12th, 2008 at 8:32 pmI'm a life long hunter and gun owner and I can't justify civilian ownership of full capacity combat weapons. And I'm pretty sure that fantasies of rising in revolution are just that. Fantasies. If you think the difference between a five round clip and a thirty is significant I would tend to think one is delusional.
Plus, when it comes strictly to self-defense, a high capacity pump shotgun is the overwhelming choice of cops, soldiers and survivalists alike. A classic "assault weapon" has very limited real-world, non combat, application. One could easily replace the utility of an assault weapon with a .22 rimfire carbine or even target quality pistol.
And if a rebel wants to try exchanging rounds with trained military, they would be better served by a long range hunting rifle than a weapon which matches the capabilities of those they are fighting.
So. I don't really think tighter restrictions on high capacity combat weapons is a bad idea. Try as I might, I can't come up with a single example of someone with a military weapon stopping a mass killing. And if we ever do need to rise against brutal oppressors? Personal weapons won't figure into the result. Big clips just can't compete with air strikes.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:33 pmTracy__5 Says:
#59
“This is proof again why we say conservatives are devoid of humor and why FOX’s attempt to copy the Daily Show failed.”
Chocolate Jesus wasn’t trying to be funny.
Dumbass, you were replying to 49erDem, not Chocolate Jesus.
You really are that stupid, aren't you?
November 12th, 2008 at 8:33 pm"Personal Liberty"? Republicans, keep using that phrase. It's obvious they don't know what it means.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:33 pmHey barfly, I hear you on the McClatchy deal. I have been wondering how long this was gonna take. Shit Yahoo ran it even...
November 12th, 2008 at 8:33 pm#90
"Tracy when you make the idiotic argument that guns are somehow as vital and necessary a part of society as cars, you ARE being funny, whether you are trying or not.."
I have a U.S. Constitutional Amendment to validate my argument. What do you have? Not much as far as I can see.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:34 pmAssault rifles are for PUSSIES that can't defend themselves by conventional means.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:34 pmdbadass,
November 12th, 2008 at 8:37 pmCan I buy a bazooka and a Gatling Gun? Just for personal liberty and my 2nd amendment right!
How about a suitcase nuke, just to protect my home?
>I have a U.S. Constitutional Amendment
>to validate my argument.
Do you think your precious 2nd amendment means that convicted felons and paranoid schitzophrenics should be allowed to own rocket launchers?
November 12th, 2008 at 8:37 pmWow. Our pet troll has never been the most stable but, the collapse of the GOP is driving them around the bend. It seems that the hardcore 20%ers have suffered a mass psychotic break.
Can you imagine what Thanksgiving dinner is going to be like in families who can't decide whether Flippy McSpin was too radical or Bible Spice wasn't radical enough? My guess is that more than a few trollish types will get stabbed with turkey carving implements.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:38 pmI have a U.S. Constitutional Amendment to validate my argument. What do you have? Not much as far as I can see.
---
November 12th, 2008 at 8:38 pmAnd I have a US Supreme Court opinion for as many abortions as I might wish. Still as you have pointed out it is up to that court to tell you what that ammendment means. If your scared by that maybe you wanna run out and get a rocket launcher before it is too late...
Tracy__5 Says:
#86
“So then the answer is NO you cant think of any reason they have a burning need for one just that they WANT one”
Exactly. But I wouldn’t expect you to understand the concept of personal liberty either.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I understand it like EVERYTHING ELSE better than you will EVER have any possibility to understand, well, anything since you are an insufferable moron. It isnt absolute or I would have the personal liberty to sell heroine to schoolchildren. My GOD you are ignorant. Things can be regulated things CAN be denied. People are denied the right to have child pornography, the right to have dangerous biological strains, the right to have certain bomb making material this isnt an all or nothing situation though the simpleminded fools like you cannot seem to EVER see a drawn line but only black and white. Your loss for being ignorant. Actually. We arent very far apart on this issue. I dont own a gun but believe in the right of people to have them. Also the RIGHT of the government to ban certain types. You cant own a tactical nuclear weapon or a claymore mine, its just a matter of where the line is drawn. Handguns are fine by me along with rifles that have a hunting purpose. Assult rifles you dont need. If the gov decides they should be illegal thats fine by me. YOUR stupidity doesnt define reality
November 12th, 2008 at 8:42 pmCan you imagine what Thanksgiving dinner is going to be like in families who can’t decide whether Flippy McSpin was too radical or Bible Spice wasn’t radical enough? My guess is that more than a few trollish types will get stabbed with turkey carving implements.
Nah, most of 'em are still stuck at the kids' table.
I guess you can do some damage with a spork, though.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:42 pmIn the interest of personal liberty, can I drive 100 mph in a school zone, on the wrong side of the road and without a driving license, car registration, insurance, or smog check?
November 12th, 2008 at 8:48 pmIt's okay, most people won't do this!
dbadass, as much as I admire your always conscientious attempt to engage the Tracist troll, I think you missed an obvious flaw in your approach when you asked "Does this logic work for you Tracy_5?"
I'm sure you see it now, right? Look at it again:
Does this logic work for you Tracy_5?
But keep up the good work.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:51 pmI also have a right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". My interpretation of that would include the right to not be shot when some drunken yokel, while off his meds, starts shooting at imaginary rats a half-mile down the road.
Obtaining weapons should be, at least, as difficult as obtaining a car and drivers license. There is nothing in the Constitution to suggest that the right to bear arms is absolute or without regard to public safety.
One can argue semantics till Doomsday without changing the fact that gun ownership is, and always has been, a privilege. And one's right to exercise that privilege stops when public safety is at stake.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:52 pmThat's fine Keith. Just be sure to do it responsibly...
November 12th, 2008 at 8:52 pmAs always the llama is too kind. Who would have thought a simple request for a definition of "arms" would pose such a challenge...
November 12th, 2008 at 8:53 pmAs usual, most of you miss the point ENTIRELY.
The question is one of Constitutional rights. You folks most of all should be defending the rights of gun owners!
Why? Because if you had any sense at all you would realize that if one Constitutional right can be abridged, then the next one will be that much easier!
That's why I vigorously defend the rights of those I disagree with even though the particular issue dear to them may not be one I particularly have an interest in.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:53 pmHi Tim Vaculik:
November 12th, 2008 at 8:55 pmBy chance can you define "arms"? I hope so.
Oh and by the way. I really like the as usual blah blah blah opener. You are probably in the HR department, right?
November 12th, 2008 at 8:57 pmWhat a revolting development.
I can't wait until my better half is scared into believing the powers to be are going to take all of the "adult entertainment" away.
That's going to be one helluva a month.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:57 pmTracy__5,
Welcome to E-Debs doghouse! Frankly, I am flattered when he/she goes off on me because I know I'm right on target.
Quite honestly, I've never witnessed such vitriol and spewing hatred from one blogger in my entire life. He/she/it takes the prize.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:58 pmdbadass,
So what's the big deal about the definition of arms?
November 12th, 2008 at 8:59 pmdbadass,
Dam, you are GOOD! I AM in HR, but can you guess which area of specialization?
November 12th, 2008 at 8:59 pmSo, Obama is good for the gun industry. Got it.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:00 pmTim,
November 12th, 2008 at 9:02 pmA well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Damn right. Well I think I can rule out the positive interpersonal skills development area... Is there an arrogant overly self confident division?
November 12th, 2008 at 9:02 pmStupid troll number two (six?) enters the fray. While I confess that I haven't read every post in the thread I don't think most people would disagree with defending the rights of gun ownership. But I don't think many SANE people are frightened that President Obama will wave a magic wand and make guns illegal on Jan 22nd.
I think that I'm safe in saying that most sane people think that our government regulations should do everything they can to keep deadly weapons out of unsuitable hands. The Reichwing mantra of utter refusal is hardly conducive to achieving the best regulation possible.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:03 pmWell Tim Vaculik. The importance of the definition is that even if we agree on some interpretation of the vague wording we still have to decide if my rocket launcher is an "arm" or not. I'll let Keith handle the militia part which is also way problematic...
November 12th, 2008 at 9:05 pmdbadass, from what I can glean from Tracist's and Timmeh's arguments put forth here, your rocket launcher is A-OK.
Neither of them seems inclined to say otherwise, and their respective arguments, such as they are, seem to support a pretty expansive view of the term "arms".
So I'd say, based on the opinions of these two constitutional scholars, keep saving up for that unit.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:13 pmAh, db, I think it has something to do with their overactive fright or flight response. They can't risk pinning themselves down in case they decide to throw a fire bomb at something. Then there's the over imagined Rambo fantasies.
I can just picture these two trying to "sneak up" on experienced outdoors men like ourselves. My guess is that we could down them with a sturdy stick before they knew there was anyone within a mile.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:14 pmHere's alink to some good info on Barack Obama's positionre: the 2nd Amendment:
http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
November 12th, 2008 at 9:15 pmthanks ralph but upon further reflection, I think I might just settle for that Tickle Me Elmo. So are we going to have to sit around till that asswipe Cluster whatever shows up to hawk that stupid Privacy center or should I go read a good book?
November 12th, 2008 at 9:16 pmdbadass,
Don't get snarky with me, young man. Come on, don't ruin your perfect score so far!
November 12th, 2008 at 9:17 pmOh come on Tim Vaculik this can't be HR skills 101
November 12th, 2008 at 9:20 pm"As usual, most of you miss the point ENTIRELY." I suppose "back to work you scum sucking lowlifes" is okay at your whatever it does facility....
pete:
November 12th, 2008 at 9:22 pmWho was the short dopey one in the Deer Hunter that forgot his socks and felt bigger due to his pissant handgun?
I'm 70 years old, never owned a gun, but participated in small arms training in the military. Think I'll buy a hand gun, 45 cal. or less, just to protect myself from the drunken rednecks that abound here in northeast Florida..
November 12th, 2008 at 9:24 pmTracy__5 Says:
Aren’t you a little late to this discussion here skank?
November 12th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Awwww, Tracy's afraid of girls.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:29 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
dbadass, from what I can glean from Tracist’s and Timmeh’s arguments put forth here, your rocket launcher is A-OK.
Neither of them seems inclined to say otherwise, and their respective arguments, such as they are, seem to support a pretty expansive view of the term “arms”.
Well it could be interpreted that the government cannot go and cut their ARMS off.
So, Tim should be happy that the Constitution keeps Obama from cutting his arms off, so he can still keep typing annoying, idiotic drivel here on TP.
So maybe he can relax now.
( For the humor impaired trolls, yes that was a snark )
November 12th, 2008 at 9:30 pmI'd love to see a racial breakdown of who is buying all these guns. Bunch of scared, white Republican men. If Obama had the powers that they imagine, think of what we could accomplish!
November 12th, 2008 at 9:32 pmCan't help you on the Deer Hunter reference, db. I tend to focus on bad B-movies so that I'm not disappointed! And our pet trolls definitely strike me as the types who are billed as "bloody victim #4" in a straight to video zombie movie.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:33 pmJust in time AbleCluster.Now I can use my rocket launcher on someone who really deserves it...
November 12th, 2008 at 9:36 pmThis from rightpundits.com:
Hmmmm... Maybe folks who value their rights DO have something to fear after all.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:36 pmAnd excellent snark it was, Wayne!
Unfortunately, our trolls keep pushing the envelope of Stupid, so it's getting more and more difficult to parody them. Witness Tim Vacuous cutting-and-pasting crap from righty blogs in a sad attempt to support his points.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:41 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
Witness Tim Vacuous cutting-and-pasting crap from righty blogs in a sad attempt to support his points.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Well, he never learned how to copy & paste a LINK. :-D
November 12th, 2008 at 9:43 pmOkay so Tim Vaculik has no definition of "arms" either. What the hell. Why is this so hard?
November 12th, 2008 at 9:44 pmceltic cynic Says:
I’m 70 years old, never owned a gun, but participated in small arms training in the military. Think I’ll buy a hand gun, 45 cal. or less, just to protect myself from the drunken rednecks that abound here in northeast Florida..
November 12th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Just like anything these days, I strongly suggest starting with a lot or research. As much as I hate to say it here, the NRA does have some good information. I wouldn't dare to make any significant recommendation in an anonymous forum but, I can offer an educated opinion.
The strong preference for home self-defense is a shotgun. It takes far less training/practice to gain a useful proficiency and is probably a more effective weapon in most self-defense scenarios. Hand guns, even used by an expert, are of limited use in the dark with moving targets. And they don't even make as good clubs as a shotgun.
As I said, it's just an opinion but, I think that some research will convince you that a shotgun is superior to a handgun in most respects.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:45 pmChrist, Timmeh. rightpundits.com?
look man, loving photos of Hillary's cleavage will not be considered a crime. You're safe, buddy. Enough with your fretting.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:45 pmWow! Here's a fact sheet on Obama's gun control positions that's thoroughly referenced:
http://www.nraila.org/OBAMA/
No "fearmongering", just FACTS. Like I've said many times here: you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own personal set of facts!
Obama = gun control and abridgement of Constitutional rights
November 12th, 2008 at 9:45 pmdbadass,
Well, you never answered me as to the importance of answering the question.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:48 pmHold the Bus! Before you start that shit Tim Vaculik, can you atleast tell us your interpretation of the 2nd?
November 12th, 2008 at 9:49 pmTim learns how to post a link, but he links to the NRA for "facts."
**sigh**
November 12th, 2008 at 9:50 pmSure I did. See #167 for a refresher...
November 12th, 2008 at 9:50 pmdbadass,
I scrolled up again and I do see you did try to answer, but I guess I'm not getting it.
My point is that the definition of "arms" in the Constitution itself doesn't "define" the right itself. Many things in the Constitution are defined as principles and cannot be applied literally or you would have to amend it every time technology changed!
November 12th, 2008 at 9:51 pmFACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.
As do most police chiefs. Are they anti-gun ownership, as well?
November 12th, 2008 at 9:53 pmnraila.org?
The "The lobbying arm of the National Rifle Association."
WTF? That's a good link, Tim. Jeebus.
I fully approve of a dbadass rocket launcher, as long as it's mounted to a really cool car.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:53 pmZooey,
Did you go to the link? Did you read the facts all of which are supported by OTHER sources than the NRA?
No, I didn't think so...
November 12th, 2008 at 9:54 pmdbadass & pete,
November 12th, 2008 at 9:54 pmJohn Cazale, who also played Fredo in Godfather?
Well, I don't really care what Police Chiefs "believe in" as they have guns!
November 12th, 2008 at 9:55 pmSo can I or can I not have the god damned rocket launcher???
November 12th, 2008 at 9:55 pmDid you go to the link? Did you read the facts all of which are supported by OTHER sources than the NRA?
I just posted one.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:55 pmKeith,
November 12th, 2008 at 9:56 pmYou rule. I never made the Fredo connection before. Maybe I should convert to ddumbass...
Tim Vaculik Says:
Well, I don’t really care what Police Chiefs “believe in” as they have guns!
Spoken like a true follower of Tim McVeigh.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:56 pmTim Vaculik Says:
Zooey,
Did you go to the link? Did you read the facts all of which are supported by OTHER sources than the NRA?
No, I didn’t think so…
November 12th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Yeah, I gave them the hit. I'm generous that way. No, I didn't read ALL that shit.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:56 pmalpuz3,
Now we're talking. My friends and I made a crude one in high school... bottle rockets laid in the rain gutter (remember them?) and LIT while driving through our neighborhood. hahahahahaha
November 12th, 2008 at 9:56 pmdbadass, not positive, I just think that's right.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:59 pmHmmmmmm.....
