Democrats filibustering for gun control
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-06-2016, 10:28 PM
RE: Democrats filibustering for gun control
We are not going to agree on it Chas. I see it as something that will lead to abuses. I've heard the crack, notice I posted in in my reply above? I've heard the sounds of birdshot "shee" over my head in the rolling hills of my home country. That one is eerie.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2016, 05:00 AM
RE: Democrats filibustering for gun control
(15-06-2016 10:28 PM)skyking Wrote:  We are not going to agree on it Chas. I see it as something that will lead to abuses. I've heard the crack, notice I posted in in my reply above? I've heard the sounds of birdshot "shee" over my head in the rolling hills of my home country. That one is eerie.

What abuses are you fearing? Suppressors are already legal to own and use in at least 38 states and legal to use for hunting in 30 states.
Have you any evidence of abuses? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
16-06-2016, 06:04 AM
RE: Democrats filibustering for gun control
(15-06-2016 09:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(15-06-2016 08:41 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  There's a lot to unpack here Thumpalumpacus, but here are my issues in a nutshell:

Yes you are correct. Rights are not unlimited and totally at the discretion of the individual. The first amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to incite a riot, the second amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to own a hydrogen bomb, the fourth amendment does not guarantee you privacy if you invite a police officer into your home, etc.

I believe in the right of the individual to keep and bear arms, including military small arms. For a person willing to put in the time to learn to properly use a gun, it can be an extremely useful tool in a life threatening emergency, an implement for hunting and survival, and, in the extreme, used to forcibly remove a capricious government or a cabal within and make it behave according to the terms of the US Constitution or the individual constitutions of the states themselves.

While that works well in a charter form as stated above, there do have to be some practical exceptions made that balance personal freedom and the right to protection with safeguarding against the sheer havoc which a deranged or criminal minded person can do with a gun. And most firearm laws are on the books for that reason. The NFA was passed as a result of the violent gangland shootouts from the Prohibition era. The GCA of 68 passed as a result of learning the hard way that a lone nut can casually order a rifle from a Montgomery Ward catalog and use it to shoot the president as he rides in an open top limo in Dallas. The Firearms Protection Act of 86 passed as a result of the Miami Cocaine Wars of the late '70s and early '80s, and so on. This is, in fact the reason we place certain restrictions on all arms and arm-related sales.

My position is that certain kinds of gun control, used judiciously, can be effective in reducing violence, suffering, and deaths associated with criminal activity. There are limits to this; certain kinds of gun control do NOT work, in my opinion. I'm for expanded background checks which include denial of sale to people with recent diagnoses of severe mental health problems eg schizophrenia, suicidal ideations, etc., and ending person to person gun sales without checks. But I do not support, for example, an 'assault weapons' ban nor microstamping requirements because they do absolutely nothing to curb crime or violence.

What I have become appalled with in recent times is the 'gun culture' in America which has gotten totally out of hand; we pass laws, for example Texas' law which allows hunters to use suppressors - silencers - on their rifles, or a law in Indiana, supported by the NRA, which allows people to shoot public servants on their property. It has evolved into a paranoid, lunatic fringe which can't see the insanity of what they propose or want, views the Second Amendment as an entitlement to whatever weaponry they want, any time they want it, any where they want and don't give a shit about how this attitude, coupled with a country awash in firearms facilitates the kind of tragedy which occurred in Orlando early Sunday morning.

I've posted threads on this forum where I railed against the NRA for its bullshit as well as proposed an individual license for buying and selling firearms, so I do understand the purpose of regulation, but what is proposed should be critically examined for 1) effectiveness 2) constitutionality 3) anterior motives behind the legislation. On the last point, if your interest in 'common sense gun control' is to create a palatable PC label, a buzzword for an incremental plan of stifling restrictions on gun ownership culminating in the forcible confiscation of all firearms, I don't want to be on your team; pick another kid. I like guns and hate people who want a society which sees the oligarchy being entitled to keep the sharp objects away from the wretched masses. I will fight against you and your unconstitutional bullshit any day.

