RE: Three Muslims shot

RE: Three Muslims shot (Full Version)

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

Message

tweakabelle -> RE: Three Muslims shot (2/13/2015 4:06:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin As to why the NRA resists a national data base for weapon sales, it means gun registration. Do I really need ta splain that one to ya ? You can put on your tin foil hat and scream at the top of your lungs all ya want that the NRA's main purpose is to protect the gun industry and all your other NRA bashing talking points but it doesn't make it weally twue. Whether or not smart guns are stupid.....why does the NRA resist and lobby against them,that was the question ? [snip ...] And yes the NRA is the mouthpiece and the muscle (thu it's lobbying arm) behind the gun industry. I am surprised to see that the NRA is opposing smart guns. Smart guns offer a potential way of greatly reducing gun violence by restricting those able to fire a particular firearm to authorised users only. They seem to offer a relatively certain way of avoiding accidental use of firearms by children. As such they can only be good news to anyone concerned to reduce the levels of gun violence. If an effective smart gun can be produced it would eliminate the possibility of criminals using stolen guns to commit crimes, of children discharging weapons. I am unable to see the logic behind the NRA's opposition to the development of such safety systems. At first glance I don't see how smart guns are automatically a means of gun registration so I am puzzled by the NRA's arguments. Nor do I see why a smart gun system that is not a gun registration system can't be designed. I just can't see why there has to be an automatic connection between the two. The NRA's stance on this question lends weight to the view that it is more a mouthpiece for the gun industry than an organisation that is interested in gun safety or gun owners' interests.

BamaD -> RE: Three Muslims shot (2/13/2015 5:56:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin As to why the NRA resists a national data base for weapon sales, it means gun registration. Do I really need ta splain that one to ya ? You can put on your tin foil hat and scream at the top of your lungs all ya want that the NRA's main purpose is to protect the gun industry and all your other NRA bashing talking points but it doesn't make it weally twue. Whether or not smart guns are stupid.....why does the NRA resist and lobby against them,that was the question ? [snip ...] And yes the NRA is the mouthpiece and the muscle (thu it's lobbying arm) behind the gun industry. I am surprised to see that the NRA is opposing smart guns. Smart guns offer a potential way of greatly reducing gun violence by restricting those able to fire a particular firearm to authorised users only. They seem to offer a relatively certain way of avoiding accidental use of firearms by children. As such they can only be good news to anyone concerned to reduce the levels of gun violence. If an effective smart gun can be produced it would eliminate the possibility of criminals using stolen guns to commit crimes, of children discharging weapons. I am unable to see the logic behind the NRA's opposition to the development of such safety systems. At first glance I don't see how smart guns are automatically a means of gun registration so I am puzzled by the NRA's arguments. Nor do I see why a smart gun system that is not a gun registration system can't be designed. I just can't see why there has to be an automatic connection between the two. The NRA's stance on this question lends weight to the view that it is more a mouthpiece for the gun industry than an organisation that is interested in gun safety or gun owners' interests. That is because you have missed the point. I doubt that it is in any way your fault. The opposition to smart guns is not so much do to the guns themselves (which even at least one of the developers has admitted is currently unreliable) but due to laws in some states banning all other firearms as soon as one smart gun goes on the market. I seriously doubt that this aspect of the problem has even been mentioned in the news there making your view reasonable except for the information withheld from you.

BamaD -> RE: Three Muslims shot (2/13/2015 6:00:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u No,I don't intend to discuss those fixes with you. This is a gun thread and the issue is the easy access to weapons. Now what you bring up is worthy of discussion but in no way mitigates the need to restrict the market of firearms in this country. Have the intellectual courage to discuss that problem ,on this thread,than feel free to start another,deflection thread of your own. By the way what you suggest is not,in fact,easy....not without the national database that the NRA stands in the way of. Another thing...do you know how many gun stores and wal mart's we have in this country.....I highly doubt that,at current staffing numbers,we can afford to station officers in each and every point of sale venue. Not with all the venue's we have....which brings us right back to restricting the market for gun sales [:)] Actually the NRA has argued for strengthening the background database. I am sure though that what you want is national registration to make it easier to collect guns.

