IGX

Challenge to our knowledgeable Gun Control advocates: Who wants to step up & define "Assault Weapon" in a (semi) precise way? One that you believe should be enforced as law, and that would reduce murder?

*****

Please do better than, "Ucky Black Gun scare me...Concussion...PTSD."

johno wrote:

Yes I Have Balls wrote:

johno wrote:

dead man walking wrote:Seriously, how many voting-age people in your circle of acquaintances have no state-recognized ID?

Old, poor, (often black) people in rural locations ...

Your non-answer tells me your real answer would be, "Zero."

johno--

among my acquaintances, zero, as you suggest, but isn't that the point? a white guy like me has nothing to fear.

first, literacy tests were used to filter out poor blacks, and in many of the states that engaged in what we recognize was obvious racist discrimination, we are seeing i.d. requirements. different tool, same goal.

the fraud is the idea of voter fraud.

johno wrote:

Yes I Have Balls wrote:

johno wrote:

dead man walking wrote:Seriously, how many voting-age people in your circle of acquaintances have no state-recognized ID?

Old, poor, (often black) people in rural locations ...

Your non-answer tells me your real answer would be, "Zero."

You think every dumb mother fucker is tied to the computer every second of the day? OK, then. 7 The answer is 7.

But then again, I didn't think we only allowed people in our circle of acquaintances to vote. You must keep company with some.......like-minded people.

Herv100 wrote:

Yes I Have Balls wrote:

Herv100 wrote:Sua, don't bother with YIB. He's a complete partisan hack. Hated Bush for Iraq war and loves Obama despite starting 2 new wars. Hates republicans because they "support Wall Street", even though Obama suspended his campaign until Banker Bailout was passed and had the most campaign money from Wall Street in 2012 than any president ever. In short, the dudes a clueless shit turd.

Your entire post is a fairy tale. Considering everything you lack however, it is nice to see you able to put a couple sentences together.

I believe you

Good. I can finally take a bathroom break.

Yes I Have Balls wrote:

johno wrote:

Yes I Have Balls wrote:

johno wrote:

dead man walking wrote:Seriously, how many voting-age people in your circle of acquaintances have no state-recognized ID?

Old, poor, (often black) people in rural locations ...

Your non-answer tells me your real answer would be, "Zero."

... OK, then. 7 The answer is 7.

Well, since we're dealing in made-up numbers, I posit that there are more fraudulent voters than your poor, old, often black people who have no ID, who vote.

But I'll give you the last word.

I'm more interested in someone defining "Assault Weapon" in a serious way.

johno wrote:Challenge to our knowledgeable Gun Control advocates: Who wants to step up & define "Assault Weapon" in a (semi) precise way? One that you believe should be enforced as law, and that would reduce murder?

*****

Please do better than, "Ucky Black Gun scare me...Concussion...PTSD."

I think you might be baiting the wrong crowd... I don't know that anyone here thinks they should be banned.

Yes I Have Balls wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote: Hell if each of the amendments had a watch dog group I'd be happier still.

Is the implication here that the NRA is the watchdog for the 2nd Amendment?

One among many. GOA, others. Jews for the Presevation of Firearms Ownership.

Federal level gun control wasn't practiced until 1917, when the Congress banned shipping handguns through the mail.

Before that time Federals only disarmed Indians. Wounded Knee massacre was a gun control operation on Sioux Indians which went south. 250 people were shot by Federal agents and the US Army.

National Firearms Act of 1934 wasn't a ban. The Congress just slapped a massive tax on certain firearms. They did the same with Marijuana in 1937. Until the Interstate Commerce Clause was stood on its head Congress had no basis for regulating firearms.

On the State level all sorts of racist shit was tried, bans on cheap guns, on "immigrants" carrying firearms in NYC. Bans on concealed or open carry.


Federal stuff got radical in the 1960s. Two Kennedys and a King got shot, the shit started to jump off. More and more radical shit, with Intelligence Community involvement.

HCI was founded by Pete Shields and CIA employee Edwin O Welles. National Coalition to Ban Handguns was founded by Leon Sullivan and CIA Director William Colby.