I did a quick Google and, surprise, found a couple conflicting articles about Obama's record on guns. In short, most of the "bans" he is connected with have to do with possession of weapons in public buildings and other property. I recall one Reichwhiner using one of those examples to assert he was against private ownership and that it made him "soft on crime". The truth, of course, is that the "ban" they were talking about was among crime fighting measures in Chicago's most violent areas.
In additional skimming I didn't see anything proving Obama has ever said or done anything to suggest he supports changing or repealing the 2nd Amendment. And, as a Constitutional scholar, he is well aware of the limits imposed by the Constitution.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:00 pmSo, law enforcement professionals are against saturday night specials because they are easily procured, and so cheap they can be thrown away after their illegal use - but Tim thinks they're just great.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:00 pmIn short, most of the “bans” he is connected with have to do with possession of weapons in public buildings and other property.
The whole thing reeks of cherry-picked hogwash.
Some of the wingnut welfare crowd must be taking coin from the NRA on the side.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:03 pmAnd the FBI stats say a gun in the home does more harm than good.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:03 pmfrom my AP news ticker:
"NORTH PLATTE, Neb. - An unemployed man faces a domestic assault charge after he allegedly attacked his girlfriend last Saturday for making him macaroni for dinner. Investigator Dale Matuszczak said the woman called for help after locking herself in a bathroom.
Matuszczak said she apparently had been hit with a cooking pot, suffering a cut on her nose and bruise on her face."
November 12th, 2008 at 10:06 pm--------------------------------------
If he had a gun handy, he would have shot her!
barfly,
Ooohh, I'm glad you reminded me about the OK city bombing. Have you or anyone else here been following the story about hid co-conspirator lately? Terry Nichols is going to tell everything he knows and the FBI is doing everything in their power to stop him.
I've known for some time that there's more to the story than what the FBI has stated officially. There's definitely a middle east connection vis a vis Mr. Nichols.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:07 pmYep, I would think that Obama's position on guns has a lot to do with Chicago and the inner city. I just can't imagine him in a flannel driving a 4-wheeler to a deer stand.
This is all "cherry-picked hogwash." The man has a good head on his shoulders, and if the wingnuts would just take a four year hiatus from being complete assh*les, I think some truly positive things could be accomplished…
… and they could keep their guns.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:08 pmIf he had a gun handy, he would have shot her!
I'm guessing, so would Tim...
November 12th, 2008 at 10:08 pmWhy does there have to be a middle east connection? We don't have home-grown crazies?
November 12th, 2008 at 10:08 pmPete,
Ya gotta be pulling my leg, right? Obama doesn't respect the Constitution. It's simply an impediment to the things he and his radical, un-american friends want to do.
He's on record about how he views the Constitution. One example I heard was a recording made when he talked about the Supreme Court's actions regarding civil rights.
Constitutional scholar my a$$
November 12th, 2008 at 10:10 pm"I’ve known for some time that there’s more to the story than what the FBI has stated officially. There’s definitely a middle east connection vis a vis Mr. Nichols."
Pure unadulterated bullshit. Definately? Come on TimVaculik don't make yourself look foolish. Do tell what brings you to this "definate" conclusion...
November 12th, 2008 at 10:12 pmKeith,
Ever heard the term "Lies, damned lies, and statistics"?
Remember the first rule of stats? Corelation doesn't infer causation!
November 12th, 2008 at 10:13 pmdbadass,
Don't you remember all the reporting on Mr. Nichols trips to the Phillipines? Do you remember all the statements he made after he was caught?
We'll just have to wait and see what comes out, won't we?
November 12th, 2008 at 10:14 pmOh do tell us what "you heard" HR man!
November 12th, 2008 at 10:14 pmWell hello tim.
post your links to back up your bs. I can't possibly swim around in you head and find any logic.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:15 pmYa gotta be pulling my leg, right? Obama doesn’t respect the Constitution. It’s simply an impediment to the things he and his radical, un-american friends want to do.
Must be parody. No one's that obtuse.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:15 pmPython's take on paranoia and ridiculous amounts of firepower for no apparent purpose....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBGlO_5AT-A&feature=related
November 12th, 2008 at 10:16 pmThis is why we must ban guns. These nuts are a threat to our movement. We need Gun Control now!
November 12th, 2008 at 10:16 pmWas there a middle east connection to Eric Rudolph, David Koresch, and Charles Manson, too?
November 12th, 2008 at 10:17 pmFor the life of me I don't know where they get the fear that the President Elect is going to be willing and able to exercise such radical extra Constitutional powers. Obviously they don't have any idea how ridiculous their paranoia sounds.
For some reason I think that Sen. Obama has some sense of history. And he sounds like he understands that a President must be a pragmatist to be effective. And the best Presidents have operated within the powers of the office.
History judges those who stray from their duties the most harshly. In order to vie for the record, President Obama would have to follow the example of his predecessor. Anyone who abused and disregarded the law in such a way would end up the...
Worst! President!! Ever!!!
I have zero fear that President Obama will challenge the title holder on any scale.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:17 pmdbadass,
Do you remember the terrorist who was working on the "bojinga" plot?
Terry Nichols trips to the Phillipines were to get support, training, and perhaps funding to make the bomb.
Ask yourself, "Who knows how to make really big truck bombs?"
November 12th, 2008 at 10:17 pmWho mentioned banning guns?
November 12th, 2008 at 10:18 pmTim Vaculik Says:
Keith,
Ever heard the term "Lies, damned lies, and statistics"?
Remember the first rule of stats? Corelation doesn't infer causation!
Oh my! You're a genius.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:18 pmKeith,
C'mon. Be serious.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:19 pmAsk yourself, “Who knows how to make really big truck bombs?”
---
November 12th, 2008 at 10:19 pmSomebody with access to that series of tubes?
Keith Says:
Was there a middle east connection to Eric Rudolph, David Koresch, and Charles Manson, too?
Rudolph and Koresh were whacked out followers of a long-dead, middle-eastern Jew.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:19 pmGamer,
I'm no genius, but I got A's in Bachelors and Masters-level stats.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:21 pmTim, you don't know more than the FBI and every police department. I had a university course in Crime, one in Social Problems, and one in social research, thank you very much
November 12th, 2008 at 10:22 pmbarfly,
November 12th, 2008 at 10:23 pmI've heard of him, Palestinian community organizer, wasn't he. His movement led to the deaths of tens of millions in the New World.
Pete,
I don't think our new President can ban guns directly, but he can still wield enormous influence through the appointment of Federal judges up to amd including the ones who sit on the bench at the Supreme Court.
Also, which anti-gun legislation do you think he will veto if it crosses his desk given what we know about his voting record?
November 12th, 2008 at 10:23 pmThe stupid troll continues to miss the point. I'll try it louder:
"By what means will President Obama enact these sweeping changes in the Constitution and/or how it's interpreted"?
And who would he have come and take yer gunz away?
November 12th, 2008 at 10:24 pmbarfly,
November 12th, 2008 at 10:25 pmAnd Manson thought he was the second coming.
Keith,
All I'm saying is, you can find statistics out there to back up almost any claim. You have to dig into the numbers that underly them to find out if the statistic quoted has any meaning.
With respect to the FBI, there is ample evidence of that institutions past transgressions re: citizen's rights not to mention botched investigations.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:26 pmPete,
If we remain free from attack here at home for eight years, then talk to me.
You are likely not old enough to know a good President from a bad one...
November 12th, 2008 at 10:28 pmTim,
November 12th, 2008 at 10:29 pmAnd every law enforcement agency and 99.9% of university professors?
Look Tim. I have mastered stats too but I hardly see the point. I am more interested in how a cyber nobody has single handedly figured out the McVeigh "middle eastern" connection via the Phillipines which is more souteast asia but whatever.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:30 pmI don’t think our new President can ban guns directly, but he can still wield enormous influence through the appointment of Federal judges up to amd including the ones who sit on the bench at the Supreme Court.
The Supremes are already tilted 5-4 to the right, for at least the next decade. Anyone who retires will likely be a liberal, so where's the beef?
November 12th, 2008 at 10:30 pm"You are likely not old enough to know a good President from a bad one…"
How the hell can you hold down a job in HR? I am guessing that is just more made up bullshit...
November 12th, 2008 at 10:31 pmbarfly,
"Saturday night special" is just a pejorative term for any inedxpensive handgun.
The truth is that a lot of people can't AFFORD good guns, but having a reliable inexpensive means of self protection is just the ticket.
I realize that some of those types of guns are used in crime... so what?
November 12th, 2008 at 10:31 pmAnother interesting statistic:
One of three judges currently sitting on the federal bench was appointed by Bush, and approved by the senate democrats.
You really have nothing to whine about in that regard, Tim.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:31 pmdbadass,
You said yourself I wasn't likely to be in the "positive interpersonal skills development area" I'm not!
November 12th, 2008 at 10:33 pmSince for a long, long, time the US has led the civilized world in homicides---maybe we should look to those who are doing far better, such as Holland, France, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Japan, Korea, Germany, Austria, Finland, etc.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:34 pmI realize that some of those types of guns are used in crime… so what?
They're cheap, because they're poorly manufactured, and have bad trigger-locks, hair triggers, and barrels that occasionally blow up in the user's hand. Some protection. perhaps the would-be attacker will get hit by some of the schrapnel...
November 12th, 2008 at 10:34 pmim Vaculik Says:
I’m no genius, but I got A’s in Bachelors and Masters-level stats.
____________
OMG... for ONCE, and only once, Timmeh has been half right...
... he's no genius...
***... sound of hands clapping...***
C'mon, Timmeh... take a bow...
November 12th, 2008 at 10:34 pmWell, Timmeh has set the bar pretty high for absurdity, but he clears it in street shoes here.
Just awe-inspiring performance of trolldom. I hope all you people appreciate the effort Timmeh puts out just to keep us entertained.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:35 pmralph,
I'll take any compliment I can get 'round here...
November 12th, 2008 at 10:35 pmbarfly,
Well, that leaves roughly two-thirds that weren't, correct?
November 12th, 2008 at 10:35 pmSo Tim:
November 12th, 2008 at 10:36 pmAre you acknowledging that what you claim is bullshit?
Phillipines/Middle Eastern? Was that dumbass beauty pagent girl right about the need for more maps?
November 12th, 2008 at 10:38 pmand they are small so you can put them in your pocket as you walk into the 7/11
November 12th, 2008 at 10:38 pmTim Vaculik Says:
barfly,
Well, that leaves roughly two-thirds that weren’t, correct?
Some have been there since George's daddy was in office. The dems were very accomodating and the republicans won't have any reason to filibuster.
Too bad, eh?
November 12th, 2008 at 10:39 pmdbadass,
Far from it...
November 12th, 2008 at 10:40 pmralph,
Actually, I will clarify my "scholar" comment.
Obama is one smart individual, I will grant him that. He studies everything quite thoroughly, including the Constitution.
It's his interpretations of it I take issue with. Also, I just cringe when I read posts here that seem to say that he's somehow smarter than the rest of us because he's a Constitutional Scholar!"
November 12th, 2008 at 10:40 pmWell,
It's been fun as usual. Mebbe I'll check back in later...
All kidding aside, I appreciate the civil tone of the dialogue tonight.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:42 pmWell, Timmeh, I mean this compliment sincerely: you are enormously entertaining.
I salute your efforts.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:42 pmWell constitutional scholar seems more learned than made up don't know the Middle East from the Phillipines I say I am good at stats credentials, doncha think?
November 12th, 2008 at 10:43 pmTim, read Nixonland, before opining about politicians' motives.
Have you read it yet, my little Orthogonian?
November 12th, 2008 at 10:43 pmMORE COMEDY GOLD!
This is better than the golden age of Cheech and Chong, my friends. I hope you all realize that.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:43 pmWell. I'm glad my feigned youthful exuberance is so effective. In truth, my favorite pair of electric hunting socks is old enough to know a "good" President from a "bad" one. Heck! I'm old enough to remember voting for honest, honorable, conservative, Republicans; long before the bloodthirsty neocons unleashed their homespun hayseeds on a complacent majority.
And now, even money would say that the block represented by the Radical Religious Right is going to fracture in the quest for "pure" candidates who best represent their peculiar radical dogma. That's one of the traits of radical movements; sudden collapse.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:45 pmBill Clinton taught constitutional law at U of Arkansas. Won Rhodes scholarship at Georgetown, then went to Oxford and Yale. Obaba was president of the Harvard Law Review after graduating from Columbia.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:46 pmSo over 260 comments and still I can't get a definition of "arms" from the gun nuts. WTF? Just sell me the damn rocket launcher. I plan to charge it anyway.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:47 pmTim Vaculik Says:
Also, I just cringe when I read posts here that seem to say that he’s somehow smarter than the rest of us because he’s a Constitutional Scholar!”
___________
Actually, Timmeh... when folks say "Obama is smarter than.." it' usually in comparison to, oh say, Botch, or Palin... and yes, he is... and as for the Constitutional Scholar part... Botch is the one who joked about being a dicktator, and poor Sarah complained HER Constitutional rights were being abridged simply because people had the NERVE to actually listen to what she said and were willing to point out what a load of BS it was.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:47 pmI think we should be all for Tracy and Tim owning guns, as stupid as they prove they are time and again you know they will end up making the Darwin Awards list sooner or later
November 12th, 2008 at 10:49 pmdbadass Says:
So over 260 comments and still I can’t get a definition of “arms” from the gun nuts.
__________
Oooo... Oooo... I know... I know...
"arms": the opposite of "legs"....
November 12th, 2008 at 10:49 pmThere's some old cottage cheese in my fridge that's smarter than W and Sarah.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:50 pmWTF? Just sell me the damn rocket launcher.
Claymores.
In cakes.
Surprise!
November 12th, 2008 at 10:51 pmThe Republic of Stupidity,
November 12th, 2008 at 10:56 pmI like the Horshack (sp?) nature of the answer. I give you an A+. What bothers me is that the very people who fervently claim some sort of right to own something can't even define what the hell the thing is they think they have the right to own?
I got real world stuff to do but, maybe one of the worthy trolls could cite a single example of a mass-murder being prevented by a civilian with a military weapon?
November 12th, 2008 at 10:56 pmwhy is ther a ? there?
November 12th, 2008 at 10:57 pm"I got real world stuff to do but, maybe one of the worthy trolls could cite a single example of a mass-murder being prevented by a civilian with a military weapon?"
That doesn't involve flesh eating Zombies...
November 12th, 2008 at 11:00 pmPete,
I stand corrected and in humble awe of your years...
November 12th, 2008 at 11:04 pmbsb,
That's prett cold... even for a New Yorker. But that's O.K.. Rest assured I know the business end from the stock on my weapons, which are all unregistered and untraceable BTW...
