America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 4 years ago by Mr. Jones. 130 replies replies.
3 Pages<123>
Gun legislation
CelticBomber Offline
#51 Posted:
Joined: 05-03-2012
Posts: 6,786
delta1 wrote:
what if you used a bump stock? 400 is possible...

or trained yourself to pull the trigger faster, you could get to 100 with a lg cap mag



Bump stocks are already illegal. All this focus on assault rifles is because of one thing. The word assault. Plain and simple. I'd bet real money most people looking for a ban have no idea that they are no different than a hand gun. They all think machine gun and movie guns. The reason most people think this is because of the uninformed or straight up dishonest rhetoric coming from the left and far left. I consider myself a liberal but, I don't recognize the people today who call themselves liberal. A huge reason for this is the culture at Universities and Colleges. The professors and governing bodies have shut down all rational debate. You have supposedly intelligent students who think it's good to stop anyone from speaking if they have a differing opinion. I think we're (well some of us, you guys are old;-p) going to look back at this time in 40 or 50 years and be shocked by just how off the rails the left went. Not saying the right is all there but the left has just gone insane. Brick wall
gummy jones Offline
#52 Posted:
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/9637619/young-brits-life-lacks-purpose/amp

I know nothing about this paper or this british study but 89% is staggering. Heck, 50% would be staggering.

Sad
dstieger Offline
#53 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
CelticBomber wrote:
Bump stocks are already illegal. All this focus on assault rifles is because of one thing. The word assault. Plain and simple. I'd bet real money most people looking for a ban have no idea that they are no different than a hand gun. They all think machine gun and movie guns.


You are right....but your conclusion is wrong. You
..me..others who think about this more rationally than emotionally might think through it. But it isn't just the anti gun crowd that has a visceral reaction to an AK or AR. If that were the case, they wouldn't be so popular. You watch a young guy with an AR15 in his hands and he changes. MUCH more adrenaline or testosterone or whatever...compared to handling a shotgun, hunting rifle or even a handgun
DrafterX Offline
#54 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
CelticBomber wrote:
I consider myself a liberal but, I don't recognize the people today who call themselves liberal.



Think
does this work with all affiliations..?? Huh
teedubbya Offline
#55 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
I’ll have to try at the range this weekend. 60 seems doable with the scorpion. Maybe I’m underestimating myself but I don’t know about 100. 400 nope.

Accuracy would be an issue although the scorpion is very accurate under rapid fire. Sustainability another.

As for the parties both don’t resemble what they once did. Both are void of any ideas anymore and no longer compromise to further their ideas. Now it’s just about winning and the other side is bad and hates America. It’s also all or nothing since it’s a with me or against me mentality.

That’s why I lose respect every day for people that squarely and blindly support one party over the other. You are being used.
tailgater Offline
#56 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
delta1 wrote:
sure it's a mental health issue...but having readily accessible guns that can fire a hundred rounds a minute only makes the killer nut more deadly...


Readily accessible.

Can we define this?

I've never owned a gun.
Could I have a legal gun in my hands tonight that fired 100 rounds/minute?
Tomorrow?

But further to the point: Are we saying that making such weapons less "readily accessible" would terminate a shooter's ability to procure one?

And is it justifiable to ban an item because a tiny fraction of the owners misuse them?


Just asking, because I've seen the talking points from both sides and it seems nobody truly wants to talk about them unless their audience is like minded.



Speyside Offline
#57 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Legislating guns solves nothing. All it does is keep honest people from buying those guns. This should be obvious to anyone not wearing blue colored glasses..

Sensibly legislating who should not be able to buy weapons makes sense. It will accomplish something. This should be obvious to anyone not wearing red colored glasses.

A national data base allowing instantaneous look up of who can't buy weapons makes sense. Waiting periods are pointless. This should be obvious to anyone who isn't paranoid.

The criminal penalty for selling weapons illegally should be the death penalty. Logically it would stop a whole lot of the illegal weapon trade. This should not be objectionable to anyone who isn't a criminal.
dstieger Offline
#58 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
Speyside wrote:
Legislating guns solves nothing. All it does is keep honest people from buying those guns. This should be obvious to anyone not wearing blue colored glasses..