The NRA got radical in reply. They're not the only ones just the biggest ones.

dead man walking wrote:

johno wrote:

Yes I Have Balls wrote:

johno wrote:

dead man walking wrote:Seriously, how many voting-age people in your circle of acquaintances have no state-recognized ID?

Old, poor, (often black) people in rural locations ...

Your non-answer tells me your real answer would be, "Zero."

johno--

among my acquaintances, zero, as you suggest, but isn't that the point? a white guy like me has nothing to fear.

first, literacy tests were used to filter out poor blacks, and in many of the states that engaged in what we recognize was obvious racist discrimination, we are seeing i.d. requirements. different tool, same goal.

the fraud is the idea of voter fraud.

But where does that fraud manifest itself most significantly? It's not in general elections; it's in the primaries. Right or wrong, black votes are pretty much a non-factor in Republican primaries. Dem primaries, on the other hand...

EDIT: speaking of getting out of hand: http://www.irongarmx.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=210149

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

nafod wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:The slickest way to undermine the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment...

This is a subtle but important point. The NRA doesn't protect the 2nd Amendment. It protects a particular interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, one that doesn't have all that long of a life in our republic. Because it cares about absolutely nothing else in the entire universe other than it's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, it pretty much over-matches any opposition that has more than one thing to ponder in this life.

It is an important point...in that the current interpretation is the one most soundly vetted by 200 years of case law and common law before that and is therefore..the most correct.

Not historically accurate. Here you go:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

Boris wrote:

johno wrote:Challenge to our knowledgeable Gun Control advocates: Who wants to step up & define "Assault Weapon" in a (semi) precise way? One that you believe should be enforced as law, and that would reduce murder?

*****

Please do better than, "Ucky Black Gun scare me...Concussion...PTSD."

I think you might be baiting the wrong crowd... I don't know that anyone here thinks they should be banned.

Unfortunately, some pretty powerful people are really hot to do just that so thank G_d for the NRA and similar organizations.

I live in NY, home of the nefarious SAFE act, which our illustrious governor rammed through to essentially make AR's and the like illegal. All kinds of "scary assault weapon" stuff is now forbidden in this shit state. So, now I have a rather innocuous rifle that is free of all scary stuff. It shoots the same round as an AR but I'm restricted to a 10 round magazine.

So, in theory my NY compliant gun is just about as deadly as an AR but less scary looking so it's OK. The only real benefit has been to my governor who got to do victory laps all around the country as he sets himself up as a Progressive 'who did something about guns' for his 2020 presidential run (if he's not in prison by then). And, the sheeple feel safer of course.

FWIW, my hearsay understanding of Canadian law is that you can have just about any cool gun you want as long as your restrict yourself to a 5 round magazine.

IMO the only scary "assault weapon" regulation that would do anything to significantly reduce AR type of weapon lethality would be to limit magazine capacity. I don't support that restriction and it's easily overcome by someone with mayhem on his mind anyway. Besides, Progressive politicians aren't interested in solutions anyway. We could melt every AR in the country on Monday and by Tuesday they'd be chasing another gun related crisis calling for further restrictions or bans.

johno wrote:Challenge to our knowledgeable Gun Control advocates: Who wants to step up & define "Assault Weapon" in a (semi) precise way? One that you believe should be enforced as law, and that would reduce murder?

*****

Please do better than, "Ucky Black Gun scare me...Concussion...PTSD."

The manufacturers would just build around the definition. It all comes down to caliber and capacity. You could just ban magazines over 5 rounds unless the purchaser went through Japan-style criminal/mental health screening for you and people in your household.

So if there is six bad guys the last one gets to kill you and rape your family?

tough old man wrote:So if there is six bad guys the last one gets to kill you and rape your family?

If that happens, you can ride your unicorns away to a safer imaginary scenario.

nafod wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:The slickest way to undermine the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment...

This is a subtle but important point. The NRA doesn't protect the 2nd Amendment. It protects a particular interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, one that doesn't have all that long of a life in our republic. Because it cares about absolutely nothing else in the entire universe other than it's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, it pretty much over-matches any opposition that has more than one thing to ponder in this life.

Until Wickard vs Filburn we had something called Federalism. Weapons laws varied. Vermont had the NRA's favorite form of concealed carry - no paper required. In other States buying a firearm was cash and carry until the GCA of 1968.

