This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Tell me to act like a grown man? I'm the one that can protect my family by carrying a gun.You? You want to run like a scared #####. That's if you can get away. You and your wife could instead end up getting raped and tortured like this couple in east TN not to long ago...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom
Because if you limit the discussion to these things, the gun nerds don't have any comeback. So they need to talk about protecting their families and gunning down velociraptors.
I don't wonder why. I'm proud to be a "liberal elitist" if that means I don't live in a paranoid state where I'm carrying a firearm to the door everytime someone knocks.
Seems he has had folks he knows first hand victimized. This seems to have colored his view on what is considered paranoid. I bet if someone you know was affected by violence first had you too may have a different perspective. .
Not necessarily.
I live in Lancaster, SC. We have no police department. Our sherrif's dept has between 3 and 6 on-duty officers at any given time patrolling the county which has 555 square miles. Our sheriff says we can expect a response time of less than 15 minutes. There is a Hells Angels joint down the road. There has been quite a few burglaries lately, and a few big drug busts - meth and heroin.IMO, being armed in our neighborhood is completely rational.
My objection to the TimPlan is that it's meaningless, toothless regulation that would't have don a damn thing to prevent Newtown. This is the same crap that gets trotted out every few years and prevents any meaningful legislation.I'd rather see a discussion on real reform.
Such as?I recognize the weaknesses and uncertainty of what I want, but I'm for it anyhow because I can't think of any alternative which wouldn't severely limit individual rights and/or public safety. If you have better ideas, please state them.My objection to the TimPlan ™ is that it's meaningless, toothless regulation that would't have don a damn thing to prevent Newtown. This is the same crap that gets trotted out every few years and prevents any meaningful legislation.I'd rather see a discussion on real reform.
Otis. I've got Tim on ignore because he ignores facts about his own misconceptions regarding what he says he supports; nor, will he acknowledge that the old assault weapons ban has been tried and clearly failed miserably. He says he's not for the old assault weapons ban and then he describes it and says he's for that. By definition semi autos with greater than ten round mags are assault weapons. Until he understands he's rolling out the old legislation, I'm not going discuss how bad it's failed and why. It hasn't failed the gun nuts, to the contrary, obviously. It's failed to address by far the biggest categories of gun crimes. The state (mine and tims) with the toughest laws of all, by a wide margin according to the Brady lobby; the state that took the assault weapons ban much further than tim is asking, is leading the way in mass shootings since doing so. Why anyone truly concerned would support this is beyond me.Because if you limit the discussion to these things, the gun nerds don't have any comeback. So they need to talk about protecting their families and gunning down velociraptors.
Amen.My objection to the TimPlan is that it's meaningless, toothless regulation that would't have don a damn thing to prevent Newtown. This is the same crap that gets trotted out every few years and prevents any meaningful legislation.I'd rather see a discussion on real reform.
Such as?I recognize the weaknesses and uncertainty of what I want, but I'm for it anyhow because I can't think of any alternative which wouldn't severely limit individual rights and/or public safety. If you have better ideas, please state them.My objection to the TimPlan ™ is that it's meaningless, toothless regulation that would't have don a damn thing to prevent Newtown. This is the same crap that gets trotted out every few years and prevents any meaningful legislation.I'd rather see a discussion on real reform.
I would love to hear the answer to this - because all gun nuts seem to do is paint themselves into a corner in which they say nothing will change without significant change. To me this means really restrictive regulations on guns. I'd like to know what it means to them.
84 pages in 9 days.Never say the FFA isn't passionate.
I've always mocked people who felt passionately about something. It actually feels good to believe in something and put your heart into it.
I posted my proposal previously -page 40 or thereabouts. Regardless, i'm not a bureaucrat, i'm not the guy paid to figure this out. I expect that those we do employ to legislate need to do better and an approval of meaningless "reform" is letting them off the hook.Such as?I recognize the weaknesses and uncertainty of what I want, but I'm for it anyhow because I can't think of any alternative which wouldn't severely limit individual rights and/or public safety. If you have better ideas, please state them.My objection to the TimPlan ™ is that it's meaningless, toothless regulation that would't have don a damn thing to prevent Newtown. This is the same crap that gets trotted out every few years and prevents any meaningful legislation.I'd rather see a discussion on real reform.
