Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Svifnymr]

What I found deeply amusing is that the official definition of an assault weapon in the last federal ban says that an assault riffle has any two of the following characteristics.

1.Folding or telescoping stock
2.Pistol grip
3.Bayonet mount
4.Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
5.Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

So you could stick a grenade launcher on a wood stock basic rifle and it would be legal. But a pistol grip and folding stock would not be. Some how, I find a grenade launcher to be more of a threat then a pistol grip and folding stock.

The new law bans 1 feature, though they dropped bayonet mounts, they kept threaded barrels for handguns, so all the competition guns with threaded barrels for recoil reducers are assault weapons.

They fixate on grenade launchers and silencers an awful lot in the new ban. Both are regulated under the National Firearms Act, and I can't recall any legal silencers used in a crime, let alone the last time a legal grenade launcher would have been.

Amusingly enough, given Feinstein's state, a lot of these laws hurt the movie industry too.

[Kujako]

They fixate on grenade launchers and silencers an awful lot in the new ban. Both are regulated under the National Firearms Act, and I can't recall any legal silencers used in a crime, let alone the last time a legal grenade launcher would have been.

Pity really since silencers and flash suppressors increase the safety of fire arms. Not the getting shot part, but the burns and deafening noise part.

[Svifnymr]

B: You don't need an AR-15 to go hunting. One Bullet is all you need. Shooting more into an open area in my humble point of view is reckless.

He had a 6 shot rifle, I wonder if he left the rest empty? Either way, he didn't sight in his rifle this year, seems a bit irresponsible. Or maybe he's just a liar, in a political ad, either could be true I guess.

C: It shows the progressive action now starting to target those who are blocking common sense gun reform. Instead of hoping they will pass something. They are targeting people who are blocking it up

It shows that political advertisements will use whatever means they can to try to sway public opinion against their opponent.

---------- Post added 2013-02-25 at 12:55 PM ----------

Pity really since silencers and flash suppressors increase the safety of fire arms. Not the getting shot part, but the burns and deafening noise part.

NFA Branch is so backed up, transfers are taking 6 months right now. Silencers are more popular than ever. Grenade launchers are a rich-mans toy, since ammo is regulated except for chalk practice rounds.

But of course, if Feinsteins ban goes through, you wouldn't be allowed to thread barrels anymore for handguns.

My 22lr SIG Mosquito Assault Weapon.

[Tinykong]

C: It shows the progressive action now starting to target those who are blocking common sense gun reform. Instead of hoping they will pass something. They are targeting people who are blocking it up.

Interesting that you bring up this tactic, since the anti-gun movement is targetting the extreme outliers of mass killings commited with "assault weapons" as justification to restrict rights of millions of other Americans. Instead of attacking the causes (society of violence, gangs, mental illness) they attack the method and perpetrators of a tiny, insignificant fraction of total gun violence.

[Svifnymr]

Which the .223 rem happens to be a a favorite of many for varmint hunting, fox, coyotes, coons, ect.

What do you know about hunting? Have you ever been hunting? How about in the woods of appalachia? Ever turned a corner in the woods and walked into a bear or a wild hog? There's a reason that many hunters carry guns with higher capacity magazines and its not for what they're hunting, it's for whats hunting them.

There are also guns mentioned by name, as exempt;


or as specifically banned:


So yeah, I guess plastic is a no-no. It's the old definition EBR= Evil Black Rifle.

---------- Post added 2013-02-25 at 01:02 PM ----------

Interesting that you bring up this tactic, since the anti-gun movement is targetting the extreme outliers of mass killings commited with "assault weapons" as justification to restrict rights of millions of other Americans. Instead of attacking the causes (society of violence, gangs, mental illness) they attack the method and perpetrators of a tiny, insignificant fraction of total gun violence.

As the National Institute of Justice says in the memo I linked earlier;
"Fatalities from mass shootings (those with 4 or more victims in a particular place and time) account on average for 35 fatalities per year. Policies that address the larger firearm homicide issue will have a far greater impact even if they do not address the particular issues of mass shootings."

[ugotownd]

The point is

A: Mitch is up for re-election in 2014. 55 percent of people in his own state do not approve of his is job. It's quite transparent he will lose to a Dem in an upcoming election

B: You don't need an AR-15 to go hunting. One Bullet is all you need. Shooting more into an open area in my humble point of view is reckless.

C: It shows the progressive action now starting to target those who are blocking common sense gun reform. Instead of hoping they will pass something. They are targeting people who are blocking it up

D: Money does not equal how a measure will pass. If that was true. Romney outspent Obama yet still lost the election despite a large gap in money.