Gun laws were a States issue.

Once the Congress had the power to regulate firearms various people have tussled. We have people like Mike Bloomberg, who was so sick with power that he didn't trust the New York National Guard to patrol NYC streets...

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltI_CHa3Qpc[/youtube]

He also thinks he's going to heaven for his views on gun control.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/1 ... 57221.html


We have the Kochs, who oppose some forms gun control.


I do agree that the NRA has a point of view about firearms rights. It's not THEIR point of view but one shared by tens of millions of people.


Most folks don't care about guns. They don't see them. As in most things today most folks are indifferent or apathetic.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

johno wrote:Challenge to our knowledgeable Gun Control advocates: Who wants to step up & define "Assault Weapon" in a (semi) precise way?

The manufacturers would just build around the definition. It all comes down to caliber and capacity. You could just ban magazines over 5 rounds unless the purchaser went through Japan-style criminal/mental health screening for you and people in your household.

Bingo. Not only would manufacturers build around the definition, but they already have. Example - during the last "Assault Weapon" Ban, I bought a Ruger Ranch Rifle. It was identical in function, caliber, and "killing power" to an illegal AR. Ruger didn't build it around the Ban, it had been on the market for years.

And there are many calibers that are similar to the .223/5.56 - most of them more lethal.

Spells, you point to a magazine capacity limit. That would have a bit more logic behind it. But there are millions of 20 & 30 round magazines in circulation with no way to track them. There would be a robust Black Market in response to a ban.

*****

As to the screening, our most recent mass murderer was FBI screened (not psych screened) multiple times. Screening would have caught the Newtown murderer, except that he stole the weapons from his mother. But it might catch some.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

tough old man wrote:So if there is six bad guys the last one gets to kill you and rape your family?

If that happens, you can ride your unicorns away to a safer imaginary scenario.

Banking on shooting that efficiently (5/5) is about imaginary as it gets-- tom may be one of the few here who can do it; I'm an above-average shot and I would never bet I can.

DrDonkeyLove wrote:IMO the only scary "assault weapon" regulation that would do anything to significantly reduce AR type of weapon lethality would be to limit magazine capacity.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Jerry Miculek does a dozen shots in under 3 seconds.... with a revolver. Speed Loaders are easy to make.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSFPw[/youtube]

Sheriff does experiments with mag limits.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCSySuemiHU[/youtube]

DrDonkeyLove wrote: I don't support that restriction and it's easily overcome by someone with mayhem on his mind anyway. Besides, Progressive politicians aren't interested in solutions anyway. We could melt every AR in the country on Monday and by Tuesday they'd be chasing another gun related crisis calling for further restrictions or bans.

I think gun control, except for some really basic controls like we have today, is about blame shifting. Some people cannot govern, they make mistakes that turn cities into economic messes. Their people get violent. These same folks blame weapons for violence. Blaming the NRA is easier than taking responsibility for local laws that drive out businesses or make it hard for people to earn a good living.

How come Houston Tx and Chicago Ill, two cities with close population sizes and different gun laws, have so much difference in "gun violence"? Houston has had half the murders of Chicago per year but far more permissive gun laws than Chicago.


It's good that people debate and discuss this issue. Most weapons laws are reactive, in response to tragedy, and end up being stupid. We may need some more "gun control". We may not need any changes to the law. We may have too much gun control. I don't know.

I think blaming pretend machine guns is stupid. As the Doctor said, you can still buy an AR-15 in NYS, just doesn't have a flash suppressor and pistol grip. Pump shotguns are legal there too. For now.

johno wrote: As to the screening, our most recent mass murderer was FBI screened (not psych screened) multiple times. Screening would have caught the Newtown murderer, except that he stole the weapons from his mother. But it might catch some.

Saw an interesting article about how we will need to move to a Secret Service model of intervention, where when they get a threat against POTUS, they don't just check, they intervene.

