RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives?

RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Musicmystery -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 7:45:59 PM)
And I'll keep going on about it until the other states catch up. This whole thing is 18 pages of circles.

subrob1967 -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 8:23:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark The AR-15 used in Colorado for example was designed and built for the US military.....I'd say that makes it an assault weapon....The military rarely buys weapons not made to KILL PEOPLE....I'd say killing is indeed assault. You would be wrong, S&W doesn't make military grade AR rifles, they only make civilian semi automatic versions. Just because the gun looks like a Colt, or Armilite, doesn't make it so. It doesn't have a selector switch, burst, or full automatic modes.

subrob1967 -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 8:25:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Did you really just say that it was better to engage an armed opponent unarmed? Really? BTW, Holmes wasn't wearing body armor, he was wearing tactical clothing, a big difference the typical reporter doesn't know... They see the word tactical and think bulletproof, it's not it's bullet resistant. Holmes spent $300 on clothes bought at TacticalGear.com. That being said, the theater wasn't completely dark, they never are. But between the tear gas and movie flashing on the big screen in the background, engaging Holmes with a firearm would be a lose lose proposition. One of the rules to ccw is knowing when NOT to risk your life or the lives of bystanders. I really did say it was preferable in that situation just like you did. Has there ever been a mass murder stopped by a civilian with a gun? Charles Whitman had civilians shooting back at him. Most mass murderers choose gun free zones, like schools and theaters for a reason.

slvemike4u -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 8:38:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OsideGirl quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: Without the NRA You would have been regulated to muzzle loaders long time ago. Without the NRA, people would be buying guns responsibly, with waiting periods and background checks, and not stocking up at gun shows -- like Holmes just did. You keep going on about that...but the fact remains that it varies by state and a lot of states already have waiting periods and background checks......whether the guns are bought at a gun show or not. Bullshit,google "gun show loophole" It's called private selling,and it is done all the time,sometimes in bulk !

BamaD -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 8:54:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: OsideGirl quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: Without the NRA You would have been regulated to muzzle loaders long time ago. Without the NRA, people would be buying guns responsibly, with waiting periods and background checks, and not stocking up at gun shows -- like Holmes just did. You keep going on about that...but the fact remains that it varies by state and a lot of states already have waiting periods and background checks......whether the guns are bought at a gun show or not. Bullshit,google "gun show loophole" It's called private selling,and it is done all the time,sometimes in bulk ! The fact that it happens at a gun show doesn't make it part of the gun show. How do you expect the people running the gun show to know that I am selling a gun to someone when no one associated with the show is involved in any way. In Al I can sell my gun to anyone I want to without a background check. Is it a loophole if I agree to meet someone after the show to buy a gun? Who do you penalize the show organizer who doesn't know the transaction is taken place, the nearest dealer to were the tranaction took place, maybe the Representative of the district where the transaction took place. It is an unenforceable strawman whose only purpose is to shut down gun shows. Sounds great but the devilis in the details.

slvemike4u -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 9:12:55 PM)
No one can be this dense....even if he is from Alabama [8\|]

mnottertail -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 9:16:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: OsideGirl quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: Without the NRA You would have been regulated to muzzle loaders long time ago. Without the NRA, people would be buying guns responsibly, with waiting periods and background checks, and not stocking up at gun shows -- like Holmes just did. You keep going on about that...but the fact remains that it varies by state and a lot of states already have waiting periods and background checks......whether the guns are bought at a gun show or not. Bullshit,google "gun show loophole" It's called private selling,and it is done all the time,sometimes in bulk ! The fact that it happens at a gun show doesn't make it part of the gun show. How do you expect the people running the gun show to know that I am selling a gun to someone when no one associated with the show is involved in any way. In Al I can sell my gun to anyone I want to without a background check. Is it a loophole if I agree to meet someone after the show to buy a gun? Who do you penalize the show organizer who doesn't know the transaction is taken place, the nearest dealer to were the tranaction took place, maybe the Representative of the district where the transaction took place. It is an unenforceable strawman whose only purpose is to shut down gun shows. Sounds great but the devilis in the details. Nobody is talking about buying a gun after the show, thats illegal prima facie. It is the transactions at the show. and they dont give a glimmer of a fuck about the shows organizers, nor the guys doing everything legally nor shutting down the show. they want the bad apples dead to rights.