Well stated and reasonable. Thumbsup

EXCEPT: What is wrong with the use of suppressors on rifles? Consider

There's nothing wrong with suppressors Chas. But they are military equipment and should not be freely sold without some kind of restriction. Yeah we used to ask similar questions as to why wife beaters should be denied sale of guns until several wife beaters shot their spouses in a jealous rage. We'd ask the same questions about cans until some asshole snipes 35 people from a concealed location be fore the cops take him out. You want a can for a gun? Get an NFA tax stamp and do the paperwork for it. Also, if you're concerned about noise, why buy a $1200 silencer when a $0.25 pair of neoprene shooter's plugs does the job just fine?

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2016, 06:05 AM
RE: Democrats filibustering for gun control
It's simple to understand why some people think that suppressors should be illegal.....

They saw a bad guy in a movie, screwing one onto a pistol before killing someone..

Ergo - silencers turn you into a murderer......

.....

That's the logic involved.

.......

If the anti gun crowd had half a brain (debatable) they would be pushing for legislation REQUIRING suppressors on ALL firearms to combat noise pollution....

And then, the pro-gun crowd would howl ---- "Loud guns save lives"!!!!!

......

.....

That folks - is a fact....

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2016, 06:31 AM
RE: Democrats filibustering for gun control
(16-06-2016 06:05 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  It's simple to understand why some people think that suppressors should be illegal.....

They saw a bad guy in a movie, screwing one onto a pistol before killing someone..

Ergo - silencers turn you into a murderer......

.....

That's the logic involved.

.......

If the anti gun crowd had half a brain (debatable) they would be pushing for legislation REQUIRING suppressors on ALL firearms to combat noise pollution....

And then, the pro-gun crowd would howl ---- "Loud guns save lives"!!!!!

......

.....

That folks - is a fact....

Note I never said silencers should be illegal. Rather they should be subject so certain restrictions in sale. IF YOU WANT ONE, GO THROUGH THE NFA PAPERWORK! WE ARE NOT SELLING THESE THINGS LIKE YOU WOULD A FUCKING BOX OF KLEENEX! It's an ITAR controlled item which is designed to suppress discharge report, making it difficult to pinpoint the location of a shooter or reduce noise when using a gun in the confines of cqb operations. And who at could possibly go wrong if you sold them without restrictions?

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2016, 07:10 AM
RE: Democrats filibustering for gun control
As another example of things we used to do but now know better than to do, consider this Auto-Ordnance corporation print advertisement from the 1920s.

[Image: 35177769_79a70efcb0.jpg]

These were ads selling Thompson M-1928 .45ACP submachinegun guns to the general public. Described as an 'anti-bandit gun' they were marketed to the public in men's magazines or similar periodicals. Send an SASE and $300 in cash, and in two weeks, Thompson would ship one to you door. What could be bad about that, right?

Well.....it turned out that, while a lot of people bought them, perhaps as a legitimate defensive implement to protect home and family or perhaps just as a prop to act out their fantasies of vicariously defending their old west homesteads from Indian attack, quite a lot of very bad people saw the potential here for criminal use. It didn't take long before these anti bandit guns were being used by the bandits themselves to make a bloody name for themselves.

After several infamous crimes - including the St. Valentine's Day massacre - the public and Congress realized that, yes, it WAS a bad idea to casually sell full autos to the general public without restriction for that reason. So congress passed the National Firearms Act, which required full autos, among other types of guns, to be registered with the Dept of the Treasury and buyers to obtain a $200 tax stamp with one. Since its passage, and the Firearms Protection Act of 1986, crimes using machine guns in the United States are virtually unheard of.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2016, 07:24 AM
RE: Democrats filibustering for gun control
(16-06-2016 06:04 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  
(15-06-2016 09:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  Well stated and reasonable. Thumbsup

EXCEPT: What is wrong with the use of suppressors on rifles? Consider

There's nothing wrong with suppressors Chas. But they are military equipment

Says who? Consider

Quote:and should not be freely sold without some kind of restriction.