Some experts say there is in fact a solution and model for doing a better job of tracking this new threat—the one used by the U.S. Secret Service to keep the president safe. “It’s going to take adopting an approach used by Secret Service for years, a combination of law enforcement, risk assessment and then intervention, even if there’s no arrest,” says Cohen. For decades, the Secret Service has gone further than simply investigating and prosecuting threats to the president. Even if agents don’t arrest a suspect who, say, posts something threatening online, the Secret Service will take additional steps to assess if that person poses risks of committing a crime in the future based on psychological and behavioral characteristics—for example like the threatening and Islamist-sympathizing statements Mateen was said to have made to co-workers in recent years. They’ll also try to connect the individual with mental-health, educational and religious authorities from the community.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... z4BxCx8N6c
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

If the mass killings keep coming more faster and with greater numbers, there WILL be a limit to the tolerance for it. Business as usual will be unacceptable. Things will change. I thought 20 dead schoolchildren would be it, but I was wrong. Right now, as I type, there are nut cases, the next Dylan Roof or Mateen, plotting their attack. That's a creepy thought. It's a shame the NRA isn't part of the solution on this, beyond advocating that everyone buy more guns.

DrDonkeyLove wrote:

Boris wrote:

johno wrote:Challenge to our knowledgeable Gun Control advocates: Who wants to step up & define "Assault Weapon" in a (semi) precise way? One that you believe should be enforced as law, and that would reduce murder?

*****

Please do better than, "Ucky Black Gun scare me...Concussion...PTSD."

I think you might be baiting the wrong crowd... I don't know that anyone here thinks they should be banned.

Unfortunately, some pretty powerful people are really hot to do just that so thank G_d for the NRA and similar organizations.

I live in NY, home of the nefarious SAFE act, which our illustrious governor rammed through to essentially make AR's and the like illegal. All kinds of "scary assault weapon" stuff is now forbidden in this shit state. So, now I have a rather innocuous rifle that is free of all scary stuff. It shoots the same round as an AR but I'm restricted to a 10 round magazine.

So, in theory my NY compliant gun is just about as deadly as an AR but less scary looking so it's OK. The only real benefit has been to my governor who got to do victory laps all around the country as he sets himself up as a Progressive 'who did something about guns' for his 2020 presidential run (if he's not in prison by then). And, the sheeple feel safer of course.

FWIW, my hearsay understanding of Canadian law is that you can have just about any cool gun you want as long as your restrict yourself to a 5 round magazine.

IMO the only scary "assault weapon" regulation that would do anything to significantly reduce AR type of weapon lethality would be to limit magazine capacity.

Just to clarify, when I said "here", I meant this forum.

And I agree w. you about magazine capacity. I'm not for their restriction necessarily, but there have been incidents where the mass shooter was stopped when changing magazines or the gun jammed. Again, no dog in the fight, and yes, the market is already flooded w. high capacity magazines, just throwing that in.

Gene wrote:

DrDonkeyLove wrote:IMO the only scary "assault weapon" regulation that would do anything to significantly reduce AR type of weapon lethality would be to limit magazine capacity.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Jerry Miculek does a dozen shots in under 3 seconds.... with a revolver. Speed Loaders are easy to make.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSFPw[/youtube]

Sheriff does experiments with mag limits.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCSySuemiHU[/youtube]

I don't know how well either of those videos support the idea that mag limits wouldn't curb violence.

Jerry's just not someone to bring into the discussion at all - if a killer (or a good guy for that matter )w. a gun has Jerry's skillz, then we know how it's going to end.

The second video begins by saying "75-80% of shots by LEOs miss their intended target" - LEOs and military will always have high capacity magazines. Joe Blow who steals his mom's AR may or may not.

nafod wrote:

johno wrote: As to the screening, our most recent mass murderer was FBI screened (not psych screened) multiple times. Screening would have caught the Newtown murderer, except that he stole the weapons from his mother. But it might catch some.

Saw an interesting article about how we will need to move to a Secret Service model of intervention, where when they get a threat against POTUS, they don't just check, they intervene.

