|Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: finally, an honest democrat on gun control|
finally, an honest democrat on gun control
Posted - 2/15/2013 12:10:13 AM | show profile | flag this post
i remember stockton.. too well..
my son was one of the sergeants responding to the call..
took a LONG time to get over that one..
Posted - 2/15/2013 6:29:43 AM | show profile | flag this post
"The few I have seen for sale have been at auctions
and go for about $30,000 and up."
I fail to understand what you're trying to prove but just look back at your own post: "go for about $30,000 and up."
Now do you honestly think your average gangbanger is going to carry a $30,000 converted AK-47? If you do you're completely non compos mentis. Those things are in the hands of collectors...period.
The ONLY crime I know of committed with fully automatic AK-47s was the bank shootout in North Hollywood in which, incidentally, both robbers were killed but NO ONE ELSE.
Your exaggeration, hyperbole and constant attempts to change the subject are tedious.
Posted - 2/15/2013 9:36:52 AM | show profile | flag this post
Price is not the point
The point is that you constantly lie about fully automatics/machine guns being illegal ("NOT the semi-auto examples that are the ONLY ones legally sold in the US today..")
You can buy machine guns on line or at a gun show for a couple hundred bucks. They are NOT illegal, just pricey, and there's a lot of paperwork.
The Reagan gaffe was just a little embarassing, but you're used to that. Time to move on? Maybe??
Posted - 2/15/2013 11:46:38 AM | show profile | flag this post
Why do you keep pushing this insignificant point?
(A point that I have repeatedly acknowledged, by the way.) What is your agenda? To keep dishonestly implying that all the crooks are armed with fully automatic AK-47s?
The FACT is they're NOT...and you know that. It would be cost-prohibitive for them to even own one, let alone risk it by using it in high profile crimes.
Is your narrative so thin and shakey that you feel the need to embellish it with deception to gain support?
To reiterate, the ONLY crime in my memory that featured fully automatic AK-47s was the North Hollywood bank robbery in which both the robbers were killed...but NOBODY ELSE.
Patrick Purdy's firearm in the Stockton schoolyard incident was a semi-automatic AK-47 and doesn't even warrant a mention in a discussion of fully automatic firearms.
To further narrow the discussion, every case of mass shooting that I can remember in the last 40 years was perpetrated by nut cases...clearly a PEOPLE problem which you equally clearly don't want to acknowledge. Your reason I cannot fathom unless you want to give passes to the mentally deficient.
Why can't you participate in these discussions honestly and rationally?
Posted - 2/15/2013 12:48:06 PM | show profile | flag this post
i'd just reoterate what i said after sandy hook..
any weapon capable of sending a hundred rounds downrange in less than a minute is an automatic weapon.. or as automatic as it needs to be..
you're parsing terms over a very narrow window to argue otherwise..
Posted - 2/15/2013 1:13:36 PM | show profile | flag this post
And yet...by your own admission...
despite several tries you...a self-described former cop...couldn't get 100 rounds downrange in a minute or less.
So you are exaggeating like dogson.
The semi-automatic military look-alikes remain exactly what they are: SEMI-automatic, meaning only one round per trigger pull as opposed to a fully automatic that will fire continuous bursts as long as the trigger is held back.
That is an important distinction but one the left wing desperately tries to obscure.
Posted - 2/15/2013 1:42:35 PM | show profile | flag this post
Wrong again Cruiser...
There is a video on youtube which shows how to fire a stock AR 15 like a fully automatic weapon. That's not even the point. As usual, YOU are the one not listening. A gun with 100 round capability is still an extremely deadly weapon only firing one round at a time. Again, it is when shooters need to reload they can be stopped. Giving someone a weapon with that many rounds is plain stupid. There is NO WAY you can justify that kind of firepower for anyone not in the military or on a police force. You don't need that many rounds for hunting or for personal protection. Period. You were again unable to meet my challenge.
Posted - 2/15/2013 1:58:19 PM | show profile | flag this post
livin.. he will do anything to save his specious argument..
the fact is that i did send more than 80 rounds downrange in less than a minute..
the effect on the targets was the same..
and what he neglects to mention is that firing with a sinhgle trrigger pull every time actually makes the weapon MORE deadly accurate..in that the full-auto fire tends to be hard to control..barrel wants to wander up and to the right..
you'd think cruiztwit.. the world's greatest gun expert..would remember that, wouldn't you?
Posted - 2/15/2013 2:01:40 PM | show profile | flag this post
You're being as dishonest as the rest of the radical left
Your hang-up on "100 rounds" implies a 100-round magazine (which are inherently unreliable) and which most firearms enthusiasts would gladly see restricted to the military and law enforcement only.
So drop the exaggeration and hyperbole. It has no legitimate place in the current discussion.
Posted - 2/18/2013 10:22:06 AM | show profile | flag this post
"a complete elimination of assault weapons would not have a large impact on gun homicides."
"Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is
large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun
buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective."
this memo shows what the nra and republicans warning of- democrat backed restricts on the rights of gun owners will be ineffective unless it is paired with gun registration and gun confiscation.
which is the ultimate goal of the left.
Posted - 2/18/2013 11:48:12 AM | show profile | flag this post
Weapons and ammunition are not political. People are political.
Fortunately, the political right has adherents who are able to examine the issue in practical, thoughtful human terms. Cruiser is an island unto his sociopathic self.
Posted - 2/18/2013 11:50:56 AM | show profile | flag this post
Con, you swallowed what you posted as being objective and definitive? You sure don't like to think very hard.
There's the "about" from the site you've cited:
"The Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the lobbying arm of the NRA. Established in 1975, ILA is committed to preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
"ILA’s ability to fight successfully for the rights of America’s law-abiding gun owners directly reflects the support of NRA’s nearly 4 million members—a number that has more than tripled since 1978. When restrictive “gun control” legislation is proposed at the local, state or federal level, NRA members and supporters are alerted and respond with individual letters, faxes, e-mails and calls to their elected representatives to make their views known."
Posted - 2/18/2013 12:20:30 PM | show profile | flag this post
speaking of not thinking hard,
national institute of justice is a part of the department of justice. that is were the paper came from. it wasn't invented by the nra.
of course, deadline, you would have known this by reading what was linked to. you look a bit a fool by not reading what is linked before you attack the source and the person posting the source.
this paper backs up several studies that have proven neither the assault weapons ban or universal background checks will reduce mass shootings or gun violence.
the left knows the truth. the left just doesn't want anyone to know what their true intentions are.
Posted - 2/18/2013 1:25:29 PM | show profile | flag this post
Another honest rupublican on gun control
Why do gun advocates speak as if the only valid opinions on guns are those of people who shoot them, never the people shot by them?
- David Frum (fmr. Bush speechwriter)
Sent 1 hour ago
Posted - 2/18/2013 1:35:13 PM | show profile | flag this post
Most living people who have suffered gunshots
no longer have objective opinions. Hard to accept, perhaps, but quite true.
Posted - 2/18/2013 2:13:12 PM | show profile | flag this post
Con, the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action is an outfit with an agenda. You read sources that cherry pick to suit a bias that is all in the same direction. When you come up with a URL for an impartial source, or for two URLs for sources biased from different perspectives, then you'll have done something informative. This was not.
Y'all might enjoy this opinion piece that ran Saturday in the Wall Street Journal (owned by Rupert Murdoch): "A Gun Lover on Why Our Gun Debate Is Off Target: America's gun owners have every right to object to sweeping controls, but until they take responsibility for their own role in accidents and violence, they're setting themselves up for more regulation."
The first four grafs:
"Believe it or not, what's missing from the current shout-fest over guns and gun control is the voice of gun owners.
"Yes, the National Rifle Association has been screaming its head off since the tragedy at Sandy Hook, but the NRA doesn't speak for the country's 100 million gun owners. If it did, it wouldn't have just four million members. Some "gun guys" (as I like to call them) probably support the NRA without joining, but if only 4% are signing up, it's safe to say a large majority of them want nothing to do with the NRA's angry extremism.
"As for those on the gun-control side, they often go beyond calling for policy changes, about which reasonable people can disagree, and issue broad-brush insults that aren't acceptable in other contexts. When sportscaster Bob Costas blames 'gun culture' for the murder-suicide of an NFL linebacker, gun owners say, 'Wait a minute. I'm gun culture. And my guns haven't hurt anybody.'
"A lot of assumptions are made about gun owners, by the NRA and gun-control proponents alike. What nobody ever seems to do, though, is listen to them."
I think this hits the nail on the head about the current discussion in this forum.
Posted - 2/18/2013 2:32:42 PM | show profile | flag this post
what part of the doj memo is wrong?
did the" National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action" invent or not post the entire memo?
i know. i know. when you can't debate the facts attack the source.
the memo speaks for itself. which is backed up by studies.
hopefully americans will start paying attention and see what the left really wants.
and baum isn't exactly a impartial fellow. is he?
Posted - 2/18/2013 3:04:54 PM | show profile | flag this post
Hero Cruiser is Right
Once you've been shot, you should NEVER be allowed to express an opinion about guns again. You'll be prejudiced by the big hole blown into your body.
That's why cruiser is the ONLY source to trust on subjects like sex, education, politics, journalism, climate and a host of others.
He has NO experience to prejudice his virgin opinions.
Posted - 2/18/2013 6:33:09 PM | show profile | flag this post
con, your posts are so odd that they're nearly impossible to respond to -- which is probably why nobody does respond to them.
Someday with loads and loads of time, I may try to explain to you how to evaluate sources of information for bias, but today isn't that day. The same for the foreseeable future. Thank you for asking.
Posted - 2/19/2013 9:26:27 AM | show profile | flag this post
in other words, grateful went on the attack before she actually read and understood what was in the link.
so typical gratefuldead.