November 12th, 2008 at 11:07 pmTim Vaculik Says:
bsb,
That’s prett cold… even for a New Yorker. But that’s O.K.. Rest assured I know the business end from the stock on my weapons, which are all unregistered and untraceable BTW…
Is that some sort of threat? This city would eat up and spit our some redneck, white trash hick like you so fast. You would be turning $20 tricks on 11th Ave inside 2 days, you big pussy.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:10 pmdbadass,
Alright already! Just so you will be satisfied tonight:
"Arms" - short for "Firearms" -
A firearm is a tool that projects either single or multiple projectiles at high velocity through a controlled explosion. The firing is achieved by the gases produced through rapid, confined burning of a propellant. This process of rapid burning is technically known as deflagration. In older firearms, this propellant was typically black powder, but modern firearms use smokeless powder, cordite, or other propellants. Most modern firearms (with the notable exception of smoothbore shotguns) have rifled barrels to impart spin to the projectile for improved flight stability.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Hi Tim Vaculik:
November 12th, 2008 at 11:11 pmI am so glad you came back. I was really hoping that you might clear up that Phillipines/Mideast thing. It is funny enough that you made the claim let alone the geography problem.
why can't we all have rocket launchers? If dbadass gets one, I wouldn't feel entirely duck tape and plastic safe if I didn't have one too. If Tim has one... I'll be forced to reinforce both the duck tape and the plastic. I'm starting to think that the only way we as a country can really see eye to eye is through rocket launchers, plastic and duke tape. I'm begining to realize that a rocket launcher in every window may not be such a bad idea after all…
November 12th, 2008 at 11:12 pmbsb,
Big words from a (small?) man, by any chance? Where I'm from we don't make threats, my boy.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:12 pmNow we are getting somewhere Tim. So you know those big guns I have seen on all those naval vessels? I sure as hell can have one of those right? Target practice that's all. Oh and besides, what I do with it really isn't anyones business. It is my right god damn it!!!!
November 12th, 2008 at 11:15 pm282
November 12th, 2008 at 11:16 pmEasy there pussy...
guy, where you're from, everything seems to be a threat.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:17 pmjust sayin'
I was just kidding about the pussy thing Tim. So know that we have established that I can have all kinds of cool shit, can we clear up this Phillipines problem? Did you mean Palestine? That really is in the MidEast afterall...
November 12th, 2008 at 11:21 pmThen why are you saying your guns are unregistered and can't be traced?
You couldn't survive in NYC, this city would destroy your sorry uneducated ass. I think that's why you hate New York so much. You know this city would show you to be the loser white trash that you are, but you can hide it surrounded by other uneducated white trash in whatever backward sh!thole where you live.
You are so predictable, I can guarantee that you don't own a passport, probably have never even been out of your time zone let alone outside of the US. Your stupidity and lack of any sort of intellectual curiosity just jump off the page. If you weren't such a d-bag, I would pity your sad existence.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:21 pmSo correct me if I am wrong but RPGs are kosher for home ownership too under Tim Vaculik's definition right? I need some of those too...
November 12th, 2008 at 11:23 pmdbadass,
Gladly. First some background:
The Oklahoma City bombing took place on April 17, 1995. The thing is, the terrorists plotting Bojinka were in the Phillipines for a time. That is why Terry Nichols traveled there.
See the connection now?
November 12th, 2008 at 11:24 pmblue state bob,
November 12th, 2008 at 11:25 pmif you spell it d0uchebag it is okay. I just learned that the other day. I think it might have been katy that taught me.
Wow this site has gotten ten times better since the election. You have Progressive eat Progressive with Dr. Hussein Matt and belac and everything else is just a giant battle royal. I come here at least three times a day just for the comic relief.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:26 pmbsb,
Please don't misunderstand, I love NYC and had the pleasure of getting a "New Yorkers" tour some years ago. Too bad your opinion of where others live shows such a lack of respect. Methinks your problem might be the dreaded "little weenie" syndrome!
BTW, been to Italy and Mexico and still have a valid passport.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:27 pmTim:
Can't you just accept that it was 2 white guys whose views mirror yours cowardly murdered 160+ people. Hits a little too close to home??
November 12th, 2008 at 11:28 pmThe Oklahoma City bombing took place on April 17, 1995. The thing is, the terrorists plotting Bojinka were in the Phillipines for a time. That is why Terry Nichols traveled there.
See the connection now?
-----
Ah no.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:28 pmHow did you the cyber nobody link Terry Nichols to all of this and why hasn't real law enforcement done the same? Maybe you can tell us all where the WMD are too while your at it.
dbadass,
No offense taken. I try to be civil, but occaisionally lapse into mild name-calling when provoked...
November 12th, 2008 at 11:31 pmbsb,
There are just too many loose ends, but I am keeping an open mind. Are you?
There's no question that Tim McVeigh was a very dis-affected individual, but he had help. The question is - how much help?
November 12th, 2008 at 11:34 pmI have some other stuff I should attend to. Is there any chance Tim Vaculik is going to show us how he linked Terry Nichols to that other weirdness or not. Also might he be so kind as to advice me where I might be able to get some of those big naval guns and some rpgs before it is too late or does he not think that that is what the framers intended?
November 12th, 2008 at 11:37 pmI am all for investigating anything that really needs investigating, but I don't see a conspiracy theory behind every grassy knoll (this goes for 9/11 idiocy I sometimes see coming from the left)
November 12th, 2008 at 11:37 pmdbadass,
We'll just see what Mr. Nichols has to say, if and when he gets to speak as he has indicated he wants to do.
Remember, I'm just calling attention to things so I don't have all the answers. Try to keep an open mind.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:43 pmrpgs for everyone… sell 'em locally. that's the only way we're going to get through this immediate debacle. If my neighbor has a bigass firearm not only am i going to covet it, but i'll get a bigger one.
there will be no peace until we're squaring off against each other. with big assed guns… and capes, just like on tv.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:45 pmWhat just a minute. You made a declaritive statement that Mr Nichols was in fact in the phillipines for the specific reason. Are you backpedalling because bullshit was called or will you publically state that your earlier comment was nonsensical and ill adviced?
Oh and about those big guns and rpgs. I can have those right. Afterall it's in the friggin bill of rights. Am I correct?
November 12th, 2008 at 11:46 pmCan anyone explain why, if Tim Vacuous has firearms that are unregistered and untraceable, he's concerned about further gun regulation?
Seems like Timmeh has already figured out how to skirt what little regulation we have already.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:46 pmbsb,
You and I have something in common. I too believe that conspiracies concerning the events of 9-11 are repugnant.
My apologies if I caused offense earlier. I meant what I said about NYC, though. I hope to visit again some day.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:48 pmralph,
I will likely want to buy more...
November 12th, 2008 at 11:48 pmJust for the sake of argument I did a quick google search of Terry Nichols articles. There are a few mentions of Nichols claiming that an FBI informant or a member of the FBI mya have helped plan the bombing. Possibly what the FBI doesn't want to get out. Nichols second wife was a mail order bride from teh Phillipines, which could explain the visits, but again there is some efforts to make connections between him and possible al qeada members meeting in Mindano.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:50 pmalpuz3;
November 12th, 2008 at 11:50 pmAfter I blow the shit out of some stuff, I am gonna go have not just one but two partial birth abortions. Personal liberty baby!!! It rocks. Oh and I am gonna be whacked out on drugs and maybe marry someone of the same gender. Big government doesn't tell dbadass what he can and can not do. Oh and Tracy_5, do you mind driving?
dbadass,
...give an inch and they take a mile...
You wanted a definition of "arms" and I graciously provided one! What you interpret from it is your business.
No, I'm not backpedaling on Mr. Nichols visits. It's just that I don't have all his statement readily at hand. It's been quite a few years, you know.
Mr. Nichols definitely made visits to the Phillipines and there's more to that story.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:51 pmralph. I really need to get going but wasn't it you that advised me not to try to employ logic when our friends are involved?
November 12th, 2008 at 11:52 pmDbadass,
I hate to leave when you are in such rare form, but I gotta work tomorrow!
HR shyt is hard work!
November 12th, 2008 at 11:53 pmTim: BTW, been to Italy and Mexico and still have a valid passport.
Wow! McCain should have picked you!
November 12th, 2008 at 11:56 pmTim:
Have you not noticed that the d is lowecase?
Keith that is really funny especially in light of its simplicity. I commend you.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:58 pmSHOTGUN!!!
November 12th, 2008 at 11:58 pmyeah, by God, ye jus never now when you will have to fight off a whole bytallion of commie revenuers and black helicopters....(spit and adjust crotch)
November 12th, 2008 at 11:59 pmTim: Mr. Nichols definitely made visits to the Phillipines and there’s more to that story.
I have been to the Madrid train station and the same subway stations in London that were hit by terrorists, but there is no connection to me.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:01 amTo buy a registered gun they will drag their 80 year old grandma down to the gunstore to buy it in grama's name.....I've seen them do it.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:03 amTim Vaculik Says:
As usual, most of you miss the point ENTIRELY.
The question is one of Constitutional rights. You folks most of all should be defending the rights of gun owners!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You guys keep saying this Read Miller and Quillic and get back to us.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:03 amTim Vaculik Says:
Tracy__5,
Welcome to E-Debs doghouse! Frankly, I am flattered when he/she goes off on me because I know I’m right on target.
Quite honestly, I’ve never witnessed such vitriol and spewing hatred from one blogger in my entire life. He/she/it takes the prize.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh WWWWWAAAAAAAHHHHHH you guys sure like to dish it out and sure snivel like punks when its batted back at you. I guess after he tells ME that I dont understand personal liberty I should have treated him with total respect right? I am sure you stupid wingnuts are nostalgic for those days when it was only the rightwingers dishing it out and all us liberals were taking the high road. Those days are over. You want to be treated respectfully then treat ME respectfully. You will not be insulting me with impunity. That is just what it is.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:07 amEugeneDebs,
November 13th, 2008 at 12:10 amBTW, I voted for you the other day for US House. My incumbent (to the right of Atilla the Hun) ran unopposed and I wrote your name in. I live close to a somewhat liberal district---there is gerrymandering.
EugeneDebs:
November 13th, 2008 at 12:10 amCareful they cling to their guns for strength...
Tim Vaculik Says:
I dont care what some rightwing OPINION is about Obama and gun control Rightpundit. Are you joking me? Keep your biased opinion sites I am not reading them.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:11 amMost of us that live in rural America have a few guns. Some hunt. Most of us have several classic shotguns and a few rifles ranging from 30/30's to 308's.
Normal people don't see the need to have automatic weapons.
people who love guns that much are sick people. Ref: Hitler, bush, cheney, etc.
It's like a drug to them. It has nothing to do with hunting or protection. It's just a sick power thing and it's scary as hell.
dbaddass has exemplified the scenario for you if you have read through this thread.
great job dbadass
November 13th, 2008 at 12:13 amOh and for the record since I have pissed away half the night here. I have no problem with balanced thoughtful gunlaws which consider the interests of all. What I find really freaking hilarious is the bizarre suggestion by some that the second amendment is some blanket bullshit I get a boner cuz I have a shitpile of guns for no intelligent reason and a perhaps a little weiner basis for public policy.
Goodnight and best-
November 13th, 2008 at 12:16 amTim Vaculik Says:
Tim Vaculik Says:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete,
Ya gotta be pulling my leg, right? Obama doesn’t respect the Constitution. It’s simply an impediment to the things he and his radical, un-american friends want to do.
He’s on record about how he views the Constitution. One example I heard was a recording made when he talked about the Supreme Court’s actions regarding civil rights.
Constitutional scholar my a$$
Pete,
Ya gotta be pulling my leg, right? Obama doesn’t respect the Constitution. It’s simply an impediment to the things he and his radical, un-american friends want to do.
He’s on record about how he views the Constitution. One example I heard was a recording made when he talked about the Supreme Court’s actions regarding civil rights.
Constitutional scholar my a$$
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My GOD you are ignorant. You probably mean you heard one of the screechmonkeys that does your thinking for you distort THIS
"And one of the -- I think the tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movements became so court-focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing, and activities on the ground...
So he was EDITOR of HARVARD LAW REVIEW but YOU feel qualified to diss his constitutional law knowlege. And you got YOUR degree in constitutional law WHERE again? You are a punk Timmeh
November 13th, 2008 at 12:19 amTim Vaculik Says:
bsb,
That’s prett cold… even for a New Yorker. But that’s O.K.. Rest assured I know the business end from the stock on my weapons, which are all unregistered and untraceable BTW
And completely illegal. Mine are registered and legal and I know the business end of them, too. You are dangerously close to making some illegal threats littleman (and I use the term man quite loosely with you). Concealed weapons permits were made exactly to protect law abiding citizens from nutcases like you. I got mine, you got yours? Doubt you could pass the registration to carry in the first place.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:25 amTim Vaculik Says:
If we remain free from attack here at home for eight years, then talk to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If WE dont get 3000 Americans killed a MONTH after Obama gets a PDB SAYING some terrorist is DETERMINED to attack us in the first year of the Obama presidency you can come back and appologize
You are likely not old enough to know a good President from a bad one…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are likely too STUPID to know a good president from a bad one
November 13th, 2008 at 12:27 amTim Vaculik Says:
Actually, I will clarify my “scholar” comment.
Obama is one smart individual, I will grant him that. He studies everything quite thoroughly, including the Constitution.
It’s his interpretations of it I take issue with. Also, I just cringe when I read posts here that seem to say that he’s somehow smarter than the rest of us because he’s a Constitutional Scholar!”
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
That is reasonable and I understand I cringe when I read posts that say he doesnt respect the constitution because they DISAGREE WITH A CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR. Should we dismiss what an Obama says because someone with a
November 13th, 2008 at 12:30 amBA NOT from Harvard and NOT a lawyer at ALL much less a constitutional law expert tells us he is wrong? An uneducated opinion means MORE than and educated one? See I dont follow the logic
Tim Vaculik Says:
Bojinka no connection. They werent in the Phillipeans at the same time. This is the problem with your idiotic talking points. You use them LONG after they have been debunked. The screechmonkeys that do your thinking for you program you to repeat them endlessly and you dont CARE when they are shown to be total BS you just keep repeating them. That bit of lunacy was destroyed at least two years ago. I myself have slapped it down several times. I am not going to the trouble to run down all the details especially sinc you ignore it when your non fact propaganda is destroyed anyway but its total BS.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:42 amTim Vaculik Says:
There are just too many loose ends, but I am keeping an open mind. Are you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You dont have an open mind you are brainwashed they are not the same thing
There’s no question that Tim McVeigh was a very dis-affected individual, but he had help. The question is - how much help?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It isnt that clear he had help the kind of bomb they used is pretty simple. So the actual questions are DID he have help how much and WHOs
November 13th, 2008 at 12:45 amKeith Thanks. I appreciate that.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:48 amRepublicans are more likely to take away your guns than Dems. Witness some of the incidents after Katrina where homeowners defending their property had their guns confiscated by Police or Blackwater.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:49 amWhat this country needs is some crazy dude or family or group of dudes with a whole big pile of guns and some oddball greivence usually steming from their unwillingness to pay some minimal taxes for the purpose of running the "greatest nation on earth". It is best if they live out in some rathole/pioneering/pseudowannabe frontier area. Nothing brings the country together than crazy white people with guns.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:55 amEugeneDebs Says:
Keith Thanks. I appreciate that.
But you lost. Sorry.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:56 amdbadass, didn't we have that in Whaco, Texas in 1993?
November 13th, 2008 at 12:58 amNothing brings the country together than crazy white people with guns.
----
and if that doesn't work have a blonde haired white girl get jacked or maybe some sort of story about a cat that journeys 500 miles just to be reunited with their owner. Made up tories of daycare center satanic child abuse used to be the shits but apparantly it went away all by itself...
November 13th, 2008 at 1:06 am.
Shouldn't it be spelled...
... N(R)A?
.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:17 amI don't know what all those gun freaks are worried about.
November 13th, 2008 at 7:10 amWith our present Supreme Court that's no way anyone and any legal argument is going to take away their "right' to walk around with a gun under their jacket; or their "right" to own an assault weapon or a bazooka, or a cannon, or a gattling gun, or a flame thrower, or a missle launcher-all so they can shoot squirrels! It amazes me that these gun lovers know everything there is to know about the inside and outside of a weapon, but they have no idea exactly what is said in the 2nd Amendment. "A well regulated miltia, being necessary to the security of a FREE STATE, the right of the people to keep and bare Arms, should not be infringed." That's a state milita (National Guard) securing their state! What's not to understand?
Sorry marcg-you have to use smaller words for them and speak slower. Try this
we..don't..want..to..take..your..guns..away
Maybe phonics would work?
November 13th, 2008 at 7:50 amIn reading the 2nd Ammendment I find no mention to include the future development of muskets,sabers,cannons....!
November 13th, 2008 at 7:59 amG(aping)
O(pen)
P(ussies)
A bunch of cowards, nothing more.
And they're killing their own:
Boy, 8, accidentally kills self at gun show
Nothing tragic, just classic Darwinism.
Priceless.
November 13th, 2008 at 8:10 amTim Vaculik Says:
bsb,
That’s prett cold… even for a New Yorker. But that’s O.K.. Rest assured I know the business end from the stock on my weapons, which are all unregistered and untraceable BTW
Tim Vaculik Says:
ralph,
I will likely want to buy more…
So Tim's buying guns on the black market. I see now why he doesn't care what the police chiefs of the country think about cheap handguns, and their contribution to crime.
But doesn't Tim come here, acting like he's a law-and-order republican?
It wouldn't surprise me to learn he's also selling crank to neighbors' kids.
November 13th, 2008 at 8:57 amThere must be something wrong. the guys with the guns are running scared. And mom won't be happy that the food money went for a chinese nock off of that blunderbus that hangs in the closet under key so that junior doesn't shoot his foot off.
November 13th, 2008 at 9:13 am#149
"It isnt absolute or I would have the personal liberty to sell heroine to schoolchildren."
The U.S. Supreme Court sees the 2nd Amendment as very absolute. You show me where it says in the Constitution that I don't have the right to own an AR-15 or something
"We arent very far apart on this issue. I dont own a gun but believe in the right of people to have them. Also the RIGHT of the government to ban certain types."
Well right there is where your ignorance of what personal liberty is shines through. You actually think that the government has "right". Again take you socialist views and leave my country.
"Assult rifles you dont need."
That is your IRRELEVANT opinion. Again you get the U.S. Supreme Court to get on your side and you might have a say but untill then you can squawk and whine all you want about people not "needing" to own an assult rifle. BTW considering the 2nd Amendment was written so that the people can defend themselves from an oppressive government and they have multiple assult rifles, tanks, bombs, ect...how do you suppose people effectively defend themselves if they are limited to little handguns and ineffective hunting firearms?
November 13th, 2008 at 10:11 am"so that the people can defend themselves from an oppressive government and they have multiple assult rifles, tanks, bombs, ect…how do you suppose people effectively defend themselves if they are limited to little handguns and ineffective hunting firearms?"
So I should be able to have that rocket launcher than correct Tracy_5?
November 13th, 2008 at 10:58 am#153
"And one’s right to exercise that privilege stops when public safety is at stake."
No the 2nd Amendment says point blank that owning a firearm is a right....it shall NOT be taken away like privilege. So considering most of the shootings that take place are done by handguns I guess we need to ban them all considering they make up about 99% of all gun related deaths. Assult rifle shooting make up relative few.
November 13th, 2008 at 11:04 am#169
"I can just picture these two trying to “sneak up” on experienced outdoors men like ourselves. My guess is that we could down them with a sturdy stick before they knew there was anyone within a mile."
Experienced? Why would I need to try and sneek up on you? BTW you actually think a stick would help?
November 13th, 2008 at 11:08 amThe right wing lemmings certainly are bamboozeled by the NRA aren't they? Obama isn't gonna take away their right to handguns or rifles. He MIGHT opt to make it difficult if not immpossible to get an automatic weapon but WTF does anyone NEED an automatic rifle for??? Target practice my ass(ets!) Protecting the house, doubtful....ask the local felon who shot and killed a trick or treater and injured the rest of the KID's family if that was logical! IT is, however, excellent for killing innocent PEOPLE! Our government and the NRA certainly seems ok with that!
November 13th, 2008 at 12:14 pm#316
You want to be treated respectfully then treat ME respectfully."
Do give any of that crap little punk considering you chime in on a constant basis to respond to posts that weren't in response to ANYTHING you said, but you tend to always throw out the personal insults.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:30 pmJust can't resist an opportunity to demonstrate your monumental ignorance, can you troll? Ya really think a big clip makes the most effective weapon? Ya really think that a survivalist's fantasy is even worthy of consideration? Ya really think there's a damn thing you can do if trained soldiers and a freakin air force take a dislike to you?
And I don't know where the heck you get the "ineffective hunting firearms" crap. Any midsized hunting round is effective at twice the range of an "assault round" and a bigger magnum is lethal at nearly a mile.
The problem with military weapons is that they are optimized for volume of fire rather than effect of each individual round. If one is a combat soldier, with logistical support, they are very good at what they do. If one is living by one's wits and what one can carry? They lose their appeal. And if one has a big enough cache of arms to make an assault weapon "practical"? Someone will send a real military force and render it moot.
"Ineffective hunting weapons", specifically a pump action shotgun, are far better self-defense weapons in any plausible scenario. Semi-autos are nice and I've owned several but, I have had a few jams over the years. I prefer revolvers for the same reason.
Most gun regulations, existing and proposed, are geared to magazine capacity, concealment issues, and military specific features like night sights. Features that optimize them for mowing down innocent people in a school or mall. And even then few regulations amount to outright bans.
Most regulations are designed to restrict access to legitimate users. And I would have no problem jumping through the same hoops, as needed for a conceal/carry permit, for a hypothetical "high capacity recreation" permit. I have also heard some fairly reasonable proposals to increase enforcement of background checks for hunting licenses. Though personally I would like a general firearm license subject to similar scrutiny and limits as a drivers license. And, having literally dodged slugs and pellets, I would have no problem with restraining the drunken yahoos roaming the woods during hunting season.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:12 pmWhat I mean, stupid troll, is that your "debating" style and weapon preferences betray a personality that would be conducive to getting ambushed. I have spent almost forty years stalking and ambushing wild prey, usually just for the thrill of close observation.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:32 pm#320
"Normal people don’t see the need to have automatic weapons."
Normal people don't see the need for a "hot rod" or a personal airplane, or a stamp collection, or a gazillion music MP3s, or a laptop to set up at the local coffee shop to waste time, ect....
Do you see how ridiculous your statement is?
"It’s like a drug to them. It has nothing to do with hunting or protection. It’s just a sick power thing and it’s scary as hell."
If you are scared of a gun collector they you have some serious personal issues with things the make noise. Pretty chicken sh*t is you ask me.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:00 pmObama is OTHER. The right-nuts are victims. It's that simple.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:02 pm#342
"So I should be able to have that rocket launcher than correct Tracy_5?"
The explosive charge in your rocket could present a danger to your neighbors if it were to accidently explode. I personally don't care if you have ARMED rocket launcher as long as you keep it in a safe place....a neighborhood is not one. Get some land say 100+ acres and store it in a underground concrete bunker and you have my blessing. I know of people who have a real working WW2 tank...i.e. it's a collector's item. Do have a problem with that?
November 13th, 2008 at 2:21 pmI know of people who have a real working WW2 tank…i.e. it’s a collector’s item Do have a problem with that?
Does the main gun work? How about the machine guns? If not, then no- it doesn't bother me... actually I think it's pretty cool.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:35 pmIf yes to either then it does bother me... at least until dbadass gets that rocket launcher it will...
The explosive charge in your rocket could present a danger to your neighbors if it were to accidently explode. I personally don’t care if you have ARMED rocket launcher as long as you keep it in a safe place….a neighborhood is not one. Get some land say 100+ acres and store it in a underground concrete bunker and you have my blessing
So you agree that the militia needs to be well regulated?
November 13th, 2008 at 2:43 pmIsn't gunpowder an explosive charge?
Aren't bullets a potential danger to your neighbors if they were to accidently explode?
If you are scared of a gun collector they you have some serious personal issues with things the make noise. Pretty chicken sh*t is you ask me.
And what happens when the gun collector snaps, and starts lighting up the neighborhood, with his automatic weapons?
Offer your condolences to the survivors?
November 13th, 2008 at 3:01 pm#347
"Ya really think a big clip makes the most effective weapon?"
No, but again it's none of your business boy. BTW I have stated repeatedly that I don't use my AR-15 for self defence. I don't even keep it loaded untill I go out to the range.
"Ya really think there’s a damn thing you can do if trained soldiers and a freakin air force take a dislike to you?"
Sure, because I will have millions of other armed citizens on my side. It's all a deterrant and for you not to recognize it as such shows YOUR inability to think. The U.S. government wouldn't dare try and confiscate the firearms from their citizens knowing full well that millions have guns. You know there was a this thing called the revolutionary war in which the British thought they could make their rebel citizens comply by force...their professional soldiers got their asses handed to them.
"And I don’t know where the heck you get the “ineffective hunting firearms” crap."
You don't know much about armed self defence do you? If a group of government soldiers roll up on your house and attempt to break down your door explain how a bolt action Remmington 30-06 is going to is going to do much of anything to stop them?
"Any midsized hunting round is effective at twice the range of an “assault round” and a bigger magnum is lethal at nearly a mile"
You think that living in a city that mile range is going to be effective in preventing someone from entering you home?
"“Ineffective hunting weapons”, specifically a pump action shotgun, are far better self-defense weapons in any plausible scenario."
Agreed, but what business is it of yours what type of gun I have?
"And I would have no problem jumping through the same hoops, as needed for a conceal/carry permit, for a hypothetical “high capacity recreation” permit."
Sounds good to me. Sounds like you don't really have problem with someone owning a high capacity assult rifle.
November 13th, 2008 at 3:24 pm#348
"I have spent almost forty years stalking and ambushing wild prey, usually just for the thrill of close observation."
You think your petty hunting skills is suppose to frighten me?
November 13th, 2008 at 3:36 pm#352
"Does the main gun work?"
Sure does but they don't have an shells....at least I think they don't.
"How about the machine guns?"
As far as I know they work.
"If yes to either then it does bother me… at least until dbadass gets that rocket launcher it will…"
You think dbadass would blow himself up first trying to shoot it?
November 13th, 2008 at 3:42 pm#353
"So you agree that the militia needs to be well regulated?"
Yes regulated by PRIVATE citizens, not the government. Militas are not government sponsored or trained. If a group of citizens get together to form a militia they will need a leader and via democracy they will choose one.
"Aren’t bullets a potential danger to your neighbors if they were to accidently explode?"
If they are stored in a lockable case, as they should be, there shouldn't be a problem.
November 13th, 2008 at 3:54 pmTracy__5 Says:
Tracy you are unbelievably ignorant. Your every post screams that you NEVER know what you are talking about.
#149
“It isnt absolute or I would have the personal liberty to sell heroine to schoolchildren.”
The U.S. Supreme Court sees the 2nd Amendment as very absolute. You show me where it says in the Constitution that I don’t have the right to own an AR-15 or something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
NO, the SC does NOT see the 2nd as absolute. You are an idiot. A moron who thinks the delusional fantasies you have made up in your head define reality they dont.
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/SOURCES.HTM
Miller
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.
So if they can rule a shotgun of with a short barrel can be illegal of COURSE they can rule you dont need an AK47
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 551 (1876)
The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution.
“We arent very far apart on this issue. I dont own a gun but believe in the right of people to have them. Also the RIGHT of the government to ban certain types.”
Well right there is where your ignorance of what personal liberty is shines through. You actually think that the government has “right”. Again take you socialist views and leave my country.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My GOD you are ignorant. I know more about personal liberty just as I know more about, well pretty much EVERYTHING, than you EVER WILL. You have no capacity for thought. You are a moron. There exists no concept that your limited intellectual ability can illuminate for me. YOU ARE A MORON. Come to grips with it. I think YOU should take YOUR black fascist heart and leave MY good country. I suggest Guatemala where your fascist heart will fit right in. You are not more American than me. You are just more ignorant and FASCIST than me.
That is your IRRELEVANT opinion. Again you get the U.S. Supreme Court to get on your side and you might have a say but untill then you can squawk and whine all you want about people not “needing” to own an assult rifle. BTW considering the 2nd Amendment was written so that the people can defend themselves from an oppressive government and they have multiple assult rifles, tanks, bombs, ect…how do you suppose people effectively defend themselves if they are limited to little handguns and ineffective hunting firearms?
I ALREADY got the SC on my side See Miller you ignoramus. You are just too ignorant to ever know what you are talking about. If you think your AK47 is going to protect you against the F-16s, Abrams tanks, grenade launchers, Napalm then you are even stupider than I thought and you are REALLY stupid.
November 13th, 2008 at 4:31 pmTracy__5 Says:
Did you call him a BOY? Tracy you are a scared little punk without a functioning brainpan. I wouldnt trust you with a waterpistol. How do you manage to type while hiding under your mommy's bed?
November 13th, 2008 at 4:40 pmGood news gang. Tracy_5 has signed off on my rocket launcher. Now if I can only get Tracy_5 to recognize that I will be needing some weaponized anthrax and just a little bit of smallpox I will be all set. He can have his sissy bang bang stuff for his collection. I on the other hand need some serious shit. Afterall you never know when I will have to fight the big bad govment who as Tracy has pointed out have all kinds of funky shit. What say ye Tracy_5, can I have them? See it amuses me that people can talk about the dreaded slippery slope of gay marriage leading to polygamy, child marriage and believe it or not bit's bizarre horse marriage concern, they fail to see any slope related to "arms" and their weird militia fantasies
November 13th, 2008 at 4:47 pmTracy__5 Says:
“So you agree that the militia needs to be well regulated?”
Yes regulated by PRIVATE citizens, not the government. Militas are not government sponsored or trained. If a group of citizens get together to form a militia they will need a leader and via democracy they will choose one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So YOU say the Supreme Court in Maryland V US DISAGREES. What were the chances that for once you had some dim idea what you were talking about?
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=381&invol=41
The National Guard is the modern Militia reserved to the States by Art. I. 8, cl. 15, 16, of the Constitution. 8 It has only been in recent years that the National Guard has been an organized force, capable of being assimilated with ease into the regular military establishment of the United States. From the days of the Minutemen of Lexington and Concord until just before World War I, the various militias embodied the concept of a citizen army, but lacked the equipment and training necessary for their use as an integral part of the reserve force of the United States Armed Forces. 9 The passage of the National Defense Act of 1916 10 materially altered the status of the militias by constituting them as the National Guard. Pursuant to power vested in Congress by the Constitution (see n. 8)
November 13th, 2008 at 4:53 pmWell Dbadass lets face it Tracy is an idiot and he doesnt know what he is talking about as usual
November 13th, 2008 at 4:56 pmI'll tell ya what, skippy. If society breaks down and you're anywhere near a city? You're not living out your paranoid fantasies right.
I don't have a big problem with the regulated ownership of most small arms but, I don't favor the casual ownership of high capacity military type assault weapons or high capacity handguns. It's fun to cook off 30 rounds at a pop and that has a value that can be negotiated and licensed. But don't try to cloud the issue with dreams of protecting the homestead from "the soldiers".