I'm not sure why the money matters. But you asked so the purpose of bringing it up.

First off hunting with a single round is not only stupid it's inhumane. Even the best trained marksman which most hunters aren't can miss a perfect kill shot. So I guess you have no problem with letting the deer suffer for hours while it bleeds to death.

The second amendment says nothing about hunting and in most states AR15's are illegal to hunt with due to there lack of stopping power. Your own Vice President that you voted for specifically told you to go outside and shoot two rounds off to scare people and you talk about hunters shooting twice. Lol. We won't even get into all the other issues with his retard statement.

This is exactly how the democrats and there backers (moveon.org) operate. If they don't get there way they spent more and more money to push the people who stop them out. As always fixing the elections.

Here is that stupid common sense gun laws crap again. This is the dumbest saying ever made by the antigun crowd. It's only common sense when you believe it. You want common sense how about you enforce the laws that already exist that's common sense. Obama has seen a decline of over 40% in charges to your already common sense laws on the books already. So what makes you think they will enforce any new ones.

I still wonder everyday how any of these new "common sense" gun laws will change anything with the way illegal weapons are obtained. I guess every gangster selling a weapon on the street will have an iPhone app to run a background check or will only carry 10 round magazines. Your new laws will do nothing to stop violence.

[Tinykong]

I still wonder everyday how any of these new "common sense" gun laws will change anything with the way illegal weapons are obtained. I guess every gangster selling a weapon on the street will have an iPhone app to run a background check or will only carry 10 round magazines. Your new laws will do nothing to stop violence.

I'm really, really getting tired of this administration and it's use of the term "common sense" when discussing laws and regulation. I feel like they are applying that description to whatever they are pushing to confuse people into thinking that it is in their benefit, since complicated legal language is beyond their understanding, and they are just an idiot simpleton who is better off leaving their rights in someone else's hands.

Common sense says that you do something that will have an impact. Spending Federal resources to prevent 34 deaths a year is an absolutely asinine waste of money, when it's clear to everyone that handgun violence outweighs "assault weapon" crime so largely that it's borderline hilarious that the anti-gun lobby doesn't bring it up.

Inb4 "oh we can't tackle handgun bans because it's too hard, assault weapon bans are an easy first step." Hint: the SCOTUS already upheld handgun ownership...no wonder it's not being targetted. /rolleyes

[PhaelixWW]

It's obvious to see the Republicans are facing a long losing battle. Denying this is to deny reality. Unless they change their message. Proof of that is transparent. You do see the thread titled "What do Republicans have to do to become relevant again" If that's not enough again a poll out right now shows 55 percent of people do not approve of his job.

I'm sorry, wasn't it you who was, just a few days ago, screaming at people for claiming to predict the outcome of a supreme court case that doesn't even exist yet? And now you're pretending to be clairvoyant for an event over a year and half away?

Guess who is going step in race against him a highly popular Hollywood figure. Ashley Judd. It's not "Absolutely Ridiculous" It's logical.

Logical, huh?

Publicpolicypolling.com article:

McConnell very unpopular, but leads potential foes

Mitch McConnell is the most unpopular Senator in the country. Only 37% of Kentucky voters approve of him to 55% disapprove. [...]

As unpopular as McConnell is, [...], he leads all of the Democrats we tested against him in head to head match ups. 3 of them- Lieutenant Governor Jerry Abramson, Attorney General and 2010 nominee Jack Conway, and actress Ashley Judd- come within 4 points of McConnell at 47/43. Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer trails by 5 at 46/41, Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes has a 7 point deficit at 47/40, Congressman John Yarmuth is down 10 at 48/38, former Ambassador Matthew Barzun lags 48/37, and State Auditor Adam Edelen trails by 12 at 48/36.

The reason McConnell does decently well in the head to head match ups despite his poor approval numbers is that even though a lot of Republicans dislike him, most of them would still vote for him in a general election before they would support a Democrat.

Hunting is part of 2nd rights. I am not disputing that. You do not seem to be understanding the point of the AD. It says you only need one bullet at a time to fire. Not a dozen.

I'm pretty sure, despite your misrepresentation of the issue, that hunters using an AR-15 still only shoot one round at a time. They're not automatic, after all. One pull of the trigger = one shot. If you can find some link that shows that hunters using AR-15s to hunt generally shoot 12 rounds at one target, then we can entertain your point of view here.

Sandy Hook was a game changer. All those attempts in the past. Wipe the slate clean. Sandy woke up America that's why you see such an intense debate about it because something is actually getting done. It was THE moment in history when people look back to how we pased common sense Gun Reform.

What, like Columbine? Which happened despite the most restrictive gun reform in US history?