BamaD -> RE: Three Muslims shot (2/13/2015 6:02:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u No,I don't intend to discuss those fixes with you. This is a gun thread and the issue is the easy access to weapons. Now what you bring up is worthy of discussion but in no way mitigates the need to restrict the market of firearms in this country. Have the intellectual courage to discuss that problem ,on this thread,than feel free to start another,deflection thread of your own. By the way what you suggest is not,in fact,easy....not without the national database that the NRA stands in the way of. Another thing...do you know how many gun stores and wal mart's we have in this country.....I highly doubt that,at current staffing numbers,we can afford to station officers in each and every point of sale venue. Not with all the venue's we have....which brings us right back to restricting the market for gun sales [:)] Any thing that addresses the problem of criminal use of firearms is part of the discussion with or without your permission. Actually this is a thread about a bully who could have been stopped if the guy he pulled a gun on had called the cops. It isn't about guns or gun control.

tweakabelle -> RE: Three Muslims shot (2/13/2015 6:49:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD The opposition to smart guns is not so much do to the guns themselves (which even at least one of the developers has admitted is currently unreliable) but due to laws in some states banning all other firearms as soon as one smart gun goes on the market. If I am understanding you correctly, the NRA is opposing the development of smart guns because there will be a problem in a few states with certain legislation on the books there. That sounds more like a provincial problem than an insurmountable problem. Even if it is true, it is certainly a wholly inadequate basis on which to oppose the development of smart guns nationally and internationally. If that is the best the NRA can come up with it is pretty clear that there more to its opposition than the NRA is revealing. Why might that be?

BamaD -> RE: Three Muslims shot (2/13/2015 6:54:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD The opposition to smart guns is not so much do to the guns themselves (which even at least one of the developers has admitted is currently unreliable) but due to laws in some states banning all other firearms as soon as one smart gun goes on the market. If I am understanding you correctly, the NRA is opposing the development of smart guns because there will be a problem in a few states with certain legislation on the books there. That sounds more like a provincial problem than an insurmountable problem. Even if it is true, it is certainly a wholly inadequate basis on which to oppose the development of smart guns nationally and internationally. If that is the best the NRA can come up with it is pretty clear that there more to its opposition than the NRA is revealing. Why might that be? Because the development of one gun leads to the ban of hundreds. repeal those laws and I believe the opposition will go away. at least one senator wants to make it a federal law.

tweakabelle -> RE: Three Muslims shot (2/13/2015 6:59:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD The opposition to smart guns is not so much do to the guns themselves (which even at least one of the developers has admitted is currently unreliable) but due to laws in some states banning all other firearms as soon as one smart gun goes on the market. If I am understanding you correctly, the NRA is opposing the development of smart guns because there will be a problem in a few states with certain legislation on the books there. That sounds more like a provincial problem than an insurmountable problem. Even if it is true, it is certainly a wholly inadequate basis on which to oppose the development of smart guns nationally and internationally. If that is the best the NRA can come up with it is pretty clear that there more to its opposition than the NRA is revealing. Why might that be? Because the development of one gun leads to the ban of hundreds. repeal those laws and I believe the opposition will go away. at least one senator wants to make it a federal law. Or alternatively go ahead and develop the weapons. Just don't sell them in the affected states until the legal situation is remedied. Problem solved. And I wonder what the relationship between the people pushing this rather curious legislation and the NRA is .... who exactly is pushing this legislation? And what is their rationale for the legislation?

BamaD -> RE: Three Muslims shot (2/13/2015 7:05:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin As to why the NRA resists a national data base for weapon sales, it means gun registration. Do I really need ta splain that one to ya ? You can put on your tin foil hat and scream at the top of your lungs all ya want that the NRA's main purpose is to protect the gun industry and all your other NRA bashing talking points but it doesn't make it weally twue. Whether or not smart guns are stupid.....why does the NRA resist and lobby against them,that was the question ? [snip ...] And yes the NRA is the mouthpiece and the muscle (thu it's lobbying arm) behind the gun industry. I am surprised to see that the NRA is opposing smart guns. Smart guns offer a potential way of greatly reducing gun violence by restricting those able to fire a particular firearm to authorised users only. They seem to offer a relatively certain way of avoiding accidental use of firearms by children. As such they can only be good news to anyone concerned to reduce the levels of gun violence. If an effective smart gun can be produced it would eliminate the possibility of criminals using stolen guns to commit crimes, of children discharging weapons. I am unable to see the logic behind the NRA's opposition to the development of such safety systems. At first glance I don't see how smart guns are automatically a means of gun registration so I am puzzled by the NRA's arguments. Nor do I see why a smart gun system that is not a gun registration system can't be designed. I just can't see why there has to be an automatic connection between the two. The NRA's stance on this question lends weight to the view that it is more a mouthpiece for the gun industry than an organisation that is interested in gun safety or gun owners' interests. You are the first person I have heard mention a link between smart guns and registration. The laws I was referring to ban the sale of any non-smart guns once any smart gun is on the market anywhere in the country. The senator I mentioned wants to require retro-fitting all non-smart guns with the technology.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Three Muslims shot (2/13/2015 7:07:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD ....It isn't about guns or gun control. Sure, it is about a bully. But the essence is, he shot them.... dead. The fact that even if the guy had called the cops, they couldn't respond fast enough to have stopped him shooting them. It is everything to do with guns and gun control - or lack of.