They are not sold freely. Straw man?

Quote:Yeah we used to ask similar questions as to why wife beaters should be denied sale of guns until several wife beaters shot their spouses in a jealous rage.

Now you've gone off the deep end.

Quote:We'd ask the same questions about cans until some asshole snipes 35 people from a concealed location be fore the cops take him out.

They are legal in 38 states and have been for years. Still waiting for that sniper attack.

Quote:You want a can for a gun? Get an NFA tax stamp and do the paperwork for it. Also, if you're concerned about noise, why buy a $1200 silencer when a $0.25 pair of neoprene shooter's plugs does the job just fine?

You don't wear hearing protection when hunting because you need your hearing for hunting.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2016, 07:31 AM
RE: Democrats filibustering for gun control
(16-06-2016 06:31 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  
(16-06-2016 06:05 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  It's simple to understand why some people think that suppressors should be illegal.....

They saw a bad guy in a movie, screwing one onto a pistol before killing someone..

Ergo - silencers turn you into a murderer......

.....

That's the logic involved.

.......

If the anti gun crowd had half a brain (debatable) they would be pushing for legislation REQUIRING suppressors on ALL firearms to combat noise pollution....

And then, the pro-gun crowd would howl ---- "Loud guns save lives"!!!!!

......

.....

That folks - is a fact....

Note I never said silencers should be illegal.

And no one suggested that you did.

Quote:Rather they should be subject so certain restrictions in sale. IF YOU WANT ONE, GO THROUGH THE NFA PAPERWORK! WE ARE NOT SELLING THESE THINGS LIKE YOU WOULD A FUCKING BOX OF KLEENEX! It's an ITAR controlled item which is designed to suppress discharge report, making it difficult to pinpoint the location of a shooter or reduce noise when using a gun in the confines of cqb operations. And who at could possibly go wrong if you sold them without restrictions?

They are restricted and no one here has said they shouldn't be. You are arguing with whom?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2016, 08:03 AM
RE: Democrats filibustering for gun control
Unregulated sales of suppressors for rifles doesn't seem to be a problem in New Zealand.

Quote:There is no licence required to purchase these in New Zealand.

http://www.guncity.com/hushpower-silence...x28-227438

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2016, 08:07 AM
RE: Democrats filibustering for gun control
Chas no one even considered the idea of terrorist buying guns in the US and shooting up a night club or a civic center - until it happened; then we realized what a bad idea it was to do so and took actions to prevent it from happening again. Hell, if you asked people on the evening of Sept 10, 2001 if the events they would see in 12 hours' time would ever happen in real life, they would have shaken their heads and said it sounded like the plot to a bad Jerry Bruckheimer movie. In both cases we look back and realized that what we were doing or the policies under law were hazardous and made appropriate changes to prevent such a tragedy from occurring again.

And, as for your bullshit about still waiting for a sniper attack, you ever been in a situation where you can see an accident about to happen, you do nothing and it does? This is kind of like that. Consider the idea of interpreting the Second Amendment to allow people to freely possess hydrogen bombs. 99.9% of the public would realize the gravity of the situation and handle such a device with great care and responsibly. 0.1% would not. Quite a large percentage of the population would realize this arrangement is extremely foolish and argue for legislation to prohibit this arrangement. Yet nothing has happened. No one has yet gone crazy and nuked a city. The conclusion you would argue is that this arrangement is safe. Reason states that it is not.

While the destructive power of hydrogen bombs is hyperbolically higher that conventional small arms (although the death toll from the lowly AK-47 tops that of even Tzar Bomba by millions to nothing) the same argument can be made here about small arms. See the examples above. The easy proliferation of weapons facilitates these tragedies, which would not have happened on the scale, or with as many casualties, as was possible because the killers had access to these kinds of guns.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: