Dems drop assault weapons from bill

Dems drop assault weapons from bill (Full Version)

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

Message

Level -> Dems drop assault weapons from bill (3/19/2013 11:54:10 AM)
http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_22823979/breaking-news-assault-weapons-ban-dropped-from-senate

jlf1961 -> RE: Dems drop assault weapons from bill (3/19/2013 12:13:49 PM)
This is good news. Now if I win the lottery, I will have something to spend another $60K on. I already have decided I am going to spend $250k on ammo....

WebWanderer -> RE: Dems drop assault weapons from bill (3/19/2013 11:45:38 PM)
Ye gods! How much more spineless can they possible get?..

BamaD -> RE: Dems drop assault weapons from bill (3/19/2013 11:55:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 This is good news. Now if I win the lottery, I will have something to spend another $60K on. I already have decided I am going to spend $250k on ammo.... A setback for big brother

Nosathro -> RE: Dems drop assault weapons from bill (3/20/2013 12:51:28 AM)
Actually I would not all to sure. As one article stated the ban could be reintroduce as an admendment to another bill. This sort of thing happens alot.

Kirata -> RE: Dems drop assault weapons from bill (3/20/2013 1:20:35 AM)
A recent Reason-Rupe poll conducted by Princeton Survey Associates International and released on January 31, 2013 found: 52 Percent of Americans say Sandy Hook is Being Exploited for Political Gain Democrats differ sharply from independents and Republicans on the issue. Seventy-one percent of Republicans and 60 percent of independents think the tragedy is being politicized, while just 32 percent of Democrats believe so. Additionally... 67% think assault-weapons ban will have no impact on school shootings Democrats, who normally count on the youth vote, may be surprised to find that 70 percent of 18-24 year-olds and 58 percent of 25-34 year-olds say “assault weapons should be allowed.” Similarly, Republicans, who usually rely upon the senior vote, will find that 57 percent of 55-64 year-olds and 61 percent of people over the age of 65 say assault weapons should be prohibited. Democrats outnumbered Republicans in the sample (36% Democrat, 24% Republican, 40% Independent). And while 44% supported an assault weapons ban, only 29% knew what an assault weapon was or personally owned a gun. K.

BamaD -> RE: Dems drop assault weapons from bill (3/20/2013 3:40:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro Actually I would not all to sure. As one article stated the ban could be reintroduce as an admendment to another bill. This sort of thing happens alot. Reed removed it from the package, he says there are no more than 40 votes for it in the senate. Fienstien will be allowed to introduce it as an admendment but 40 voted is still only 40 votes, and it will be doa in the house.

DomYngBlk -> RE: Dems drop assault weapons from bill (3/20/2013 4:21:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_22823979/breaking-news-assault-weapons-ban-dropped-from-senate Lets hear it for more Mass Murders!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh JLF , when you buy your ammo you might want to wash the stench of those dead kids off your hands. Hate to see your prized possessions get messy

Lucylastic -> RE: Dems drop assault weapons from bill (3/20/2013 4:28:17 AM)
fuckin pussies

jlf1961 -> RE: Dems drop assault weapons from bill (3/20/2013 6:10:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk quote: ORIGINAL: Level http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_22823979/breaking-news-assault-weapons-ban-dropped-from-senate Lets hear it for more Mass Murders!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh JLF , when you buy your ammo you might want to wash the stench of those dead kids off your hands. Hate to see your prized possessions get messy First of all, I would remind you that Columbine happened during the first Assault Weapons Ban. Secondly, If you knew anything about firearms, you would know that all the traits listed that make up an "assault weapon" under the proposed ban are strictly cosmetic. You can custom build an AR without the pistol grip, bayonet lug and other points that Feinstein considers to be the defining characteristics of an assault weapon. Third, owning any of these weapons listed in the proposed ban or large amounts of ammo does not make one a fucking mass murderer. Fourth, any one that received the same training with an M1A, the civilian version of the sniper rifle I was issued while in the army could achieve the same body count as at Sandy Hook... and that weapon is not listed in the ban. Actually, anyone with an M1A could achieve the same body count if he or she were marginally proficient with the weapon. Fifth, the tactic of anti gun proponents trying to pass some collective guilt for these crimes onto gun owners is bullshit. I am anti abortion, you dont see me trying to say that pro choice advocates are guilty of murder simply because they are pro choice? Sixth, what the fuck is an assault weapon ban or any gun ban going to do about criminals with guns? Oh, I forgot, criminals with guns will turn in their guns if they are banned. Lets see, cocaine, heroin, pot, LSD, and god knows how many other controlled substances are detrimental to the health of people, lets ban those.... Oh, yeah, we did, how in the fuck is that working out? The US has banned other things in its history, you want to tell me how effective prohibition was? Smoking kills people, you want to ban cigarettes too? Granted, in some cities, anti smoking advocates have damn near made smoking in public illegal. Firearms, in and of themselves, do not kill people. Cars, in and of themselves, do not make people drive drunk. Alcohol in and of itself does not make people drink until they are falling down, knee walking, toilet hugging drunk. It is humans that do all those things. When a person wants to kill, they will use a gun, knife, poison, baseball bat, explosives (even if they have to make the stuff themselves) and a number of other items to kill. Hell you can kill someone by over hydrating a person. I may need to wash my hands to wash the blood of the people killed at Sandy Hook off them? Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. The only blood on my hands are the deer that I have killed, and the men I killed under US Government orders. Collective guilt by association is bullshit.