BamaD -> RE: Three Muslims shot (2/13/2015 7:10:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD The opposition to smart guns is not so much do to the guns themselves (which even at least one of the developers has admitted is currently unreliable) but due to laws in some states banning all other firearms as soon as one smart gun goes on the market. If I am understanding you correctly, the NRA is opposing the development of smart guns because there will be a problem in a few states with certain legislation on the books there. That sounds more like a provincial problem than an insurmountable problem. Even if it is true, it is certainly a wholly inadequate basis on which to oppose the development of smart guns nationally and internationally. If that is the best the NRA can come up with it is pretty clear that there more to its opposition than the NRA is revealing. Why might that be? Because the development of one gun leads to the ban of hundreds. repeal those laws and I believe the opposition will go away. at least one senator wants to make it a federal law. Or alternatively go ahead and develop the weapons. Just don't sell them in the affected states until the legal situation is remedied. Problem solved. And I wonder what the relationship between the people pushing this rather curious legislation and the NRA is .... who exactly is pushing this legislation? And what is their rationale for the legislation? [code][/code] The rational, considering which states are involved, is to get guns out of peoples hands under the guise of a safety measure. And it will clearly come as a surprise to you, again through no fault of your own, that companies like smith & wesson are developing smart weapons but again, as you suggested, holding back on release and on working all the bugs out.

pacifico23 -> RE: Three Muslims shot (2/13/2015 7:25:53 AM)
Surprised no one has mentioned the debacle of Ameritex yet. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=896247&highlight=smart+gun The supposed first micro stamped smart guns. I really dont want to get into the debate, but seems any are misinformed about this technology and its down pits. Thank god for Gene Hoffman, for fighting the fight against this crap in California. And to the posters who say they will ban firearms for smartguns is complete hearsay and a lie. There are over 300 million firearms, the logistics is impossible for that gun grab to do without violating rights of citizens. Im in Califonia we dealt with this a few years back. Even if microstamping worked, there will not be any laws mandating it on every firearm any time soon. Now.. if micro stamping was given the go ahead, and depts were using them as standard issue. Only then would I start worrying that all new guns would require it. But at that point if the technology is perfected in a manner that anyone in my house can use. If it works through, bodily injury, Liquids such a blood, or extreme weathers, as well if the gun can operate if not properly held.Then Ide be open to it. There are major benefits to it is the tech worked perfectly. Majority of homicides are done with stolen firearms. This would reduce those numbers drastically. But the guns you already own? Not like they will take them away. Additonally, if you want a model 87, glocks, sig P, 1911's series still. Screw it they will be going in the curio relics section of firearms at that point. Just buy them through those markets. If I were you guys outside of california, ide be more worried about the bullet button, 10 round magazine capacity limits, and the god awful warning labels on the new handguns. My new p226 is completely ruined due to the stupid warning crap on the side. So annoying.

Musicmystery -> RE: Three Muslims shot (2/13/2015 7:29:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pacifico23 I really dont want to get into the debate, Good luck with that.

BamaD -> RE: Three Muslims shot (2/13/2015 7:33:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD ....It isn't about guns or gun control. Sure, it is about a bully. But the essence is, he shot them.... dead. The fact that even if the guy had called the cops, they couldn't respond fast enough to have stopped him shooting them. It is everything to do with guns and gun control - or lack of. You clearly have not done your research. He pulled a gun on someone weeks ago, even or incompetent American police could have gotten there in time. And that is the sort of thing that has an adverse affect on your ability to own and carry, even in a "gun crazy' country like this.

BamaD -> RE: Three Muslims shot (2/13/2015 7:36:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pacifico23 Surprised no one has mentioned the debacle of Ameritex yet. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=896247&highlight=smart+gun The supposed first micro stamped smart guns. I really dont want to get into the debate, but seems any are misinformed about this technology and its down pits. Thank god for Gene Hoffman, for fighting the fight against this crap in California. And to the posters who say they will ban firearms for smartguns is complete hearsay and a lie. There are over 300 million firearms, the logistics is impossible for that gun grab to do without violating rights of citizens. Im in Califonia we dealt with this a few years back. Even if microstamping worked, there will not be any laws mandating it on every firearm any time soon. Now.. if micro stamping was given the go ahead, and depts were using them as standard issue. Only then would I start worrying that all new guns would require it. But at that point if the technology is perfected in a manner that anyone in my house can use. If it works through, bodily injury, Liquids such a blood, or extreme weathers, as well if the gun can operate if not properly held.Then Ide be open to it. There are major benefits to it is the tech worked perfectly. Majority of homicides are done with stolen firearms. This would reduce those numbers drastically. But the guns you already own? Not like they will take them away. Additonally, if you want a model 87, glocks, sig P, 1911's series still. Screw it they will be going in the curio relics section of firearms at that point. Just buy them through those markets. The ban argument is based on laws already on the books which do exactly that.

pacifico23 -> RE: Three Muslims shot (2/13/2015 7:42:14 AM)
Only ban or gun grabs that happened were to illegal capacity firearms due to the new NY bill following Connecticut school shooting. Like I said, be more worried about the 10 round limits and bullet buttons. Those will cause the gun grab. But the microstamp, is a tecnhology that will be on all new guns. Not making existing guns illegal as compared to bullet button laws or high capacity magazine laws. Its logistically impossible. And if your so worried, just do what I did. Build a couple 1911's AR's ad AK's on 80% recievers. 100% Completely legal, and dont need to be registered. The you dont need to worry about it if your so concerned.