Personally, I can't imagine a scenario where soldiers would come to get me. In fact, I can't imagine a lawful path to such an eventuality. But, for the sake of the argument, I'll take my chances with a couple well placed high-power rounds then blocking attempted entry with a shotgun. And I'll be eating like a king, thanks to my "inefficient hunting weapons", while city dwellers are offing each other for piles of ammo.
What I object to in the real world is people making disingenuous arguments that we should overlook a few deadly weapons in the hands of certifiable sociopaths to protect the "right" of yokels to drain a case of beer and melt a few rifle barrels.
If removable clips are kept reasonable, 5-7 rounds, I don't see a problem. I also seem to recall reading about an effort to make the limit on fixed magazines somewhat higher. Either way, I don't think we sacrifice liberty by limiting the capacity of lawfully acquired weapons in the name of public security. It should be HARD to legally acquire a modern "killing machine".
November 13th, 2008 at 5:13 pmdamnit pete. Just when Tracy_5 gave me his blessings on my rocket launcher, you have to come along with something so intelligent and reasoned...
November 13th, 2008 at 5:21 pm#362
"What were the chances that for once you had some dim idea what you were talking about?"
Aside from the National Guard. Why do I have to annunciate for you guys constantly? Tell me which government entity state, local, or federal regulates these militias...
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_us.htm
November 13th, 2008 at 6:12 pmTracy__5 Says:
“What were the chances that for once you had some dim idea what you were talking about?”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The REAL question is why do you TRY since you are far too stupid to do anything but embarass yourself?
Aside from the National Guard. Why do I have to annunciate for you guys constantly? Tell me which government entity state, local, or federal regulates these militias…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why in the WORLD would that matter since what you said was THIS:
Yes regulated by PRIVATE citizens, not the government. Militas are not government sponsored or trained.
See you are just a moron who NEVER knows what he is talking about. Oh and I see you called me a punk. Since you are not only an exceedingly ignorant cowardly piece of human debris what you think of me while shivering like the little wuss you are from the safety of your mommys basement hiding behind your keyboard I dont really care WHAT you think. I just amuse myself stuffing your really stupid and factless posts up your A$$
November 13th, 2008 at 6:36 pmAlso MORON if you could find someone who can READ to tell you what the Maryland decision says it BEGINS
The National Guard is the modern Militia reserved to the States by Art. I. 8, cl. 15, 16, of the Constitution.
Whether you AGREE means nothing that is what the Supreme Court SAYS. Try to keep up. You really are stupid and not very good at this. The fact there are private little gun clubs that SOME but not all states allow really doesnt change this.
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Polesky1.html
Despite what may at first appear to be a constitutional right to operate as a militia, numerous states have statutes prohibiting the existence of private militia and/or their training activities.
Judicial precedent clearly demonstrates that paramilitary organizations cannot rely on the Second Amendment to justify either their existence or their activity. [13] The Second Amendment right to a "well regulated militia" does not encompass an unbridled license for individuals to organize as a private militia independent of the state. Rather, the state is empowered to determine what constitutes a militia [14] and whether the possession of arms is necessary to the maintenance of that which the state deems a militia. [15]
Even though it is apparent that regulation of the militia falls outside the scope of the federal government's power, it has not always been clear whether the state governments retained the power to regulate the militia or whether the militia was reserved exclusively to the people of the state, free from any governmental regulation.
The question now appears to be largely settled. Power to control and regulate the militia is reserved to state governments. This power has not been delegated to the individual. The Second Amendment right to a well regulated militia, therefore, is not an individual right. [163] The state, not the [Page 1632] individual, organizes and maintains a militia comprised of the citizenry.
In Presser the Supreme Court makes this CLEAR
As early as 1886, in Presser v. Illinois, [164] the Supreme Court held that state enactment of legislation prohibiting private military organizations was constitutional. [165] The Court proclaimed: The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization . . . without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship.
Why do you spend so much time here parading your ignorance since you dont do ANYTHING else?
November 13th, 2008 at 6:43 pm#359
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,..."
So did you happen to overlook that part of your post? So if there is evidence that there is some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia then the SC is clearly saying that I may own a shotgun with a barrel of less than 18 inches. If I am part of a militia, the opinion doesn't define "well regulated"...does it?, then I can own a sawed off shotgun.
"Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
This part is a blanket statement and if I can present evidence that as a militia member that my sawed off shotgun is necessary for the type of defensive operations I am obligated to carry out, then the SC clearly says that it must be presented. The SC was intelligent enough in this case to render an opinion that allows other courts to look at individual instance on a case by case basis.
BTW I own an AR-15 that holds a 30 round clip and I am not in violation of the law.
"You are not more American than me. You are just more ignorant and FASCIST than me."
No you are just more socialist than me and wouldn't know what the concept of individual liberty ment if bit you in the ass. I suggest you move to Cuba and let Castro run your life....you would probably like it.
"I ALREADY got the SC on my side See Miller you ignoramus."
Not when it come me owning an AR-15...which is totally legal BTW.
"If you think your AK47 is going to protect you against the F-16s..."
Going down fighting would be better than what you would do which would be pleading for your life, begging those government soldiers not to arrest you, and surrendering. Your so called "rights" including those in the 4th Amendment at that point won't mean much no matter how much you yell and protest. If it ever came to need to start a forceful revolution against the government because their policies, I will be sure to spread the word that you will NEVER be called upon to assist in the effort. You remind me of that wimp ass mayor in the movie Red Dawn.
November 13th, 2008 at 6:47 pmTracy__5 Says:
#359
“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,…”
So did you happen to overlook that part of your post? So if there is evidence that there is some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia then the SC is clearly saying that I may own a shotgun with a barrel of less than 18 inches. If I am part of a militia, the opinion doesn’t define “well regulated”…does it?, then I can own a sawed off shotgun.
BTW I own an AR-15 that holds a 30 round clip and I am not in violation of the law.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
First of all your argument was that the government COULDNT say you couldnt have an assault rifle. Well yes they can for the same reason they can AS THE SC AFFIRMED that you cant have a shotgun with a barrell less than 18 inches. Since THAT is the argument the rest is irrelevant. If you are withing the law FINE. I am all for your right to have a gun that is legal. I just want some common sense regulation. I dont want your guns or anyone elses.
“You are not more American than me. You are just more ignorant and FASCIST than me.”
No you are just more socialist than me and wouldn’t know what the concept of individual liberty ment if bit you in the ass. I suggest you move to Cuba and let Castro run your life….you would probably like it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
See you keep saying that because you are a bone ignorant moron. You are just too stupid to see that individual liberties sometimes conflict. You are an ignorant Fascist moron and I know more about, well lets face it EVERYTHING than you ever will.
“I ALREADY got the SC on my side See Miller you ignoramus.”
Not when it come me owning an AR-15…which is totally legal BTW.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Good for you. I am happy for you. In this we have no argument.
“If you think your AK47 is going to protect you against the F-16s…”
Going down fighting would be better than what you would do which would be pleading for your life, begging those government soldiers not to arrest you, and surrendering. Your so called “rights” including those in the 4th Amendment at that point won’t mean much no matter how much you yell and protest. If it ever came to need to start a forceful revolution against the government because their policies, I will be sure to spread the word that you will NEVER be called upon to assist in the effort. You remind me of that wimp ass mayor in the movie Red Dawn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
YOU remind ME of those ignorant COWARDS who think Red Dawn is some kind of social commentary instead of low level moronporn. If I feel the need to do more than protest I will. I wont be taking an AK47 against an F-16. Feel free to do so and be PROUD of your ignorance while you die horribly. I would fight in a more intelligent manner. Of course since intelligence is a foriegn concept for you that isnt advice. You will never be able to do anything intelligent so go ahead with your useless gesture. YOU are a coward and a moron. I understand the concept of guerilla warfare and if the need ever arises would be worth a hundred of your ignorant A$$
November 13th, 2008 at 7:09 pm#364
"...but, I don’t favor the casual ownership of high capacity military type assault weapons or high capacity handguns."
Good for YOU.
"But don’t try to cloud the issue with dreams of protecting the homestead from “the soldiers”."
Then don't try to cloud the issue by saying that a high power hunting rifle is any less dangerous than my AR-15...unless you think that one person dead is better that 10. This isn't a matter of moral relevence.
"In fact, I can’t imagine a lawful path to such an eventuality."
You actually think that that "law" is going to matter to those soldier trying to enter at that point?
"If removable clips are kept reasonable, 5-7 rounds, I don’t see a problem."
Well then you have big problem with over 50% of the legal semi auto pistols out there including my ParaOrdanance LDA .45
Well that's just too bad. BTW I plan on purchasing this very legal assult rifle when it comes out to replace my AR-15.
http://www.para-usa.com/new/product_rifle.php
"Either way, I don’t think we sacrifice liberty by limiting the capacity of lawfully acquired weapons in the name of public security. It should be HARD to legally acquire a modern “killing machine”."
That is your OPINION and when the SC decides that my AR-15 is illegal you let me know.
"It should be HARD to legally acquire a modern “killing machine”."
Your car could easliy be considered a modern "killing machine"
November 13th, 2008 at 7:14 pmbut do you think that we need to limit the size of your vehicle and say, for the sake of argument, that your H2 isn't necessary for you to have? Why are you guys so hung up on the intended use of the potential weapon in question?
#367
Again I didn't realize I had to annunciate for you.
"...cowardly piece of human debris what you think of me while shivering like the little wuss you are from the safety of your mommys basement hiding behind your keyboard I dont really care WHAT you think."
You wouldn't last two seconds old man. Go take some Geritol.
November 13th, 2008 at 7:25 pmTracy__5 Says:
Sure I would. I would last a whole lot longer than YOU taking your AK47 up against that Abrams tank. I would contribute far more than you would EVER be capable of. Rent a braincell MORON.
Here is the bottom line. I dont want your guns or anyone elses. I just support some common sense gun regulation. Take your arguments to court and tell THEM you have a right to whatever weapon you need to make you forget how small your dick is. Whatever they decide is fine with me. You keep arguing not ONLY that you have unlimited rights to arm yourself but that the SC agrees with you. No they dont. I have shown that.
November 13th, 2008 at 7:32 pm#368
"Whether you AGREE means nothing that is what the Supreme Court SAYS."
I agree with what the SC says about the National Guard, but it doesn't say it's the ONLY militia as evidenced by the legally operating militias I linked to.
"The fact there are private little gun clubs that SOME but not all states allow really doesnt change this."
Oh, so now you are backing off and saying that some states allow militias to operate. Keep going! I am glad you finally learned something when it comes to militias and who composes them and which entity has the authority to regulate them even a loosely as some states do.
"Despite what may at first appear to be a constitutional right to operate as a militia, numerous states have statutes prohibiting the existence of private militia and/or their training activities."
And SOME states do not prohibit their existance but rightly do limit their type of training.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/ustx_law.htm
November 13th, 2008 at 7:49 pmOk Tracy. That is a good point well argued. I have no problem with any of it. As I said before we most likely arent that far apart on this issue. I dont have a gun. I armed myself differently. Having said that I DO understand Americans see this as a freedom issue. As long as they do I completely support the rights of Americans to own guns. I just dont see it as an unlimited right. I think they can also put restrictions on militias. I dont want to see them outlawed. Truth be told that there are a hundred million or so guns in private hands most likely DOES give the government some pause on any march to tyranny they might contemplate. As an admission I HATE to make. I dont really think you are stupid.
November 13th, 2008 at 7:58 pm#370
"SC AFFIRMED that you cant have a shotgun with a barrell less than 18 inches."
It clearly says that if convincing evidence is provided that it's necessary to carry out my duties as a militia member then the courts should entertain it.
"See you keep saying that because you are a bone ignorant moron."
No, I keep saying it because your embracment of Marxist ideas is so pathetic.
"You are an ignorant Fascist moron and I know more about, well lets face it EVERYTHING than you ever will."
You don't know anything about the building industry, you know nothing about firearms or the U.S. military so for you to make a asinine statment like that is truly dumb.
"If I feel the need to do more than protest I will."
Like what? When all your rights go out the window and the government imposes martial law that only thing you will do is put your hands behind you head and march.
"I would fight in a more intelligent manner."
Again when you are looking at the end of a government's soldier's rifle the only thing you will do is say "Yes sir".
"I understand the concept of guerilla warfare and if the need ever arises would be worth a hundred of your ignorant A$$"
You don't even know what end of a gun is dangerous much less know how to use one so for you to suggest that you would be worth anything during an armed conflict with the government is hilarious.
November 13th, 2008 at 8:05 pm#373
"Sure I would. I would last a whole lot longer than YOU taking your AK47 up against that Abrams tank."
Is that after you cowardly surrender and are sitting in a goverment jail? BTW your old age is showing...I don't have an AK47.
"Take your arguments to court and tell THEM you have a right to whatever weapon you need to make you forget how small your dick is."
Considering you don't have one that works what's your point old man?
November 13th, 2008 at 8:10 pm#375
"Truth be told that there are a hundred million or so guns in private hands most likely DOES give the government some pause on any march to tyranny they might contemplate."
I thought that you and pete just said that it was insane for anyone to think that an armed citizenry would represent any kind of threat to their superior force?
"I dont really think you are stupid"
Did you bi-polar twin just take over?
November 13th, 2008 at 8:18 pmTracy__5 Says:
#370
“SC AFFIRMED that you cant have a shotgun with a barrell less than 18 inches.”
It clearly says that if convincing evidence is provided that it’s necessary to carry out my duties as a militia member then the courts should entertain it.
“See you keep saying that because you are a bone ignorant moron.”
No, I keep saying it because your embracment of Marxist ideas is so pathetic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You really are incapable of actual thought arent you? How dumb ARE you anyway? Are you now trying to make your argument JUST ABOUT THIS WEAPON? The point is that the government CAN decide which weapons you can have and which you cant. IF you want to argue THAT weapons efficacy. Do so I dont care. The point is this right IS NOT UNLIMITED. Again you show just how ignorant you can be. This has WHAT to do with Marxism? Your ignorance flows from you like water from a rainstorm. YOU are a fascist. That doesnt make me a Marxist even if it did Marxism is a FORM OF ECONOMY and has nothing to do with gun ownership you insufferable MORON.
“You are an ignorant Fascist moron and I know more about, well lets face it EVERYTHING than you ever will.”
You don’t know anything about the building industry, you know nothing about firearms or the U.S. military so for you to make a asinine statment like that is truly dumb.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sure I do. Like EVERYTHING else those are things I know a lot more about than YOU do. YOU are a MORON. A list of things you CLAIM I dont know anything about is just one more example of how stupid you can be and NOTHING MORE. This is why I mop the floor with you every time we debate here. Well that and you are so bone ignorant
“If I feel the need to do more than protest I will.”
Like what? When all your rights go out the window and the government imposes martial law that only thing you will do is put your hands behind you head and march.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
IF I were dumb enough to get into THAT situation. YOU are I am not.
“I understand the concept of guerilla warfare and if the need ever arises would be worth a hundred of your ignorant A$$”
You don’t even know what end of a gun is dangerous much less know how to use one so for you to suggest that you would be worth anything during an armed conflict with the government is hilarious.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you thinking SHOOTING is the only thing done in a revolutionary situation shows how plainly ignorant you are. I know physics. Chemistry, engineering and have books on ALL those subjects. Even someone as ignorant as you could see the possibilities. No maybe not someone as ignorant as you. Ask a reaonably bright ten year old to explain it to you.