BamaD -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 9:34:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Nobody is talking about buying a gun after the show, thats illegal prima facie. It is the transactions at the show. and they dont give a glimmer of a fuck about the shows organizers, nor the guys doing everything legally nor shutting down the show. they want the bad apples dead to rights. In Alabama it is perfectly legal done all the time. I have even used police officers as references to assure people I was selling a completly legit gun. Maybe illegal were you live but not here.

mnottertail -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 9:48:54 PM)
Nuh uh. just fuckin nuh uh. It is illegal in federal law end of joke and has been since 1968. the expansion of what like 1986 or so would allow a ffl to transact business at either the license addy or a gunshow addy with advanced permission.....if you aint an FFL then... here easier to link to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States What comes about is this, if you are at gunshows constantly and making offsite sales, how the fuck are you a casual seller, no denying it, you aint. And you are fucking honest americans like me. Who are licensed, inspected and held to the law. And you can trade in all sorts of guns, hell even more than I do. Don't ever sit here and howl about the constitution or the law ever again and be a fuckin illegal arms dealer, goddammit.

BamaD -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 10:07:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Nuh uh. just fuckin nuh uh. It is illegal in federal law end of joke and has been since 1968. the expansion of what like 1986 or so would allow a ffl to transact business at either the license addy or a gunshow addy with advanced permission.....if you aint an FFL then... here easier to link to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States What comes about is this, if you are at gunshows constantly and making offsite sales, how the fuck are you a casual seller, no denying it, you aint. And you are fucking honest americans like me. Who are licensed, inspected and held to the law. And you can trade in all sorts of guns, hell even more than I do. Don't ever sit here and howl about the constitution or the law ever again and be a fuckin illegal arms dealer, goddammit. You don't know what you are talking about. For starters I have not hsd a gun for sale in about 5 years, traded one 2 years ago, bought one from private citizen a year ago. In Alabama all of these transactions are open and legal there is even a section for people selling guns in our local magazine for selling all kinds of used items. Never said I constantly make private sales at gun shows. In fact I have only done that once and it was to a dealer. You read what you want to and react to what you want me to have said. Ps this kind of abusive lanuage it what got the Zimmerman threads shut down, you trying to do the same for this one.

mnottertail -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 10:14:39 PM)
You are full of shit as a christmas goose. goddammit, nobody gives a fiddlers fuck what you guys do when you are alone. That has nothing to do with the gunshow loophole or gun control,. nobody, and I mean nobody, including the fuckin ATF give a fuck about your pickaninny asses. I know exactly what I am talking about, we are talking about business level gun deals in great numbers and you are talkin about offerin 40 bucks for paws old fuckin double barrel. Nobody gives a shit, not the government, the ATF, the cops, the goddamn crackwhore raised you, nobody. Dont come up with that stupid off topic shit like you are important and have something to contribute, statewise I would think damn near every state is like that, and private casual transactions (which I have repeatedly pointed out) are no fucking part or parcel of this. Now had you been paying attention, you make a deal at a gunshow (ffl or not, no difference) but buy that gun off site it is illegal. it was a business arms length transaction and must be carried all the way thru as such. Thats different than you trading your wife for a fuckin .22. Pay attention.