Yes!!

Rescind any laws controlling sale of Stingers, TOWs, grenade launchers, full auto .50 cals, sawed off shotguns etc. ...let's throw nerve gas in there, too

Legislating weapons solves nothing, of course.

What about silencers? Limiting magazines? Useless, too?
teedubbya Offline
#59 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Suppressors are a great tool that should not be limited. They are not in most the feast of the world and are expected to be used in many places. They are a legitimate health preserver and banning them is a great example of legislating by emotions rather than logic. No reason folks have to hunt without them or wear hearing protection (which we never did)
Speyside Offline
#60 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
I said guns, not weapons in the encircled quote. I suppose machine guns and sawed of shotguns would fit in the category, so you have mostly talked about weapons I did not refer to. Sure you don't want to add rocks and table knives? In fairness, I should have said additional laws. It is interesting you chose only to focus on that part of my statement. Why?
dstieger Offline
#61 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
Because I didn't have something smartazz to say about the rest of it.
I was highlighting your lead comment -- and an absolute at that....I hate ALL absolute comments ;)
I commented on flag laws and background checking in earlier posts.

I'm a long ways from being sure that any mandatory death sentence for any crime is a good idea...but not something I really feel like arguing about at the moment
RMAN4443 Offline
#62 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
and Drafter's Rocket Dogs.....Think

.....rocks can really hurt if you throw them really really hard....







Sarcasm (just in case it needs to be said)

tailgater Offline
#63 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Speyside wrote:


Sensibly legislating who should not be able to buy weapons makes sense. It will accomplish something. This should be obvious to anyone not wearing red colored glasses.


So.
Who should be able to buy weapons?
Who decides?
Based on what?

If I wanted to purchase some guns I would be less likely to visit a shrink even if I should.
Unintended consequences.

Speyside wrote:

The criminal penalty for selling weapons illegally should be the death penalty. Logically it would stop a whole lot of the illegal weapon trade. This should not be objectionable to anyone who isn't a criminal.


So if the nice little old lady next door sells her husbands weapons after his death, but she forgets to fill out government form xyz, she should be put to death?










CelticBomber Offline
#64 Posted:
Joined: 05-03-2012
Posts: 6,786
dstieger wrote:
You are right....but your conclusion is wrong. You
..me..others who think about this more rationally than emotionally might think through it. But it isn't just the anti gun crowd that has a visceral reaction to an AK or AR. If that were the case, they wouldn't be so popular. You watch a young guy with an AR15 in his hands and he changes. MUCH more adrenaline or testosterone or whatever...compared to handling a shotgun, hunting rifle or even a handgun


The top five selling firearms going back to I believe the report said 1986 are all semi auto hand guns, next is a 22L rifle and the next 4 are different variations on the AR - 15 or a shotgun. What you described of how people feel holding a rifle as opposed to a hand gun is your own feelings about these guns. Not a fact, just your perception which I'd be willing to bet partly comes from how they are portrayed in the news. One reason the AR - 15 and the AK are a popular choice comes down to reliability more than anything else. But, they are not the overwhelmingly most popular fire arms out there. Again this perception people have about these weapons comes down to the word "assault" rifle, Hollywood portrayals and the fact that the national news networks will report for days when one of these rifles in used in a horrific crime but when it comes down to hand gun crimes they barely, if at all, get a mention.

I used Gun Genius, The NRA website, the ATF and other Federally commissioned studies to get my info. According to the ATF rifles are used in just 13% of all gun related crime.
teedubbya Offline
#65 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Never underestimate your inability to decider the legal definition of pistol, hand gun, rifle, SBR , weapon, explosives etc. it’s not as clear as one thinks.

dstieger Offline
#66 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
I didn't use any of those sites. I did zero research. My comments were NOT about my reaction or feeling about anything ever in any news. I was speaking of my real observations of real young men handling real guns -- nothing more...and certainly nothing less. If you don't believe that many (most?) individuals have a visceral, emotional reaction when handling a gun....and that it varies with the type of gun ....if you don't believe that, then stop reading and go to a range
ZRX1200 Offline
#67 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,599
I’m going to the range this weekend!!