November 13th, 2008 at 8:43 pmTracy__5 Says:
“Truth be told that there are a hundred million or so guns in private hands most likely DOES give the government some pause on any march to tyranny they might contemplate.”
I thought that you and pete just said that it was insane for anyone to think that an armed citizenry would represent any kind of threat to their superior force?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No the post I responded to was well reasoned and without the hostility and rancor. I mistakenly thought for a second that you were as bored with the insults and juvenile hostility as I was but your next post showed me different. If I REALLY thought you were stupid I would use other insults. The point isnt to hurt anyones feelings but just to toss out the generic insult. See its all so meaningless. YOU accuse me of being a Marxist and I accuse you of being a moron.Noting is really said, Jr high juvenile hi jinx. I am not above it and wont take insults laying down but they get boring. We COULD have had an interesting discussion WITHOUT THEM.
November 13th, 2008 at 8:52 pmI wasn't the dolt who introduced the ridiculous idea that "inadequate hunting weapons" serve as justification for casual ownership of large capacity military weapons.
As for new limits, existing weapons could be "grandfathered". One sane way to do it would be to require new weapons to meet a new standard while old ones which can not be modified with a low capacity "sporting clip" could be resolved by regulating the carriage of loaded clips. Some jurisdictions already have some "clip laws" on the books. There aren't many legitimate reasons for having a loaded weapon, excluding conceal/carry licensees, except at the range, in the field, or on private property.
I think most reasonable people would agree that there's no legitimate reason, assuming society has not collapsed, for lugging around loaded thirty round clips. Some of those big clips could be "plugged" or, if legal aftermarket clips are available, they could be left safe in the shelter for the apocalypse. They also, under new regulations, would be required to stay with the original weapon and the legal trade in high capacity clips would be regulated at current or tighter levels.
Again, I don't think outright bans are the best solution. But any mistakes made should be in favor of keeping the most lethal weapons out of the hands of those who are most likely to do the most harm.
A national firearms license, renewed every couple of years, might be a good way to go. It can be made to sound sinister but I think the risks of it's misuse are minimal compared to the safety factor of a little something to weed out bad eggs and repeat offenders.
But I wouldn't object to a law which limits high capacity military type weapons to private property. It's already a crime to carry one locked and loaded. Add a little more teeth in those laws. In fact, a lot of new "assault style" carbines and handguns are being offerd with smaller mags.
I recently fawned over a new H&K 10mm Mag with a single stack magazine holding 7 rounds. Slimmer, lighter, and tighter than an old .45 but much more stopping power with hot factory loads. I prefer six-shooters but that baby could convert me if it weren't so hideously expensive. While it's impossible to say without firing the weapons, If I had to choose between it, my old Hi-Power, and the Glock .40 next to it and save the planet, I would take the H&K off the shelf.
But If I really had a pressing need to shoot it out with rogue Boyscouts, Girlscouts, Pirates or the League of Women Voters? I'd still take a medium to long barrel double-action revolver. .44 Mag with a variety of hand loads is hard to beat but a strong case can be made for most any big-bore.
That's one of the reasons I prefer revolvers is because paying with custom loads is so much fun. I've even toyed with the idea of a single shot in some exotic wildcat just for the pleasure of working out a good mix of "plinking ammo" and serious blow-up stuff ammo.
But then I think; there's nothing wrong with "settling" for six .44 slugs in the proverbial pie-plate at 150 yards, any one of which would down a bear. That's all the firepower one really needs from a handgun.
November 13th, 2008 at 10:04 pmWow! This thread has some legs...
My head was spinning as I read the back and forth between Tracy and EugeneDebs.
Learned a few things though.
November 13th, 2008 at 10:07 pmI just want to clear up one thing. My weapons are all legal. I bought them from individuals so there was no paperwork involved, nor does there have to be any.
November 13th, 2008 at 10:08 pmOh and, just for the stupid troll: if I were caught in some kind of juvenile, post-apocalyptic, Reich-wing wet dream? I wouldn't fight except on ground of my own choosing and the first one, at least, wouldn't take a firearm to dispose of.
And shotguns are limited to a minimum 18" barrel so that criminals can't conceal them like a pistol and not face a charge for the weapon itself and it's manufacture and/or sale. That's because a sawed-off shotgun is so hideously effective compared to a legal pistol and the only possible reason for concealing so much firepower is antipathetic to public safety.
November 13th, 2008 at 10:22 pmA bunch of white male kooks fancying themselves a miltia is as out of date as the satanic worship crisis, daycare child molestaion hysteria, and the "tight roll".
November 14th, 2008 at 12:16 am#379
"The point is that the government CAN decide which weapons you can have and which you cant."
Yeah, but it is LIMITED because there isn't anything in the Constitution that stipulates what type of firearms citizens may possess. The point about the 2nd Amendment being absolute was a fact. It is absolute in the sense that the government cannot tell the people that they may not own firearms and the types in which the can decide to ban is LIMITED. If that point wasn't clear the we both missed it. Your argument about the government beging able to tell people what kind of guns they may own is LIMITED and would be argued for years, if the SC attempted to say for instance that the only gun you may own is a hunting firearm. It would be such a radioactive decision that which ever judge(s) wrote such an opinion would be impeached immediately for blantant violation the 2nd Amendment. The flood of calls into the House and Senate would be so overwhelming that it would make the financial bailout railing look like a tea party.
"YOU are a fascist."
Since you are referring to that fact that I would be willing to fight my government by force if the need arised then it's far more noble that doing nothing and going to jail. Remember at that point that LAW(s) would mean nothing to the government.
"This has WHAT to do with Marxism?"
You want MORE govenment control and regulation than what is currently on the books....the U.S. has quite enough.
"That doesnt make me a Marxist even if it did Marxism is a FORM OF ECONOMY and has nothing to do with gun ownership you insufferable MORON."
Marxism is a political philosophy which in turn leads to a BS unsustainable economic model that has proven to be a failure. There is NO WAY you could provide evidence that Marxists believe that the people should have the right to own firearms because I could cite a number of past and present Marxist regimes that did not and do not allow citizens to own them. If you don't consider yourself a Marxist then you need to change your name because your name sake was stanuch supporter. BTW do you think that the U.S. should change from a capitalistic free market economy to a state run and owned model?
"IF I were dumb enough to get into THAT situation."
Right because you would have already sided with the government against the people to save your own skin.
"Like EVERYTHING else those are things I know a lot more about than YOU do."
I gave shoeless a list of question about construction and the practice of architecture that he never answered. Do you what to be utterly humiliated like he was? How about some questions about the U.S. military and it's weapon systems?
"And you thinking SHOOTING is the only thing done in a revolutionary situation shows how plainly ignorant you are."
Yes you would be attempting to bargin with government for a federal position in order to stay out of jail. Come to think of it, based on your embracement of an all powerful government, you would probably be a prime candidate for a federal agent or political crony. The hypothetical situation BTW was how useless you would be when laws were replaced by a government police state that uses force. Yes I do know what you would do if the situation deteriorated to the point of actually having to fight by force....it would be surrender and say "yes sir just don't shoot me"...either that or you would run away to another country and attempt to seek asylum.
November 14th, 2008 at 12:54 pm#380
"No the post I responded to was well reasoned and without the hostility and rancor."
Every post of yours from the get go starts off with that crap EVEN when the post/response was not directed to you. Talk about juvinile....you take the 1st prize!
"We COULD have had an interesting discussion WITHOUT THEM."
Then you need to start actually practicing what you preach and quit be a absolute hypocrite.
November 14th, 2008 at 1:02 pm#381
"I wasn’t the dolt who introduced the ridiculous idea that “inadequate hunting weapons” serve as justification for casual ownership of large capacity military weapons."
Dude I am not the jackass who thinks that they have the right to tell me how many bullets my gun can hold.
"I think most reasonable people would agree that there’s no legitimate reason, assuming society has not collapsed, for lugging around loaded thirty round clips."
What if I want to squeeze off 30 rounds on my friend's property at a target just for fun? You are trying to limit the discussion to stupidly suggesting that the only reason to have firearms is to kill people or animals. The capacity argument is a fallacy and a strawman. If a person goes wacko with a highpower rifle with five rounds and kills two people and wounds three how is that OK and we won't ban that weapon, but someone wounding 20 and kiling 10 with a 30 round AR-15...it gets the axe? If that is the case then we need to ban personal vehicles over 2 tons because they have the POTENTIAL kill MORE people that a dinky littly Ugo.
"But any mistakes made should be in favor of keeping the most lethal weapons out of the hands of those who are most likely to do the most harm."
Which are the CRIMINALS not law abiding citizens. The only true practical solution to achieve what you want, is for the government to tell the gun manufacturers to stop making military style weapons for law enforcement, because you know and I know the criminal WILL get their hands on these weapons no matter what.
"There aren’t many legitimate reasons for having a loaded weapon, excluding conceal/carry licensees, except at the range, in the field, or on private property"
Which is where MOST gun owners live, i.e. on private property. What's your point? If you point is that there is no need to have a loaded one in the chamber assult rifle in the house...absolutely. I keep mine locked up untill I take it to the range or out to my friend's 50+ acres.
"A national firearms license, renewed every couple of years, might be a good way to go. It can be made to sound sinister but I think the risks of it’s misuse are minimal compared to the safety factor of a little something to weed out bad eggs and repeat offenders."
The repeat offenders? We already run background checks on people. If they have a
"But I wouldn’t object to a law which limits high capacity military type weapons to private property."
Your home is private property. Are you saying that it should be illegal to have an assult rifle in your home?
"But If I really had a pressing need to shoot it out with rogue Boyscouts, Girlscouts, Pirates or the League of Women Voters?"
Well lets hope you don't go postal.
"That’s all the firepower one really needs from a handgun."
Again after that long winded irrelevant spill about your gun knowledge what are you still hung up on the self defense aspect of owning a gun? My ParaOrdinance .45 LDA does just fine for self defense and I have my Colt AR-15 for simple fun target practice.
November 14th, 2008 at 2:12 pm#384
"I wouldn’t fight except on ground of my own choosing and the first one, at least, wouldn’t take a firearm to dispose of."
Again for you and Eugene...if a goverment soldier stuck a rifle in you face you would say "Yes sir", and any pittly self defense skills you had wouldn't make a hill of beans difference to the outcome which would be your hands behind your back.
"That’s because a sawed-off shotgun is so hideously effective compared to a legal pistol and the only possible reason for concealing so much firepower is antipathetic to public safety."
And you actually think a criminal is going to rat's ass about the current gun laws?
November 14th, 2008 at 2:23 pmAnd you actually think a criminal is going to rat’s ass about the current gun laws?
No, but the prosecutor and judge who send that criminal away for possession of that shotgun do, as do the people in that criminal's neighborhood who would prefer that the criminal be off the streets.
Are you admitting that stricter laws and sentencing are not a deterent to crime Tracy?
November 14th, 2008 at 2:31 pmWell. I'd love to tear apart the latest ravings from the stupid troll but, there's no coherent logic to tear apart.
However, I would like to add that in virtually every mass shooting in U.S. history, tighter regulations or enforcement of existing regulations would have mitigated, if not prevented, the high body counts. And there still has not been a single instance of armed civilians stopping a mass shooting.
November 14th, 2008 at 4:00 pmAnd just to ease the stupid troll's pointy head: When I say that possession should be limited to private property I mean that one can have it on one's own property, on a private gun range or other land, or cased and empty during transport. But, a loaded clip in the car would be a federal rap.
November 14th, 2008 at 4:11 pmI have never understood the false sense of maichismo gun nuts feel. It takes a lot bigger man to kill with his bare hands...
November 14th, 2008 at 5:17 pm#390
"Are you admitting that stricter laws and sentencing are not a deterent to crime Tracy?"
Mandatory long sentences for various crimes would be a far better deterant and effective than some who naively think that passing a law restricting the number of rounds a rifle can carry or the length of a barrel of a shotgun would have any of an effect on the amount of gun violence in the U.S.
November 14th, 2008 at 5:51 pm#391
"...there’s no coherent logic to tear apart."
If you would or could present some real evidence by a non-partisian group or entity that proves that reducing the number of rounds a rifle can carry has had a real quantifiable absolute affect on reducing gun violence then you actually might have a valid argument for telling me that I don't have the right to have a 30 round clip. BTW I remember when Senator Feinstein aka Frankenfeinstein tried to reauthorize the 1994 AWB it was voted down 8 to 90.
"However, I would like to add that in virtually every mass shooting in U.S. history, tighter regulations or enforcement of existing regulations would have mitigated, if not prevented, the high body counts."
That is based on the very iffy assumption that those who wish to commit mass shootings obtain their firearms thru legal means. If you ban high capacity assult rifles those who wish to obtain one for their wacko purposes they will find a way to get one.
Also if you think that the type of gun has much to do with the number of deaths that can be caused...
http://blog.judgingtruth.com/2007/12/assault-on-assault-weapons.html
November 14th, 2008 at 6:27 pm#392
"And just to ease the stupid troll’s pointy head"
Jackass are you EVER going to present some evidence of my supposed racist views or are you going to continue to lie everytime?
"But, a loaded clip in the car would be a federal rap."
No sh*t!! Tell me something about gun laws I don't know.
November 14th, 2008 at 6:30 pm#393
"I have never understood the false sense of maichismo gun nuts feel. It takes a lot bigger man to kill with his bare hands…"
This has nothing to do with being macho. I don't walk around pubic showing off my guns to everyone. In fact my neighbors don't even know I have them. I never understood the false sense of intellectualism that some have when the embrace far left liberal views.
"It takes a lot bigger man to kill with his bare hands…"
Sure it does but you would have to be under the dilusion that you could actually carry out such a difficult task against someone breaking into your house armed with a knife or a gun.
November 14th, 2008 at 6:41 pmWhat I find amazing, db, is that they gleefully fantasize about fighting the same troops they accuse people of not "supporting" rabidly enough. I have a pretty well developed imagination and I can't imagine a plausible scenario that would result in me facing U.S. soldiers. Or ATF, Secret Service, or FBI.
As for barrel limits to hinder conceal ability? That's why handguns are preferred by crooks. The extra federal offense has proven to be a successful deterrent to criminals who retain enough reason to stick a proper handgun in their pocket and/or carry a proper long gun. And some pretty bad characters are in prison for speeding with a sawed-off shotgun in the car.
So. Ya got anything to sensibly refute assertions that high capacity military weapons should be more carefully regulated in the interest of public safety? Can you come up with a single logical argument why possession of a loaded high capacity weapon, except on private property and/or satisfying guidelines similar to conceal/carry, should not be dealt with as seriously as illegal weapons? Can you cite a single real world argument against taking steps to limit the acquisition of military type weapons by people who are least equipped to handle the responsibilities of gun ownership?
For that matter. Why shouldn't the guy who shows the bad judgment to get three DUI's in a year not be required to surrender his license and weapons until he can prove he's improved his decision making? Why shouldn't the guy who gets loaded and shoots out a neighbor's window be subject to arrest if found within ten feet of a weapon? And why shouldn't some nimrod who just has to load up while stroking off in the basement not face a hefty penalty for carrying around an arsenal that's ready for immediate use?