I agree completely. Guns, taxes, entitlements, etc. I have some ideas but those are just "a guy in texas bull####ting". I want our politicians, who are well paid and coddled, to do the heavy lifting here. I want the guys that deal with this stuff professionally to muster the intellect to get us out of a jam. Why does it fall to me and you and Timmy to come up with ideas? These guys haven't done #### for years - how about they come up with some solutions?I posted my proposal previously -page 40 or thereabouts. Regardless, i'm not a bureaucrat, i'm not the guy paid to figure this out. I expect that those we do employ to legislate need to do better and an approval of meaningless "reform" is letting them off the hook.Such as?I recognize the weaknesses and uncertainty of what I want, but I'm for it anyhow because I can't think of any alternative which wouldn't severely limit individual rights and/or public safety. If you have better ideas, please state them.My objection to the TimPlan ™ is that it's meaningless, toothless regulation that would't have don a damn thing to prevent Newtown. This is the same crap that gets trotted out every few years and prevents any meaningful legislation.I'd rather see a discussion on real reform.
I'm not the one that said that, but nice derail.
Lol, Wut?
After 85 pages the 10 ton elephant in the room finally gets noticed... sort of.
Sigh. Tim, for the last time. The 19 models specified by the ban were equally banned by the 10rd magazine restriction, because they all came with high cap mags. So for 85 pages you've been saying don't ban them but ban them. While the 94 AWB had a bunch of meaningless language in it, like specifying models, or limiting innocuous features, the working end of the legislation was a high cap mag ban. Period.
It was my understanding that these magazines were interchangeable in most of these weapons, that you could take a 30 round magazine out and replace it with a 10 round magazine. If what you're saying is correct, then it is not my error but also the error of everything I have attempted to read on this subject. That being said, if it truly is the case that certain of these models can ONLY work with 30 round magazines, then I say ban them. I don't think anyone needs a 30 round magazine and I don't think they should be legal, and I believe their legality makes us all less safe. That is my firm opinion on this matter, and if it pisses you off, sorry about that.
Good point. If cops can have guns then poor minorities should too. Only fair.GAME, SET, MATCH.
Who are you saying has ~3? It's not very clear from your original post. The way you wrote it sounds like: UK was about .5 prior to the ban and compare those figures to today's ~3. Yet the picture shows the UK to be below .5.See that number from the left margin, the one that says 3?
I suppose if you meant the US is about 3 you should be a little more clear. Your post was kind of all over the place. And it also seems like you're saying the US ban of 1994 was effective if the US rate was 14.24 but is now below 4.
"you can see how far we have come" (from 14.24 to 3...)If you know your facts it should be crystal clear, the England/Wales/Scotland never had a huge number of gun-related deaths to begin with yet everyone is pointing their fingers at them saying why can't we be more like them and ban guns? Well the problem is they are not the U.S., they don't have a drug war going on, they are not located geographically adjacent to Mexico and they are not just north of South America where most of the drugs originate. Yet they too still have massacres they have to deal with even with a handgun ban, go figure.Who are you saying has ~3? It's not very clear from your original post. The way you wrote it sounds like: UK was about .5 prior to the ban and compare those figures to today's ~3. Yet the picture shows the UK to be below .5.See that number from the left margin, the one that says 3?
Best post of the thread on the first page yet you nerds are still arguing like a bunch of idiots. Congrats.
You change things you have an ability to readily change. Altering death rates by educating people can only go so far. You will get more results (IMO) in situations like that which happened in CT by outlawing auto/semi/etc than trying to convince someone through educating them that their chemically imbalanced son needs to be medicated.
More than likely, yes.
Just like a drug ban stops people from getting drugs, a ban on guns would stop people from going on rampages.Really? how?
A ban on semi-automatics may have prevented the CT massacre. We'll never know.We do know that the status quo did not prevent it.
Glad to see you nerds still don't get it.
I'm gonna hazard a guess that you're not poor and black.
A grizzly bear in every classroom may have prevented it as well. We'll never know.A ban on semi-automatics may have prevented the CT massacre. We'll never know.We do know that the status quo did not prevent it.
Glad to see you nerds still don't get it.
Are you?
No. Why? Are you?When was the last time you heard of somebody protecting themselves from "the government" with a gun?
Yeah, b/c restrictions on arms (which has been wildly successful in many countries) is similar to putting grizzly bears in classrooms.A grizzly bear in every classroom may have prevented it as well. We'll never know.A ban on semi-automatics may have prevented the CT massacre. We'll never know.We do know that the status quo did not prevent it.
Glad to see you nerds still don't get it.
This really has nothing at all to do with the point that I made. Which is that this government is in no place to be talking about gun control. I'm not even saying that there should be more gun proliferation, just a real system of accountability in police forces. They assault people, kill people, and even shoot their dogs seemingly every day. It's sickening.The reason I bring up the poor/black thing is that US has the highest incarceration rate in the world, mostly blacks. We're all keyboard warriors here and probably never had to deal with it, but you should be cognizant of #### like that when you downplay the idea of corrupt governments administering gun control.