Sincerely,

The Pope
Speyside Offline
#68 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Tail, sensible legislation. Things like someone put is a psych ward for violent behavior, people with certain felony convictions such as murder, not Joe average.

Also a law that narrowly defines a class of illegal gun sales. Take of the Joe stirs the pot hat and look at the intent of what I said.
frankj1 Offline
#69 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
#68 what about restraining orders doled out due to fear of another? there's a lot of gray area and stuff here


btw, bad news for those counting on better mental health in the USA as a cure for mass shootings.
approximately 1 in five perps would fit a diagnosis that we would likely have on our No Gun List.

certainly troubled, rejected, obsessed and more adjectives apply, but very few check the real boxes of mental illness. Not many have been hearing voices or the big stuff like that.

even so, I'm still 98.2% in favor of at least restoring funding for better detection of and treatment of mental health problems...but money won't change the stigma.

I'm off the soapbox.
delta1 Offline
#70 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,784
I think dstieg is on to something...the 2nd amendment and the need to defend against our government are sham arguments perpetrated to disguise the real reason guns are so popular that they outnumber the population in America...they are a real blast to shoot...

many wannabe players aren't athletic enough to get adrenaline rushes doing anything physical...these fantasizing couch potatoes get their jollies off blowing several pounds of lead through hot tubes...it is primarily for the recreation of this segment of the population, and the dollars it generates, that the NRA and the gun makers it represents has become so powerful...

a second marketing prong by this industry is stoking fear...dehumanizing minorities and foisting a perception of racial animosity and impending race wars feed the fear...gun and ammo sales spike when racial unrest is in the news...
ZRX1200 Offline
#71 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,599
So you’re racist now Al?
Speyside Offline
#72 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
There will always be grey area Frank. But we could have sensible laws none the less.
frankj1 Offline
#73 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
can't argue that
tailgater Offline
#74 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Speyside wrote:
Tail, sensible legislation. Things like someone put is a psych ward for violent behavior, people with certain felony convictions such as murder, not Joe average.

Also a law that narrowly defines a class of illegal gun sales. Take of the Joe stirs the pot hat and look at the intent of what I said.


I'm pretty sure people from a psych ward and felons can't purchase already.

And what do you mean by a "class of illegal gun sales"? Explain how there won't be grey area.

I'm not stirring anything. I just think generic terms like "common sense" or "sensible" mean nothing without substance.
tailgater Offline
#75 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
delta1 wrote:


a second marketing prong by this industry is stoking fear...dehumanizing minorities and foisting a perception of racial animosity and impending race wars feed the fear...gun and ammo sales spike when racial unrest is in the news...




Are you saying that gun and ammo sales don't spike when there is unrest that is not related to race?

You sure do love you some race bait, don't you?

Speyside Offline
#76 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
You would write specific types of weapons into the law. Such as automatic weapons, sawed off shot guns, hand grenades, nuclear bombs. There would be no grey areas. And be honest, you are trying to provoke reactionary conversation. It's your game. If not, then you are saying you don't have enough common sense to understand what a common sense law should be and you are not sensible enough to understand what a common sense law should be. Also, I would eliminate the myriads of useless laws. You are one of the devils best advocates. I will restate my death penalty stance so it is clearer for you since you lack the common sense to understand . Illegally selling illegal weapons should be a capital offense punishable by death. Illigally selling weapons should be punishable by death if if the weapons are knowingly sold illegally.

Sorry for posting something that would force you to think logically and critically at the same time. My bad. I'll try to keep it dumbed down for you.
DrafterX Offline
#77 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
I think there's already laws covering that stuff... Mellow
tailgater Offline
#78 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Speyside wrote:
You would write specific types of weapons into the law. Such as automatic weapons, sawed off shot guns, hand grenades, nuclear bombs. There would be no grey areas. And be honest, you are trying to provoke reactionary conversation. It's your game. If not, then you are saying you don't have enough common sense to understand what a common sense law should be and you are not sensible enough to understand what a common sense law should be. Also, I would eliminate the myriads of useless laws. You are one of the devils best advocates. I will restate my death penalty stance so it is clearer for you since you lack the common sense to understand . Illegally selling illegal weapons should be a capital offense punishable by death. Illigally selling weapons should be punishable by death if if the weapons are knowingly sold illegally.