Then you can try to come up with a logical reason why, from this day forward, every clip should not be limited or plugged at five rounds and be as difficult to buy as any other weapon. If the shooters at Columbine, or Georgia Tech, or Red Lake had been carrying five round clips? Fewer people would have died. If the legal purchase of every weapon required satisfying qualifications to the standard of conceal/carry regulations? None of those shooters would have been able to acquire the weapons by the means they used. Nuts will, sadly, always find a way to get weapons but the cavalier attitude of Reichwhiners makes it far too easy.
And I still haven't heard any reasoned argument that convinces me that limiting every yahoo with a Rambo complex to five round clips would harm anyone while I think it would be worth it if one person manages to escape a monster while he's changing clips.
November 14th, 2008 at 6:57 pmAnd just FYI. "Pointy head" is a reference to your apparent deficient cranial development. I'll grant that you have not been particularly racist in this exchange and did not intend to infer that you had.
I have twice faced down burglars with my trusty 12 gauge and broken up a few fights. And I've long since lost track of the trespassers and assorted bums I've faced down in a lifetime of hunting and pursuing other outdoor activities in a part of the country where guns are common tools and toys. I even once threw a Sheriff off my property when he had the damn gall to ask me for my ID "as a formality", in my own house, when we knew each other and he knew the guy he was looking for.
And I don't know how many more times I can tell you I'm not talking about "bans". I'm talking about making it harder for some guy to assemble an arsenal over a couple days when he snaps and decides to take "them" out with him. I'll even concede the size limit for the sake of treating clips as weapons instead of as accessories. And high capacity clips in particular should require strict control similar to existing handgun laws.
It sure as heck shouldn't be possible for a company to legally ship a bunch of clips to an unlicensed kid with a stolen credit card. And selling them by the gross at gun shows has to stop. And the best part is that most of the new regulation would simply include enforcing existing laws and codifying some of the more rational state and local ordinances around the country.
Finally. In each of the three mass shootings I mentioned earlier a single fact remains constant. People escaped while the shooters were reloading. There's no way to figure the exact math but the clear implication is that smaller clips would have saved more lives. And if clips were not sold casually? More lives would have been saved.
November 14th, 2008 at 7:39 pm#398
"I have a pretty well developed imagination and I can’t imagine a plausible scenario that would result in me facing U.S. soldiers."
That is because you have never lived under a oppressive government and have lived a priviledged life as an American citizen. You haven't clue. Have I? No, but I am not going to give anyone foreign or domestic the slightest chance.
"So. Ya got anything to sensibly refute assertions that high capacity military weapons should be more carefully regulated in the interest of public safety?"
You have offered ZERO evidence of you assertions. When you actually present some other that your unqualified opinion you let me know.
"....should not be dealt with as seriously as illegal weapons?"
Again when you offer some evidence and not some irrelevant opinion you let us all know.
"Can you cite a single real world argument against taking steps to limit the acquisition of military type weapons by people who are least equipped to handle the responsibilities of gun ownership?"
The fact that just because you think I don't NEED a 30 round clip doesn't mean anything in the real world.
"Why shouldn’t the guy who shows the bad judgment to get three DUI’s in a year not be required to surrender his license and weapons until he can prove he’s improved his decision making?"
Good point why don't you ask some of the lame mostly liberal judges who let them off?
"Why shouldn’t the guy who gets loaded and shoots out a neighbor’s window be subject to arrest if found within ten feet of a weapon?"
Again maybe you should ask the state legislatures that made up such weak laws and ineffective sentence minimums.
"And why shouldn’t some nimrod who just has to load up while stroking off in the basement not face a hefty penalty for carrying around an arsenal that’s ready for immediate use?"
So arrest him for his potential intent? Why lets send the police to your house and arrest you for having loaded handgun in your possession. Ya don't really need high caliber handgun for self protection.
"Then you can try to come up with a logical reason why, from this day forward, every clip should not be limited or plugged at five rounds and be as difficult to buy as any other weapon."
You haven't given a solid reason why they should be limited to five rounds.
"Fewer people would have died."
I just gave you a comparison of the VT slaughter carried out by Cho Seung-Hui who killed 32 people using a Glock 19 and semi-automatic Walther P22 .22 versus and the Omaha shootings in 2007 by Robert Hawkins AK-47 who killed 8 people. Again the type of gun in the case I cited has little to do with how many people died.
"And I still haven’t heard any reasoned argument that convinces me that limiting every yahoo with a Rambo complex to five round clips would harm anyone..."
Well when you present me with reasoned argument why YOU should be able to have a high caliber revolver and I shouldn't be able to have 30 round clip for my Colt then I will begin to entertain your BS. We both know how to handle out firearms and we are both law abiding citizens.
"...while I think it would be worth it if one person manages to escape a monster while he’s changing clips."
You go and tell the parents of the VT students if they think it matters to them what type of guns Cho used.
November 15th, 2008 at 12:52 amMore importantly and less long winded, can I have the weaponized anthrax and smallpox or not. It would really keep that big bad government from getting all uppity and such.
November 15th, 2008 at 12:56 am#399
“Pointy head” is a reference to your apparent deficient cranial development.
Then in other posts why do you continue to talk smack about my supposed racist views? You STILL have yet to offer anything of substance. Shall I contine to wait are you still going to be OK with your habitual lying?
"I’ll grant that you have not been particularly racist in this exchange and did not intend to infer that you had."
I haven't said ANYTHING that even approaches racism. Cite something....anything.
"I’m talking about making it harder for some guy to assemble an arsenal over a couple days when he snaps and decides to take “them” out with him."
Those same guys could assemble an arsenal with two or three high capacity handguns and/or shotguns and do just as much damage as freak with an AK-47 and a Mac-10.
"It sure as heck shouldn’t be possible for a company to legally ship a bunch of clips to an unlicensed kid with a stolen credit card."
Absolutely!
"And selling them by the gross at gun shows has to stop."
Agreed!
"People escaped while the shooters were reloading."
It wouldn't be too hard for someone to carry multiple pistols and do even more damage if the he/or she was determined to kill those people.
"There’s no way to figure the exact math but the clear implication is that smaller clips would have saved more lives."
Have a look see here and you attempt to still try and tell me that reducing magazine capacity or caliber has much to do with "saving" more lives...good luck.
http://74.125.95.104/search?q=cache:Fq7TfgvF47QJ:www.vpc.org/graphics/where.pdf+Charles+Whitman+massacre+M1+Carbine+capacity&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us
November 15th, 2008 at 1:19 am"More importantly and less long winded, can I have the weaponized anthrax and smallpox or not."
If you can convince a judge that weaponized anthrax is firearm in the traditional sense of the 2nd Amendment....along with your rocket launcher of course.
November 15th, 2008 at 1:24 amShould I look for one of those "liberal activist judges"? I figure they probably hang out with the other mythical creatures like the "welfare queen" and the "endangered white male".
November 15th, 2008 at 1:39 amIn all seriousness Tracy_5, Montana Freemen or whatever they called themselves.... Cool guys or just a bunch of oddball whackjobs?
November 15th, 2008 at 1:43 amWell. At least you are committed to your dogmatic insistence. Here's the problem. It's too easy for unbalanced sociopaths to acquire high capacity weapons. There are countless measures that could be taken to alleviate the problem, without taking away the rights of lawful citizens, but frightened Reichwhiners keep blocking any efforts at gun control. And most of the resistance is from those who are so self-indulgent that they think it's a God-given right to pull a trigger fast and raise a cloud of dust.
I've indulged in the fun of burning through a case of ammo many times myself and, one day it struck me, I came to the conclusion that I would be more than willing to sacrifice a bit of fun for the sake of public safety.
Neither my right to liberty nor my intrinsic quality of life would be damaged in the slightest if it were more difficult to buy weapons. Specifically I think it should be very difficult to buy high capacity firearms and multiple clips.
As for arguing about the killing potential of big clips; are you effing kidding me? Military clips are big so that one person can carry the most total fire power capable of killing the most people with the fewest interruptions. Everything about a military arm is optimized for one thing. Killing people. That's it. That's their only function. And you can reference any freakin military study since the first repeating firearms for evidence that bigger clips kill more people. Another example is the 3 shot limit set by federal waterfowl laws for over 70 years.
Then you can try the monumentally difficult task of figuring out for yourself how many fewer rounds a shooter like the psycho at Georgia Tech would have fired if both weapons he bought had single, five round, clips. And, if he had had to pass the scrutiny of most conceal/carry permitting programs? He would never have been allowed to buy ANY weapon.
As I said before, I use 5 shots as a convenient number. The former limit of ten rounds could have worked with some tweaking and I've seen the number seven kicked around in foreign stories. The number is negotiable and ultimately not critical. But I have still failed to hear a credible reason why high capacity weapons, long guns, handguns, and big magazines alike, should not face tighter regulation in the interest of preventing psychos from assembling and using an arsenal in a week-long psychotic break.
November 15th, 2008 at 3:41 pm#406
"I came to the conclusion that I would be more than willing to sacrifice a bit of fun for the sake of public safety."
You haven't presented any evidence that supports you assertion. When are you going to do so?
"Specifically I think it should be very difficult to buy high capacity firearms and multiple clips"
Good for you. I think that the facts have shown that this doesn't support your claim that the public is being protected more. If anything, given your logic and based on the evidence, we need to ban handguns considering that are FAR more dangerous that my AR-15.
"Military clips are big so that one person can carry the most total fire power capable of killing the most people with the fewest interruptions"
I just gave you multiple examples that show it doesn't make any difference whether that perp is armed with a couple of handguns or a AK-47. The guy can carry multiple hand guns therefore increasing his redundancy and it so much easier to conceal them.
"Everything about a military arm is optimized for one thing. Killing people. That’s it."
And every thing about a .44 magnum revolver isn't? Please!
"And you can reference any freakin military study since the first repeating firearms for evidence that bigger clips kill more people"
I suggest you cite some historical evidence that backs up you theoretical claim. Sure on the face it seems that bigger clips kill more people, but I am still waiting for you to cite something in the REAL world that supports it.
"Then you can try the monumentally difficult task of figuring out for yourself how many fewer rounds a shooter like the psycho at Georgia Tech would have fired if both weapons he bought had single, five round, clips."
I just cited the VT example compared to the Omaha example that showed that someone armed with a 9mm handgun and a .22 rifle can do more damage than another person with an AK-47.
"But I have still failed to hear a credible reason why high capacity weapons, long guns, handguns, and big magazines alike, should not face tighter regulation..."
Again you STILL haven't offered any evidence other that your theoretical assumption that limiting capacity has anything to do with making the public safer. What you are really looking in your ultimate goal, whether you mean to or not, is for the federal govrnement limiting citizens owning a game hunting firearms period. Five shots? Almost all revolvers and slide action hadguns are now out the window. Now you need to turn yours in. Hell Most shotguns carry more that 5 rounds as well as most bolt action hunting rifles.
Look, I respect and understand your position but until you present some real evidence that supports your proposal then we are going to have to agree to disagree.
November 16th, 2008 at 6:38 pm"Cool guys or just a bunch of oddball whackjobs?"
No more wacky than Rev. Wright or that POS terrorist Bill Ayers. They are all "wackjobs".
November 16th, 2008 at 6:44 pm"Should I look for one of those “liberal activist judges”?"
Oh, hell no they would probably throw you in jail just for thinking about obtaining a rocket launcher and probably make you attend "find your inner peace" classes even if you wanted to get a shotgun for hunting geese.
November 16th, 2008 at 6:49 pmIt seems surreal to need to explain this but, here goes:
Clip volume is such a major factor in volume of fire that no one has ever needed to commission a study to prove it. The entire evolutionary history of military weapons has been geared to volume of fire. I suppose that the programs which led to the M-14 and finally the M-16 are the most well known. Or I suppose you could go back to McArthur's insistence on a semi-auto battle rifle or the birth of high capacity sidearms and sub-machine guns. The general rule of thumb, since the adoption of replaceable clips, has been "as many rounds as can be carried without seriously affection the operation of a weapon". (NOTE: Fixed magazines make things complicated but, in existing laws, a fixed magazine is allowed to be somewhat lager. In practice the size limits them to about the same size.)
As for the effect of clip size in mass shootings, again it's too obvious to need much study. Anything which limits the number of rounds and/or affects the rapidity with which they are fired works to the advantage of victims. That's why there are existing laws here and abroad that do address magazine/clip sizes. And it's one of the reasons why countries with more restrictive access to high capacity weapons have fewer if any mass shootings.
It seems quite simple to me: People who go on shooting sprees acquire the highest capacity weapons they can. In many famous cases stronger laws, or better enforcement, could have kept the weapons out of the perps' hands. If extra and/or high capacity mags were harder to come by? It's a certainty that body counts would go down in many types of shooting.
I'm still at a loss as to why you can't comprehend that I don't propose banning high capacity weapons, I would just treat them, and their clips, as seriously as most jurisdictions treat concealed handguns. As an example: Anyone legally eligible to buy weapons would be able to buy an AR-15 or Glock 21(?) with a single, five (or six, or nine, or even ten) round, clip. Extra and/or high capacity clips would require an extra level of scrutiny, such as needed for a conceal/carry permit and would include a waiting period. Similar laws are on the books in some places for some weapons. Oh yeah, I also think it's time to restrict all firearms sales to those to, or from, a licensed dealer.
Such laws would reduce the lethality of "rage shootings" where someone gets fired on Friday, buys a high capacity weapon or three on Saturday, spends Sunday rounding up clips and ammo, and wastes a dozen people on Monday. Once again, how many fewer would have died in ANY mass shooting if high capacity weapons were replaced by weapons with a single, small, magazine?
FYI. The 5.56mm was developed as a military round to do one thing. Pack the greatest number of rounds, barely adequate to kill a human at medium range, into the smallest lightest rifle/carbine. Though it was developed from a varmint/small game round, the 5.56mm itself is first, last, and always a man-killer.
The .44 mag, in addition to being a pistol round, was developed as a hunting round for deer-bear sized game out to a hundred yards or so. It's always been seen as overkill as a self-defense weapon. Except defense from angry bears where it's highly regarded.
November 16th, 2008 at 11:35 pm#410
"Anything which limits the number of rounds and/or affects the rapidity with which they are fired works to the advantage of victims."
And it puts those who use them for self defense at a direct disadvantage. Now again, I don't use my AR-15 for self defense but some people who live in rural areas do.
"If extra and/or high capacity mags were harder to come by? It’s a certainty that body counts would go down in many types of shootings."
Yes and when you reduce legally the amount of rounds that fire arms can hold then you also limit those who legitimately use those same types for self defense as I said before.
"I’m still at a loss as to why you can’t comprehend that I don’t propose banning high capacity weapons, I would just treat them, and their clips, as seriously as most jurisdictions treat concealed handguns."
I thought you were. My mistake.
"Extra and/or high capacity clips would require an extra level of scrutiny, such as needed for a conceal/carry permit and would include a waiting period."
OK up untill this point I thought you were against ANYONE having high capacity clips (like I do). That right there I would be willing to accept, but the requirements should be NO different than they are for highcapacity handguns. BTW what would the "extra level" of scrunity entail? This is a key question and is important in how effective that law would be considering there would be may law abiding people, including myself, who would have to jump thru yet another federal hoop. Would I have to prove that I live in a "rural" area to keep these clips in my home? That's one BS strike againt me. Would I have to disclose when and where I go everytime to use my highcapacity magazines? What are some other requirements you would require if you wrote the law?
"Oh yeah, I also think it’s time to restrict all firearms sales to those to, or from, a licensed dealer."