JeffBC -> RE: Dems drop assault weapons from bill (3/20/2013 6:26:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk JLF , when you buy your ammo you might want to wash the stench of those dead kids off your hands. Hate to see your prized possessions get messy Would you care to support your claim that JLF is guilty by reason of association? Do you really believe that guns (or video games or whatever) is the root cause of violence in American culture? While I definitely believe that REALLY, REALLY strong restrictions on gun ownership (basically no guns) would do something in terms of dropping the murder rate, I don't think gun ownership is even remotely root cause. For that I look to a generally lawless society. You can see that clearly in the people we elect to govern us. We don't care about what is right. We don't care about honor. We care about winning. And honestly, if winning is your #1 priority then it takes a few broken eggs to make an omelet, no? All that as an aside, the whole "assault weapon" thing seems to me (a non gun owner) to be a lot like saying, "Well that gun is black with a carbon fiber stock so it's obviously more deadly than that brown gun with the wooden stock".

jlf1961 -> RE: Dems drop assault weapons from bill (3/20/2013 8:45:09 AM)
Someone want to explain how the 2nd amendment only means muskets, but the other amendments cover email, cell phones, telephones, phone taps, bugging of houses, etc? [image]local://upfiles/622970/91716418EE6E47AC9F7D7723066542F9.jpg[/image]

TricklessMagic -> RE: Dems drop assault weapons from bill (3/20/2013 8:45:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk quote: ORIGINAL: Level http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_22823979/breaking-news-assault-weapons-ban-dropped-from-senate Lets hear it for more Mass Murders!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh JLF , when you buy your ammo you might want to wash the stench of those dead kids off your hands. Hate to see your prized possessions get messy First of all, I would remind you that Columbine happened during the first Assault Weapons Ban. Secondly, If you knew anything about firearms, you would know that all the traits listed that make up an "assault weapon" under the proposed ban are strictly cosmetic. You can custom build an AR without the pistol grip, bayonet lug and other points that Feinstein considers to be the defining characteristics of an assault weapon. Third, owning any of these weapons listed in the proposed ban or large amounts of ammo does not make one a fucking mass murderer. Fourth, any one that received the same training with an M1A, the civilian version of the sniper rifle I was issued while in the army could achieve the same body count as at Sandy Hook... and that weapon is not listed in the ban. Actually, anyone with an M1A could achieve the same body count if he or she were marginally proficient with the weapon. Fifth, the tactic of anti gun proponents trying to pass some collective guilt for these crimes onto gun owners is bullshit. I am anti abortion, you dont see me trying to say that pro choice advocates are guilty of murder simply because they are pro choice? Sixth, what the fuck is an assault weapon ban or any gun ban going to do about criminals with guns? Oh, I forgot, criminals with guns will turn in their guns if they are banned. Lets see, cocaine, heroin, pot, LSD, and god knows how many other controlled substances are detrimental to the health of people, lets ban those.... Oh, yeah, we did, how in the fuck is that working out? The US has banned other things in its history, you want to tell me how effective prohibition was? Smoking kills people, you want to ban cigarettes too? Granted, in some cities, anti smoking advocates have damn near made smoking in public illegal. Firearms, in and of themselves, do not kill people. Cars, in and of themselves, do not make people drive drunk. Alcohol in and of itself does not make people drink until they are falling down, knee walking, toilet hugging drunk. It is humans that do all those things. When a person wants to kill, they will use a gun, knife, poison, baseball bat, explosives (even if they have to make the stuff themselves) and a number of other items to kill. Hell you can kill someone by over hydrating a person. I may need to wash my hands to wash the blood of the people killed at Sandy Hook off them? Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. The only blood on my hands are the deer that I have killed, and the men I killed under US Government orders. Collective guilt by association is bullshit. Don't waste your time. Certain sorts always have these opinions. They couldn't tell you the difference between an M-16 and a K&K 416. They couldn't explain the differences of a Thompson Sub-Machine gun and an AR-15. They'll just spout nonsense like collective guilt. No cause for ire, just laugh. LOL