Some experts say there is in fact a solution and model for doing a better job of tracking this new threat—the one used by the U.S. Secret Service to keep the president safe. “It’s going to take adopting an approach used by Secret Service for years, a combination of law enforcement, risk assessment and then intervention, even if there’s no arrest,” says Cohen. For decades, the Secret Service has gone further than simply investigating and prosecuting threats to the president. Even if agents don’t arrest a suspect who, say, posts something threatening online, the Secret Service will take additional steps to assess if that person poses risks of committing a crime in the future based on psychological and behavioral characteristics—for example like the threatening and Islamist-sympathizing statements Mateen was said to have made to co-workers in recent years. They’ll also try to connect the individual with mental-health, educational and religious authorities from the community.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... z4BxCx8N6c
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

If the mass killings keep coming more faster and with greater numbers, there WILL be a limit to the tolerance for it. Business as usual will be unacceptable. Things will change. I thought 20 dead schoolchildren would be it, but I was wrong. Right now, as I type, there are nut cases, the next Dylan Roof or Mateen, plotting their attack. That's a creepy thought. It's a shame the NRA isn't part of the solution on this, beyond advocating that everyone buy more guns.

NRA said they were in support of a terror watch list, so do you mean they should instead support an assault weapons ban? If so, do you support an assault weapons ban? If you do, comrade, why didn't you speak up when johno repeatedly asked? You can't come right out and say it?

Herv100 wrote:NRA said they were in support of a terror watch list, so do you mean they should instead support an assault weapons ban? If so, do you support an assault weapons ban? If you do, comrade, why didn't you speak up when johno repeatedly asked? You can't come right out and say it?

Relax there buddy, read to me like Nafod was just supporting the idea of better screening...

Nevermind - after rereading, I don't know. (edit)

Boris wrote:I don't know how well either of those videos support the idea that mag limits wouldn't curb violence.

Jerry's just not someone to bring into the discussion at all - if a killer (or a good guy for that matter )w. a gun has Jerry's skillz, then we know how it's going to end.

Jerry shows that it's possible to shoot that fast. I don't know how long it took Jerry to get that fast. Someone like Omar Sateen or someone trained in an ISIS camp? Versus Dylan Roof or some "impulse killer"?

Carry two or more handguns. Aka "New York Reload".

Boris wrote:The second video begins by saying "75-80% of shots by LEOs miss their intended target" - LEOs and military will always have high capacity magazines. Joe Blow who steals his mom's AR may or may not.

If you're shooting into a packed mass of people like these scum bags?


My concern with these bans is that they're not going to work. Sick units substitute something else. So something else will get banned the next time we have a mass killing.

Continue until there is total Prohibition.

nafod wrote:If the mass killings keep coming more faster and with greater numbers, there WILL be a limit to the tolerance for it.

www.heyjackass.com

nafod wrote:Business as usual will be unacceptable. Things will change. I thought 20 dead schoolchildren would be it, but I was wrong. Right now, as I type, there are nut cases, the next Dylan Roof or Mateen, plotting their attack. That's a creepy thought. It's a shame the NRA isn't part of the solution on this, beyond advocating that everyone buy more guns.

The NRA helped write the "Cop Killer Bullet" bill. The original Biaggi bill would have banned all center fire ammunition in the US since bullet resistant cloth armor won't stop rifle rounds. The NRA changed that to pistol ammunition that used steel or iron cores. The NRA worked on the final Brady Bill, the Mitchell-Gore-Dole compromise. The NRA has worked on a lot of gun control bills to make them "acceptable" or possible.

If our rights are going to depend upon preventing "psychos" then us gun nuts might as well turn em in. There is no end to this ratchet. In the UK you need police permission to purchase - social media posts or being prescribed SSRIs can disqualify you. In the EU it's worse. 120 Parisians were killed by ISIS pukes carrying automatic firearms smuggled in from Yugoslavia. The EU responds by taking more rights from common EU subjects.

Weren't for the NRA we would be paying a $200 transfer tax to purchase a bolt action rifle. We'd be awash in illegal guns with the same stupid shit that the War on Drugs is costing us today.

[quote
Grandpa's Spells wrote:


tough old man wrote:

So if there is six bad guys the last one gets to kill you and rape your family?

If that happens, you can ride your unicorns away to a safer imaginary scenario.
Banking on shooting that efficiently (5/5) is about imaginary as it gets-- tom may be one of the few here who can do it; I'm an above-average shot and I would never bet I can.][/quote]

Shotgun for home defense. Attached drum mag. Transition to Browning HiPowers.