Sandy Hook was a horrible tragedy, but its blunt emotional impact will fade quickly until people realize that it wasn't a sign of the end of days after all, it was merely a statistical anomaly in an exceedingly downward trend in gun violence.

Again you do not have to like or agree with my answers. But they are logical. I even have a poll to back up what I'm saying about Mitch. What makes you think he will win re-election.

And as my poll showed, your poll doesn't mean much by itself.

So no, not logical.

Just because I agree with a certain AD You don't need an assault weapon to go hunting sprays dozens of bullets.

AR-15s, not being automatic, don't "spray" bullets. Please stop using this utterly misleading word.

As for the poster above me. No need to lay threat to ignore me. It's quite obviously when you asked why I posted the video in the first place. You lost the entire point of my post. You ignored the Poll showing Mitch having a massive disadvantage in his own state. You rejected the one bullet at a time argument. No need to ignore me. I'll just kindly ignore you.

So... they shouldn't threaten to ignore you? But you're going to ignore them? And not even for being what you consider "insulting", but just because they disagreed with your talking points?

Why do I suddenly have the image of a 5-year-old sticking their fingers in their ears, saying "lalalalala..."

At best, your statement is very hypocritical.

Again I do not have a problem with a debate. At all. But when you honestly can see WHY I posted an AD. When I link an article, with a poll. It's not my responsibility to make sure you understand its quite obvious.

Ignoring people for disputing your point of view is definitely having a problem with debate, since that's the whole point of a debate in the first place.

And your ad, article, and poll are not proof of what you think they are. As evidenced by my rebuttal argument.

I just wish you would stop labouring under the delusion that having you respond to my posts is some kind of a right, I post to correct you false statements and I have no desire to have you giving me the same untrue answer 3 times in a row.

This, 100%.

If we were to stop correcting the falsities in yours (and others) posts simply because you weren't interested in having to back up your position by responding to us, then we'd lose the discussion. All you're really doing by ignoring people is trying to bully them into not posting. Do you have something against free speech? If we're insulting, then we'll receive infractions, and the forum will take care of itself.

And I, for one, can't let most of the misleading, uneducated, and often blatantly false statements made in this thread go unopposed.

It's not factually incorrect statements. I posted a POLL. How many times must I repeat that.

Please, Fused, I would like your interpretation, then, on the poll that I linked earlier in this post. If polls are the unbiased arbiters of truth and fact, then surely you'd have to agree that your position on the subject is wrong?

Amusingly enough, given Feinstein's state, a lot of these laws hurt the movie industry too.

As far as I'm aware, the film industry has an exception to the assault weapons laws with approval from the CA DoJ. I'm sure there are storage and usage restrictions, even with the exception, but still.

[Svifnymr]

As far as I'm aware, the film industry has an exception to the assault weapons laws with approval from the CA DoJ. I'm sure there are storage and usage restrictions, even with the exception, but still.

Yeah, they're exempted from Cali's own AWB, but AFAIK there's no proposed exemption for them in the national AWB she submitted.

[Tinykong]

Yeah, they're exempted from Cali's own AWB, but AFAIK there's no proposed exemption for them in the national AWB she submitted.

I'm sure they will get a special exemption, a.k.a. our lobbyists convinced the government that we're responible enough to use these guns, but you are not.

[Jaxi]

Interesting that you bring up this tactic, since the anti-gun movement is targetting the extreme outliers of mass killings commited with "assault weapons" as justification to restrict rights of millions of other Americans. Instead of attacking the causes (society of violence, gangs, mental illness) they attack the method and perpetrators of a tiny, insignificant fraction of total gun violence.

Going to borrow this for the future.

[Svifnymr]

I'm sure they will get a special exemption, a.k.a. our lobbyists convinced the government that we're responible enough to use these guns, but you are not.

They didn't last time and it's not in the submitted bill, but you never know.

It would be amusing if folks formed internet film companies to get guns they wanted though.

[PhaelixWW]

Yeah, they're exempted from Cali's own AWB, but AFAIK there's no proposed exemption for them in the national AWB she submitted.

Without digging through Section 922 of Title 18 of the USC, I can't come up with the specific phrase, but I'm sure it's there. Keep in mind that Feinstein's bill would be inserted into Section 922 in the exact place of the expired 1994 ban. The existing law around it, I'm sure, already allows for a specific exemption for permit-holders.

The ability to get a permit is generally difficult, but is usually given to film and TV studios.

[FusedMass]

Snip.