BamaD -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 10:28:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail You are full of shit as a christmas goose. goddammit, nobody gives a fiddlers fuck what you guys do when you are alone. That has nothing to do with the gunshow loophole or gun control,. nobody, and I mean nobody, including the fuckin ATF give a fuck about your pickaninny asses. I know exactly what I am talking about, we are talking about business level gun deals in great numbers and you are talkin about offerin 40 bucks for paws old fuckin double barrel. Nobody gives a shit, not the government, the ATF, the cops, the goddamn crackwhore raised you, nobody. Dont come up with that stupid off topic shit like you are important and have something to contribute, statewise I would think damn near every state is like that, and private casual transactions (which I have repeatedly pointed out) are no fucking part or parcel of this. Now had you been paying attention, you make a deal at a gunshow (ffl or not, no difference) but buy that gun off site it is illegal. it was a business arms length transaction and must be carried all the way thru as such. Thats different than you trading your wife for a fuckin .22. Pay attention. You pay attention this started with my responding to a statement that the gun show loophole was private sales between private individuals. You went off the deep end and jumped tothe erronious conclusion that I was some kind or evil gun runner. Your inability to make a single civil post with anyone you diagree with betrays your insecurity and your belief that you can bully people into agreeing with you. Another count upon which you are wrong.

DomKen -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 10:54:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin You want to go round and round over semantics then have a blast. The point I was making on my original post is the semi-auto that civillains can buy will be designated as AR-15. The military select fire version will be designated M-16 and mainly the fact that the semi-auto version is by definition not an assault rifle. Good Grief. The AR-15 is by definition an assault rifle. It is a lighter weight weapon firing a high velocity low caliber cartridge. It is lighter than the traditional battle rifle, for instance FN-FAL or M14, but heavier than the present generation of submachineguns. In order for it to be an assult rifle it must be capable of automatic fire. All AR-15's are capable of automatic fire. The capability is inherent in the engineering. The earliest models of AR-15 even had the three position switch as they were sold to the military not civilian market (Colt model 601 and 602).

BamaD -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 11:01:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen In order for it to be an assult rifle it must be capable of automatic fire. All AR-15's are capable of automatic fire. The capability is inherent in the engineering. The earliest models of AR-15 even had the three position switch as they were sold to the military not civilian market (Colt model 601 and 602). Any semi auto can be converted to full auto, the AR needs a different sear than the one it is sold with. I once new a guy who converted a ruger 10/22 to full auto, Course he lost a leg when he shot himself with an M1 rifle.

DomKen -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/24/2012 12:25:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: In order for it to be an assult rifle it must be capable of automatic fire. All AR-15's are capable of automatic fire. The capability is inherent in the engineering. The earliest models of AR-15 even had the three position switch as they were sold to the military not civilian market (Colt model 601 and 602). Any semi auto can be converted to full auto, the AR needs a different sear than the one it is sold with. I once new a guy who converted a ruger 10/22 to full auto, Course he lost a leg when he shot himself with an M1 rifle. Like I said. So the AR-15 is an assault rifle.

tweakabelle -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/24/2012 12:49:38 AM)
Is there any reason why people might actually NEED an automatic rifle? I'm trying to think of a valid reason for possessing one. I'm unable to think of any legal circumstance where a single action rifle would not suffice. If any reasons exist, they appear to be pretty exceptional. In that case, why can't those automatic rifles* that people may really need (as opposed to imagine they need) be stored at a secure central location (eg a police station) and signed in and out as the occasion arises? I believe a system along these lines operates here and seems to work well. It satisfies all legitimate needs while offering security to all. It would certainly inhibit the circulation of automatic rifles, which can only be a good thing. * inc models that can be converted to full automatic easily