Musicmystery -> RE: Three Muslims shot (2/13/2015 7:42:51 AM)
In your paranoid fantasy.

BamaD -> RE: Three Muslims shot (2/13/2015 7:48:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pacifico23 Only ban or gun grabs that happened were to illegal capacity firearms due to the new NY bill following Connecticut school shooting. Like I said, be more worried about the 10 round limits and bullet buttons. Those will cause the gun grab. But the microstamp, is a tecnhology that will be on all new guns. Not making existing guns illegal as compared to bullet button laws or high capacity magazine laws. Its logistically impossible. And if your so worried, just do what I did. Build a couple 1911's AR's ad AK's on 80% recievers. 100% Completely legal, and dont need to be registered. The you dont need to worry about it if your so concerned. Actually I was referring to bans in relation to smart guns, not micro stamping, micro stamping will makes guns more expensive and are part of thr trickle down theory of crime fighting.

BamaD -> RE: Three Muslims shot (2/13/2015 7:54:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pacifico23 Only ban or gun grabs that happened were to illegal capacity firearms due to the new NY bill following Connecticut school shooting. Like I said, be more worried about the 10 round limits and bullet buttons. Those will cause the gun grab. But the microstamp, is a tecnhology that will be on all new guns. Not making existing guns illegal as compared to bullet button laws or high capacity magazine laws. Its logistically impossible. And if your so worried, just do what I did. Build a couple 1911's AR's ad AK's on 80% recievers. 100% Completely legal, and dont need to be registered. The you dont need to worry about it if your so concerned. Your statement about gun grabs is inaccurate. You forget about post Katrina collections of weapons. The CA sks debacle where they promised that registering them would not lead to confiscation, then a year later did exactly that. And the NY guns that look like assault weapons registration, again with the promise that confiscation was not the goal and within 3 years they confiscated them.

Musicmystery -> RE: Three Muslims shot (2/13/2015 7:59:04 AM)
You get up everyday, look around in a cold sweat, and worry "OK...who's out there trying to take my guns today?!" Don't you.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Three Muslims shot (2/13/2015 8:03:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD ....It isn't about guns or gun control. Sure, it is about a bully. But the essence is, he shot them.... dead. The fact that even if the guy had called the cops, they couldn't respond fast enough to have stopped him shooting them. It is everything to do with guns and gun control - or lack of. You clearly have not done your research. He pulled a gun on someone weeks ago, even or incompetent American police could have gotten there in time. And that is the sort of thing that has an adverse affect on your ability to own and carry, even in a "gun crazy' country like this. I quite agree. But the whole point of this debate is the very simple fact that despite his previous actions, and his apparently known history, nobody sought to look into his mindset and do something before he shot these people?? Plus the fact that by allowing such individuals to even own a gun, much less allow him to carry it in public, begs the whole bucket of firearms control does it not? But... as has been demonstrated, in this case and many others, he was considered normal and sane enough not to take away his firearms until after he snapped and killed someone. It clearly points to a lack of gun control and severe lack of enforcement of the laws you already have in place. So, how do you prevent this sort of thing happening in the future? There are several measures that could be taken - none of which would appeal to the likes of you. 1) Restrict the ownership of arms to the general public. Who the fuck actually needs an arsenal big enough to equip a small army? 2) Make everyone take a regular (annual?) health screening to qualify keeping their guns. 3) Stop people being able to carry in public - everyone except law enforcement. 4) make sure every damned gun in existence is catalogued, registered, and valid license held by its owner. Decent law abiding citizens should have no fear of their guns being registered. 5) Go the whole hog and actually ban personal firearms. Shit, even we haven't gone that far yet!! Yanno, we are also, via our constitution, able to keep and bear arms just like you. However, the main difference is, our laws stop us from carrying in public (#3 above). Other than the fact that the majority of us don't have the paranoia of American gun owners and don't feel the need for a gun, we aren't much different to you lot over the pond (except #3). And yet, we don't have those same issues that the US is suffering from all the time. The same is also true of Canada, Australia, most of Europe and several other civilized countries. You only have to look at the stats to see that something is very awry with the way the US has its gun laws.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625