Sorry for posting something that would force you to think logically and critically at the same time. My bad. I'll try to keep it dumbed down for you.


You really are looking for a fight here.
You say "automatic weapons".
So pistols will be verboten? You consider that common sense?

And I'll use the example I provided earlier: Little old lady Gertrude across the street loses her husband to cancer. He was a war hero and has half dozen guns plus ammo. She sells them to you for cheap because you've been a good neighbor for decades. Neither of you bother with the mandatory government forms maybe because 3 of the guns are unregistered "souvenirs" taken after combat with charlie. Plus, who would even know?
But now we have to kill her.


I'll say this: Your definition of "common sense" is different than mine, that's for sure.


DrafterX Offline
#79 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
Screw old lady Gertrude... Not talking
teedubbya Offline
#80 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Freak.
Speyside Offline
#81 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Tail I would still include the exception for automatics manufactured before 1986. Since have not been legal to manufacture or buy here since then I doubt Gertie was selling an illegal weapon. If she had, I would think her lawyer would argue extenuating circumstances and she would be found not guilty. I imagine that the DA or ADA would drop the charges before they went to trail. I would want her to be charged. If she was guilty I would want her executed. You seem awfully interested in Gertie. Did your mom run guns for the IRA back in the day? Or do you have a fetish about hot senior citizen who sells illegal guns?
delta1 Offline
#82 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,784
did some digging....seems the biggest driver of gun sales is efforts to pass gun control legislation...Obama's reign was the best period for gun manufacturers in US history...
tailgater Offline
#83 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Speyside wrote:
Tail I would still include the exception for automatics manufactured before 1986. Since have not been legal to manufacture or buy here since then I doubt Gertie was selling an illegal weapon. If she had, I would think her lawyer would argue extenuating circumstances and she would be found not guilty. I imagine that the DA or ADA would drop the charges before they went to trail. I would want her to be charged. If she was guilty I would want her executed. You seem awfully interested in Gertie. Did your mom run guns for the IRA back in the day? Or do you have a fetish about hot senior citizen who sells illegal guns?


Yes. Tell your mom I got her gun right here.


tailgater Offline
#84 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Speyside wrote:
Tail I would still include the exception for automatics manufactured before 1986. Since have not been legal to manufacture or buy here since then I doubt Gertie was selling an illegal weapon. If she had, I would think her lawyer would argue extenuating circumstances and she would be found not guilty. I imagine that the DA or ADA would drop the charges before they went to trail. I would want her to be charged. If she was guilty I would want her executed. You seem awfully interested in Gertie. Did your mom run guns for the IRA back in the day? Or do you have a fetish about hot senior citizen who sells illegal guns?


You're missing the point.
3 of Gertie's guns are already illegal.
So she is selling illegal weapons, and you want a law with automatic death.
Except if Gertie has a good lawyer. Otherwise kill her.

Yeah. The world will be safer.



tailgater Offline
#85 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
delta1 wrote:
...Obama's reign was the best period for gun manufacturers in US history...


That will be on his next apology tour.

DrafterX Offline
#86 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
Just saw somethin on the wife's Facebook thingabout Jim Jones killing 919 people with koolaid... where was the outrage against koolaid..?? Huh
Speyside Offline
#87 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
It would be safer. One less Gertie doesn't both me. Thousands of death due to illegal guns bothers me. I am not missing the point, you are making a different point. There still would be due process. There still would be extenuating circumstances. There still would be bench trials or jury trials. The Heritage foundation, which is a conservative think tank, states that approximately 80% of gun violence is caused using illegal guns. In 2018 aproximetly 80,000 gun related deaths. So approximately 64,000 gun related deaths were caused by illegal guns. I can't give you a statistical representation of what my idea would do if a law were impacted so let's use an extremely conservative estimate. Use the supposition that my idea eliminates 10% of the deaths due to illegal guns. That would equate to 6,400 people annually would not die due to illegal guns.