I already stated several, several pages back It would be counter productive to continue a discussion with you. Not because of you're misguided attempt to believe "I'm ignoring information" that is not true. It's the condescending tone in you post. I am too tempted to reply to something that relates to your personality rather then the issue. That is the key in the debates. Attack the argument itself. Not the person there is a difference. I only un-blocked you once this. I have a personal right to debate with who I want and when posters attack the person (oh uneducated don't know talking about etc) that crosses the line and I will dignity nothing you wrote about with a response. I already told you till you can cut the condensing language from your post and have a civil, respectful debate then I will have nothing to do with you. You can continue posting to me. It doesn't mean I will reply. Now to other posters.

As for on topic. I'm on a lunch break obviously I cannot reply to everyone. I will say this. I am not the ONLY person in this thread you need to wait on to have a discussion in this thread to function. Mitch in my personal point of view will lose. 55 percent do not approve of the job he is doing. There is a civil war right now with extreme tea party members, and Republicans. Dems will simply show up and clean up whatever is left.

Even the thread "How to make republican party more relevant" shows a steady decline in their influence. Sooner or later they will be removed from Majority in the House and the Dems will take control of White House, Senate and House in my point of view. It may be a while before we can get a full majority (few years) but it will happen.

As for Vice President. Yes I saw the NRA ad painting him. How hypocritical for them to support background checks back in 2000 then refuse to support them. They're nothing more then a lobbing group. People completely miss the point Joe was trying to provide an example that Dems are not against Guns. THAT was the point. They're not trying to repeal right to bear arms.

If people want to say certain weapons are EXACTLY like AR-15 expect without all the cosmetic features virtually no difference. Then why do you care so much if they're banned. Because you cannot get a purple pistol grip.

Also Obama hasn't said what is defined as a Military Style Assault weapon people are assuming its going to be what was covered in the original ban. However that banned hand guns as well and obviously left open a lot of loop holes. The supreme court never defined what is an assault weapon. I repeated this the official defined is different state to state. So we don't know which weapons exactly would be banned.

Again argue all you want that the Gov is

A: trying take our weapons

B: Assault weapons shouldn't be banned for cosmetic features

C: Supreme court will never hear the case (even though they already heard it once)

D: No Gun Controls bills will be passed.

I humbly and respectfully do not agree. I see a slow but shifting attitude to Gun Control. States like situation with Sandy Hook and others have already passed Gun Laws and others are in the process of doing so. Look on the front page for which Gun Control is being passed at Sandy Hook.

[xylophone]

I already stated several, several pages back It would be counter productive to continue a discussion with you.

I think the most relevant thing to say here would be "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

[Tinykong]

If people want to say certain weapons are EXACTLY like AR-15 expect without all the cosmetic features virtually no difference. Then why do you care so much if they're banned. Because you cannot get a purple pistol grip.

Because millions of people own and use these every year without killing anyone, and a lot of people have a problem with the actions of a few dictating the rights of millions. Personally, I wouldn't own one of these guns because I have no practical purpose for it, but I want to limit what the government says I can and cannot do as much as possible, and I understand the dangerous precident that would be set if we restricted Constitutionally protected rights based on knee jerk reactions to statistically insigificant events.

[FusedMass]

I think the most relevant thing to say here would be "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

Maybe I was grown up a different way with a strict family on being polite and low tolerance for people who do not properly do that. However that is equal to Mitt Romney saying "Good for goose good for gander" I actually waited so I could reply to one person before I have to return. I was sincerely hoping it would someone that related to the topic not to the personality of another poster.

If I engage and communicate with negative statements then I only feeding and making that stronger. I really really wished the first person to responded had something VALID to say on the subject of the thread. Sadly, that's not the case. But whatever I have replied. Now Proceed with you're Discussion till I'm over later tonight to give others a chance to reply.

[PhaelixWW]

I really really wished the first person to responded had something VALID to say on the subject of the thread. Sadly, that's not the case.

Well, you ignored all the valid points I made in order to focus on me and make it sound like I was being insulting.

If you want to respond to something valid, then respond to the article and poll that I linked that refutes your interpretation of the poll you referenced.

[xylophone]

Well, you ignored all the valid points I made in order to focus on me and make it sound like I was being insulting.

If you want to respond to something valid, then respond to the article and poll that I linked that refutes your interpretation of the poll you referenced.

Pfffft, not with that negative attitude Mr. Rudey-pants!

[Tinykong]

Well, you ignored all the valid points I made in order to focus on me and make it sound like I was being insulting.

If you want to respond to something valid, then respond to the article and poll that I linked that refutes your interpretation of the poll you referenced.

He hat tipped and left already. Maybe we'll be gifted a reply later, but only after we sit in time out on ignore and think about how bad we were.