mtcouple -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/24/2012 1:17:24 AM)
Oh boy, what a mess- The AR-15 pattern rifle can be an assault rifle (select fire) or a standard self loading rifle depending on how it is configured. The military tends to go for the select fire versions, and designates them as an M16, M4, ect, based on barrel length and a couple of other criteria. There exist select fire AR-15's that are neither M16's, M4's or any other military model numbers, because they are configured different than what the military calls for. You will find that most of these guns will be owned by police departments. An M16 or an M4 can not be semi auto only, because in order to meet the military requirements, they must be select fire. AR-15's that were designed to be semi auto only would require a lot of work to convert into a select fire. It is not as simple as changing the sear. Many guns would require special machining in order for the auto sear to fit. Also, basically every part in the fire control group would need to be changed, and on many guns, the bolt carrier would need to be changed as well. It's not the early guns that have 3 position selector switches, it is all select fire guns (safe, semi auto, auto or burst). Semi auto only guns have 2 position selector switches- Safe, and semi auto. It's pretty simple really, Assault rifles are capable of firing in burst or full auto, and have 3 position safeties. Semi auto AR-15's are not capable of firing in full auto without a considerable amount of time and replacement parts, have 2 position selector switches, and are not assault rifles. Oh, and for the record, a semi auto rifle can make a great hunting rifle. The 5.56mm round fired by most AR-15's is banned for use on deer in a number of states, but if you are allowed to use such a round in your state, the heavier (70+ grain) soft point or hollow point 5.56mm loadings would work excellent for deer. The AR-15 platform is exceedingly accurate, and as such, is very popular for coyote and varmint hunting as well as target shooting. In addition, the AR-15 platform is available in a number of different calibers besides the 5.56mm, and with the right caliber, could be used for elk, bear, ect. The AR-15 is designed to be light, and to stand up to damage in the field (both good things for hunting rifles.)

mtcouple -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/24/2012 1:39:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Is there any reason why people might actually NEED an automatic rifle? I'm trying to think of a valid reason for possessing one. I'm unable to think of any legal circumstance where a single action rifle would not suffice. If any reasons exist, they appear to be pretty exceptional. In that case, why can't those automatic rifles* that people may really need (as opposed to imagine they need) be stored at a secure central location (eg a police station) and signed in and out as the occasion arises? I believe a system along these lines operates here and seems to work well. It satisfies all legitimate needs while offering security to all. It would certainly inhibit the circulation of automatic rifles, which can only be a good thing. * inc models that can be converted to full automatic easily I have a perfectly valid reason to own one- they are fun to shoot. After all, I could also go buy a sports car for the fun of it, and if driven improperly, that could easily be very deadly. In fact, auto related deaths far outnumber gun related deaths, so it's reasonable to say that as a whole, the sports car could be considered more deadly than the assault rifle. As far as the deadliness of legally owned assault rifles, the threat is a lot less pronounced than you might think it is. The government saw fit to regulate automatic weapons in the gun control act of 1934. They required that in order to legally buy an automatic weapon, you had to submit registration paperwork to the ATF and pay for a $200 tax stamp. Literally hundreds of thousands of guns were registered this way. Out of all those full auto guns, up until 1986, only one legal full auto gun was used in a crime, and that was a cop, who used his issued rifle to kill his wife. Yet in 1986, a law was passed that made it impossible for civilians to own full autos that were originally registered after the 1986 cutoff. Police agencies could still acquire and register full autos. Now, those pre-86 guns sell for a mint, for a legal full auto AR-15, expect to pay $20000 or more. Do you really think that these legally owned full autos are really that much of a danger that they need to be kept at the police station? As far as the ease of converting a semi auto to full auto, see my previous post.

mtcouple -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/24/2012 1:44:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery ~FR~ Fact is, states with stricter laws have fewer incidents of violence like this. Source?

mtcouple -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/24/2012 1:56:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark As the kid was leaving, and AFTER he had already shot 9 kids, killing two.....just a tad bit late....and all the assistant principal did was detain him....didn't stop anything, the damage was done, the kid was leaving the school....I guess it is possible he might have stopped the kid from shooting anyone on his drive home, assuming he would have done so? As I recall, the gun was in the assistant principal's car, which means that when the shooting started, he had to go out to his car, get his gun, load it, come back into the school, find the shooter, and then stop him. By that time the kid had already killed 9 kids. If he was carrying the gun, the outcome might have been different. oh yea, then there is this: http://www.aikenstandard.com/story/m1040-BC-SC-Shotgun-SCChurch-2ndLd-Writethru-03-26-0803--3890315

Page: << < prev 16 17 [18] 19 20 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875