As to Gertie, I seriously doubt that any jury would convict her. But let's make an outrageous assumption. 100 Gerties are executed annually. Not so good for the Gerties, but you would have an annual net gain of 6,300 lives saved. So our world would be a safer place. I do think there would be a learning curve for the Gurties, the number executed would decrease hyperbolicly annually. So by year 3 say 4 Gurties are executed. Now approximately 6, 400 net lives are saved. I am good with the Gurtie executions.

If you want to debate the morality of executing the Gurties that would be a very valid debate that could be looked at from multiple dimensions that would lead to different conclusions.
DrafterX Offline
#88 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
Problem is that illegal guns on da streets number will rise substantially.. I'm not giving mine up... Mellow
teedubbya Offline
#89 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
The kool aid didn’t kill anyone. The poison did however. I’m ok with controlling access to some poisons in quantity.

Face book is really good at marketing stupid ideas and dumbing people down.
DrafterX Offline
#90 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
It happened tho... I'm boycotting koolaid... Mellow


Or maybe i should buy a truckload to sell on da black market after they ban it... Think
opelmanta1900 Offline
#91 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
teedubbya wrote:
The kool aid didn’t kill anyone.

Oh ya?
tailgater Offline
#92 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Speyside wrote:
It would be safer. One less Gertie doesn't both me. Thousands of death due to illegal guns bothers me. I am not missing the point, you are making a different point. There still would be due process. There still would be extenuating circumstances. There still would be bench trials or jury trials. The Heritage foundation, which is a conservative think tank, states that approximately 80% of gun violence is caused using illegal guns. In 2018 aproximetly 80,000 gun related deaths. So approximately 64,000 gun related deaths were caused by illegal guns. I can't give you a statistical representation of what my idea would do if a law were impacted so let's use an extremely conservative estimate. Use the supposition that my idea eliminates 10% of the deaths due to illegal guns. That would equate to 6,400 people annually would not die due to illegal guns.

As to Gertie, I seriously doubt that any jury would convict her. But let's make an outrageous assumption. 100 Gerties are executed annually. Not so good for the Gerties, but you would have an annual net gain of 6,300 lives saved. So our world would be a safer place. I do think there would be a learning curve for the Gurties, the number executed would decrease hyperbolicly annually. So by year 3 say 4 Gurties are executed. Now approximately 6, 400 net lives are saved. I am good with the Gurtie executions.

If you want to debate the morality of executing the Gurties that would be a very valid debate that could be looked at from multiple dimensions that would lead to different conclusions.


I find it difficult to believe that you'd want an otherwise law abiding citizen to face a death sentence for selling a gun that happened to fall into a confusing category of "illegal". Gertie is merely one example. There could also be a Mildred. Mildred Vanilli.

tailgater Offline
#93 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
opelmanta1900 wrote:
Oh ya?


Applause Applause Applause Applause
Speyside Offline
#94 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
I can understand and appreciate that Tail. But that is how I feel. Perhaps it is very shocking, but I think it would eliminate a large number of murders. Justice isn't always compassionate. Justice isn't always fair. But justice should always be consistent.
DrafterX Offline
#95 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
You're not going to take guns away from the bad guys
.. they will always find a way to kill... Mellow
frankj1 Offline
#96 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
DrafterX wrote:
Just saw somethin on the wife's Facebook thingabout Jim Jones killing 919 people with koolaid... where was the outrage against koolaid..?? Huh

didn't happen in America
DrafterX Offline
#97 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
Started here... i saw the movie... Mellow
frankj1 Offline
#98 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
you win.
DrafterX Offline
#99 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
Laugh
ZRX1200 Offline
#100 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,599
So apparently Victor ran a false flag today at his local Walmart to get attention and further calls for gun control.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 Pages<123>