Now that one I have big problem with. Now if you want a sale transaction to be legal between to individuals and require them to retain a sales receipt of what was sold and require that they file it with the feds then I MIGHT entertain that one. I don't however, see how you could possible enforce this one.
"Once again, how many fewer would have died in ANY mass shooting if high capacity weapons were replaced by weapons with a single, small, magazine?"
Considering you just stated that you would not ban but just put an extra level of scrunity on those who wish to obtain high capacity magazines I guess that only thing that would do would be to postpone those who wish to go on their shooting spree, or they would just purchase multiple small capacity clips.
"It’s always been seen as overkill as a self-defense weapon."
Then why are you not for banning them considering they are "overkill" and not necessary for self defense?
November 17th, 2008 at 6:34 pmI thought I made myself clear in one of the first posts where I said I would ban "casual ownership", as opposed to more regulated ownership. Most of my goals would be achieved with a rationalization and commonality among state regulations. Plus treating all high capacity weapons like handguns are treated in most jurisdictions.
My proposed levels of regulation would be: 1.low capacity long guns. 2. High capacity handguns and long guns. 3. Multiples of 2 including clips.
As I said. Assuming one can legally hold the permit for a weapon, one could have it at home, on a range or private property, public hunting lands providing it meets other requirements for hunting, and in transit in a cased and fully unloaded condition. Personally, I think that would include extra clips in a vehicle.
Licensing sales would, again, be a codification of existing laws. Though I would like to see an effort aimed towards requiring a licensed dealer to "stamp" all sales. As for trades, swaps, and private sales? It would actually be simpler to enact a federal firearm license. Failing that I would just say that the seller has some responsibility to assure themselves the buyer is qualified. I think the rules on the casual sale of "surplus shop add-ons" (especially high capacity clips in any caliber) should be much more closely regulated.
I sincerely believe that every precaution should be in place to prevent the scenario where the buying spree is part of the whole package. I seem to recall research that most single, or small scale, shootings are with whatever weapon is available at the time while mass shooters acquire their arsenal, with purpose, as part of the buildup to the actual shooting. Assembling the "tools" is apparently part of the madness.
I also read a speculative article that presumed, with some authority, that many mass shooters would not have been able to hold it together if they faced more challenges in acquiring weapons. I think it's prudent to examine possible changes to existing law if it can help.
As I've said, repeatedly, one can keep the right to big clips by demonstrating a reputation for civil behavior comparable to many conceal/carry requirements. One can get those high capacity weapons with a single, limited, clip (and maybe a similar spare?) by meeting the common requirements of simple handgun ownership. I think that existing laws on accredited sales of sporting and home-defense long arms are probably adequate outside the multiple clip standards.
Oh yeah. A fixed magazine might be bigger than a replaceable clip. And I wouldn't necessarily crack down on .22 rimfire long guns (despite for my considerable affection for my old Winchester) but multiple clip auto-pistols would be treated like big-bores. Another proposal I read, decades ago, would have "mated" clips to weapons. What he meant was that a clip's seller/buyer would engrave the weapon's serial on the clip. At that point the clip is a throw away if the gun shoots out and it can't legally be used in another gun or sold without the weapon.
Which all leads back to the .44 mag and the legitimate Constitutional right to bear arms for the defense of self and country. The .44 mag and the weapons that use it are largely geared towards hunting or long range target work. It was developed from the .44 special which was thought too "mild" for hunters and too big for police or self-defence.
While there have been snub-nosed .44's the majority are still big frame revolvers with relatively long barrels. They are big enough that one is about all a normal person can carry and they are not terribly easy to fire/reload rapidly. Plus, they have a nasty habit of blinding/deafening anyone unfortunate enough to shoot one inside.
Now. If one has a big-bore revolver for hunting and target use? It's fine for home defense and I wouldn't buy another weapon for that purpose. Personally though, when I've felt the need to grab a weapon? I've always reached for my shotgun and I would not buy or recommend a .44 as a sole self-defense weapon. Nor would I buy or recommend any rifle, "militarized" or otherwise, as a sole self-defense weapon.
I've spent most of my life miles from the nearest neighbor and never saw the need for a high capacity big-bore. I guess I figure that if I ever piss-off enough people to need more than a few rounds? I probably deserve what's coming. And, speaking as someone who can head-shoot a squirrel at 150 yards with a .22 rimfire, my survival won't ever depend on clip size. Even in war.
Even in war, a medium caliber "assault weapon" would not be my first personal choice. If I were conscripted and forced to choose a current military weapon I would request a scoped M14/M21. I've had the pleasure of shooting a Garand, a M14 and several 5.56mms including AR-15's and, if I could expand my list and couldn't have a scope I would choose the Garand. And, regardless of regulations, I would carry a slinged pump shotgun rather than a sidearm. If forced to pick one? I would lose the rifle if I were going to engage in hose to house of jungle fighting.
Which I guess gets to the point of where does self-defense end. Should we, as common citizens, have a realistic expectation to own weapons which allow us to replace, resist, or supplant, legal authority? I find it unlikely, in the extreme, that I will ever need to do that.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:01 pmI forgot to add that given a choice beyond military issue weapons I would prefer a lever or pump action over an auto in a combat situation though I would not be comfortable with a bolt action. Though if I were to be limited to one survival rifle, mostly for hunting and perhaps the occasional bear or brain-eating-mutant-zombie I would choose a bolt action in a heavier caliber over a 5.56mm in any action. One of the knocks on "assault weapons" in general is that mid-power cartridges fall between limited and worthless for hunting bears or brain-eating-mutant-zombies.
If I were forced to deal with occasional groups of brain-eating-mutant-zombies and did frequent hunting of bears? A high capacity lever action in .44 mag would be high on my list. I think that groups of brain-eating-mutant-zombies, big enough to demand a military style battle rifle or assault weapon, are more likely than bands of armed criminals or rogue military.
The way I look at it is that, if the U.S. devolves into a military vs. civilian conflict? There's a 50/50 chance I'll be on the side of the military. If the need arises for people beyond the age of conscription to repel enemies, foreign or domestic, I'll eagerly sign up. If the military takes after civilians? I have no illusions about the chances of mounting a resistance myself. In neither scenario would I expect to be required to supply my own ordinance.
Considering that a society's collapse is generally preceded by a long list of bad signs I feel pretty certain that we won't collapse into lawlessness in the immediate future. The rise of religeous radicalism in this country is alarming but, I'm pretty sure that the number crazy enough to take arms against their neighbors is happily small.
One inference that can be made from the last election is that the number is no bigger than thought. The same hardcore 20%ers would vote for the Great Satan if He wore a crucifix, carried a gun, and added an (R) after His name.
And if We The People are forced to rise against a hypothetical oppressor? It won't matter if we have clubs or machine guns. Our only hope would be military leaders honorable and brave enough to say, "no, Sir! I will not order the slaughter of our citizens".
Little glitches like the "war on terror" or the current financial woes don't forebode the collapse of a society. War, just or not, unifies a country as do hard times in general. The Great Depression didn't spawn widespread lawlessness, once prohibition was repealed. In fact the spirit of nationalism which grew from the Depression made it possible for us to gear up our military quickly enough for WW2.
November 18th, 2008 at 1:52 am#413
The only question I have with more regulation is "Where does it stop?" If passing laws by the government has taught us anything is that as more laws are passed the more our personal liberty get eroded....period. People rail against the current administration supposedly stomping on certain amendments but they seem to have no problem with making sure the government puts a firm grip on others. The 1st Amendment or the 4th is no more important than the 2nd.
"One inference that can be made from the last election is that the number is no bigger than thought."
Another that can be made is that many were brainwashed into thinking that an unqualified man will actually be able to deliver on his BS rhetoric.
"The same hardcore 20%ers would vote for the Great Satan if He wore a crucifix, carried a gun, and added an (R) after His name."
And the same hardcore 20% on the left will continue to vote for the same anti-American loons that would like nothing better than to turn my country into another Cuba.
"In neither scenario would I expect to be required to supply my own ordinance."
And it would be pretty much limited by the ones you might have to oppose.
November 18th, 2008 at 11:44 amThere you go sounding like a stupid troll, again. The whole "anti-American leftist" crap don't fly. Having studied leftist movements through history I am forced to conclude there is no leftist movement in the U.S. Even if there were such a movement most voices from the right can't seem to identify why moving "left" is so bad. And, if one looks to identify people who might cause a credible threat to civic peace? The right is disproportionally represented among the likely suspects.
Perhaps I'm too optimistic? Regardless, I'm still pretty sure that survival won't depend on private militias any time soon. And I certainly don't think the probability justifies regulations that don't keep deadly weapons out of the hands of mass murderers. I fully support the right of lawful, responsible, American citizens to bear arms. I merely question the suitability of military type weapons for casual ownership.
November 18th, 2008 at 5:09 pm"The whole “anti-American leftist” crap don’t fly."
Then you aren't listening because you choose not to. There are plenty of groups in the U.S. that would side with the politics of Chaves or Castro over their own country.
"Having studied leftist movements through history I am forced to conclude there is no leftist movement in the U.S."
That is because you are on the left and you don't see that far left liberals like Kuchinich and Nader represent people who subscribe to BS socialist ideas like state planned and run economies. Those two may not publically say it but they are damn near true socialists.
"Even if there were such a movement most voices from the right can’t seem to identify why moving “left” is so bad."
They identify it everyday, but you apparently choose not to listen because you, as someone on the left, prefer vast government entitlements and tight government control thru regulation over everything from the economy and the markets, to healthcare.
"And, if one looks to identify people who might cause a credible threat to civic peace? The right is disproportionally represented among the likely suspects."
That is because those on the far left would be on the side of big government. Only when the government starts to move more and more towards limiting individual liberty, which is what the far left is all about, would those on the far right start to justifiably push back.
"And I certainly don’t think the probability justifies regulations that don’t keep deadly weapons out of the hands of mass murderers."
I have STILL yet to see you present the empherical evidence the justifies such strict regulations you propose. The only thing I see your increase regulation suggestions doing is making sure the government knows who has the guns, not preventing less people from getting killed. It's a good theory, but I would prefer some hard evidence and not just theoretical assumptions.
"I fully support the right of lawful, responsible, American citizens to bear arms. I merely question the suitability of military type weapons for casual ownership."
Again where does the degree of regulation stop? The tighter regulations you are promoting won't fly with millions of law abiding gun owners.
November 18th, 2008 at 9:20 pmSlight correction....
Again where does the degree of regulation stop? The tighter regulations you are promoting won’t fly with the vast majority of law abiding gun owners.
November 18th, 2008 at 9:23 pmAh. You are operating under the false assumption that I am "on the left". Actually, I've never belonged to a political party and I vote for people based on their abilities, not their dogma. In fact, before the religious cultists started taking over, I was more likely to vote Republican. Alas. The unholy union of the deluded and their neocon masters has done immense harm to our society and it's far from over.
I'm not a Kucinich fan and Nader is a whiny punk who I would be delighted to beat the crap out of. Fortunately, most of the nation seems to agree with me and neither one has gotten much support. And they certainly don't represent a cohesive movement.
Where does the regulation stop? When we have a system that's more effective at keeping mass killing machines out of the hands of dangerous people. It seems pretty obvious to a life-long moderate like myself that the blanket "right to bear arms" has not kept up with technology. And if people are using legally acquired weapons for mass shootings? It's time to examine ways to improve the regulations.
November 19th, 2008 at 2:35 pm"You are operating under the false assumption that I am “on the left”."
Based on you previous posts in other threads that doesn't seem to be the case at all.
"When we have a system that’s more effective at keeping mass killing machines out of the hands of dangerous people."
And considering you are the one who falsely said that keeping and bearing arms is a privilege not right I can see why you lean towards more government regulation of the 2nd Amendment. Privileges can be removed and FYI the RIGHT to keep and bear arms cannot be taken away by the government.
BTW this woman rightly smacked Suchmucky Schummer upside the head and was dead on about what the 2nd Amendment is all about and this is what I have been rightly saying all along...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675
November 19th, 2008 at 9:27 pmYou are mistaking my contempt for the current administration, and certain factions which have seized a disproportionate influence in the GOP, for a philosophical allegiance to "the left". Believe me when I say that I would be delighted to have a better "tool" than the Democratic party with which to fight the Psychochristians and bloodthirsty idiots who claim "the right".
Since there are a number of ways one can forfeit the "right" to bear arms, and there are arms no private citizen may legally own, one must assume that using the word "right" is a bit of a semantic boondoggle.
Aside from adding a new emphasis on big clips I don't really propose much new legislation. As I have said, repeatedly, most of the ideas I would like to see tried for national firearms regulations already exist in state and local jurisdictions. And most of the rest were covered in the "assault weapon regulations" which expired in '04.
And yes, Greta tells a very compelling story. But...
November 20th, 2008 at 4:17 pmI don't know about Texas conceal/carry laws, however, here in Minnesota she could apply for a permit to carry a gun in her purse. Plus, while I don't know the legal standing of the shooter, I think it's safe to say that legislation which effectively kept weapons out of his hands could have prevented the whole tragedy and, assuming his weapons were bought legally, the tragedy could have been mitigated if he were restricted to one, or perhaps two, small capacity clips.
I might add that Greta didn't have a gun so there is no way of knowing what effect it may have had on the outcome. It's equally possible the shooter would have seen her pop around the table with a piece and shot her in the face before she got a round off.
November 20th, 2008 at 4:40 pmI just found your web site tonight for the first time. And I take offense at what you are saying. You think that anyone that owns a gun is a redneck and wants to start some kind of war or kill someone. I have owned guns for years and I enjoy it as much as someone who gets into other kinds of sports. I am very much into competing with the guns that I have. and have reloaded for years to keep the cost down so that I could enjoy them does that make me a bad person. All the guns that I have and all the rounds that I have sent down range have never hurt or injured a single person. That is a whole more than Senator Kennedy can say about the vehicles he has owned and the way he has conducted his self.
December 8th, 2008 at 8:52 pmI just came across this site too. I just want to add my two cents worth.
First, The President Elect says he does not want to take away the right to own a firearm. That is not true. Chicago has a ban on guns, he supports it. BTW, Chicago has one of the highest murder rates in the nation.
He is for limiting ammunition, micro stamping and making gun manufacturers liable for their product. Micro stamping will not work, Google it. Liability, can I sue a car manufacturer? Knife company, can Rodney King sue the makers of the batons?
Second, Everyone is so against these "assault weapons". First of all, assault weapons are already highly regulated. Please read the definition of an Assault Weapons:
1. (US) Any select fire firearm that allows semi-automatic and fully automatic operation, and is used or was once used by a military organization.
Many people on this board have been fed false information and think just because a weapon looks evil, it is. According to the Government less than 1% of all murders are committed by people using "evil guns".
Also, if you read up on Heller vs D.C., not what some journalist wrote, but the actual decision, you will learn that the court ruled on Parker v. District of Columbia. The scary part of the Parker v. District of Columbia ruling was that the police have no obligation to protect an individual citizen.
January 5th, 2009 at 7:38 pmI'm not sure how you people feel, but I for one want to protect my family and my property if the police are not in the business of doing so.
Lastly, "1935 will go down in History! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead to the future!" --Adolf Hitler
and
When they took the fourth amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.
When they took the sixth amendment, I was quiet because I was innocent.
When they took the second amendment, I was quiet because I didn't own a gun.
Now they've taken the first amendment, and I can say nothing about it.