TricklessMagic -> RE: Dems drop assault weapons from bill (3/20/2013 8:47:49 AM)
Oh and I'll challenge your M1A with my FAL.

JeffBC -> RE: Dems drop assault weapons from bill (3/20/2013 8:50:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Someone want to explain how the 2nd amendment only means muskets, but the other amendments cover email, cell phones, telephones, phone taps, bugging of houses, etc? I don't think it only means muskets. But I'm here to tell you I don't want my neighbor stocking up on weaponized biologicals or a handful of other things on account of the second amendment. Somewhere there is a valid discussion between "no guns" and "any weaponry you can afford".

tazzygirl -> RE: Dems drop assault weapons from bill (3/20/2013 9:18:06 AM)
Jeff, that discussion should be.... "yes, you can own that, but should you?"

jlf1961 -> RE: Dems drop assault weapons from bill (3/20/2013 9:22:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Someone want to explain how the 2nd amendment only means muskets, but the other amendments cover email, cell phones, telephones, phone taps, bugging of houses, etc? I don't think it only means muskets. But I'm here to tell you I don't want my neighbor stocking up on weaponized biologicals or a handful of other things on account of the second amendment. Somewhere there is a valid discussion between "no guns" and "any weaponry you can afford". Gee with a few household chemicals and others that are legal to purchase I can make a number of chemical warfare agents banned as WMD's. As far as bio agents, who needs em. Bio weapons take days to kill in most cases, give me large amounts of explosives, a fucking Uhaul, a cell phone and a place where there is a large group of people, like a walmart on a Saturday afternoon... and I hate fucking wal marts. Actually considering how many RV's or tractor trailers I have seen in Wal Mart parking lots, forget the U haul.

JeffBC -> RE: Dems drop assault weapons from bill (3/20/2013 9:38:03 AM)
So then to be clear you're pretty OK with your neighbor building nukes in his garage?

TricklessMagic -> RE: Dems drop assault weapons from bill (3/20/2013 10:21:32 AM)
Red Herring = comparison of firearms to nukes and biological agents. A firearm that can be potentially overcome by another person with a firearm, or something that can kill and not be defeated if it's a nuke once deployed, or something that can kill millions and mutate and will require top experts in the medical field to combat. Absolutely no parallel to firearms. Try again.

JeffBC -> RE: Dems drop assault weapons from bill (3/20/2013 10:28:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TricklessMagic Red Herring = comparison of firearms to nukes and biological agents. A firearm that can be potentially overcome by another person with a firearm, or something that can kill and not be defeated if it's a nuke once deployed, or something that can kill millions and mutate and will require top experts in the medical field to combat. Absolutely no parallel to firearms. Try again. I didn't mean it as a "red herring". I'm simply trying to understand edge conditions. It's the engineer in me. The constitution says we have the right to keep and bear arms. I want to know if there any any bounds at all on that? Don't bother with semantic games, I'm uninterested. Now... just to make this interesting there is a legitimate view (and shared by me) that the entire purpose of keeping and bearing arms is to ensure the government does not accrue all actual power and the citizenry has none. By that reasoning the citizenry really oughta be able to build WMD's if they are able to and choose to. It's a "keeping up with the Jones'" sort of thing where the Jones family, in this case, is the Government. So no, I don't think it's a red herring or a pointless discussion. I think there are real and serious issues here and they are worthy of being discussed in a pragmatic fashion. In the end it's going to be a risk/reward discussion.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

5.078125E-02