***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (4 Viewers)

[Cookiemonster]

Also, 15 round restrictions seems like a compromise. Not sure it will do much of anything though IMO.

One reason why I changed my mind on this idea is because you in particular convinced me that it would be impossible to enforce. Now I'm wondering how the State of Colorado will enforce it. What's to prevent someone from simply ordering a larger magazine online from another state?Also, how difficult is it to take a 15 round magazine and convert it on your own to a larger magazine? I've been given to understand that with new technology this is rather easy. Any truth to this?

Harder than it is to just fabricate your own large cap magazine from sheet aluminum.

 

[Cookiemonster]

And someone getting killed while breaking into another persons home at 2am is not a tragedy.

In what world is this not a tragedy? A 16 year old kid was shot and killed.

The one where you don't break into other peoples homes at 2 am regardless of how old you are.

Still seems like a tragedy.

So, why aren't you squawking about some drunk kid killed when he ran a red light and was hit by a sober driver with the right of way? That's such a tragedy too, right? I mean, drunk #######s can't be held accountable for their actions, right? Must be the sober driver's fault for driving an SUV and not a Prius.< next two pages: What if he was color blind and couldn't tell the light was red? I think he tried to stop, but his tires failed... and other nonsense that has nothing to do with the fact that a drunk ####### got himself killed by being stupid. >

You seem very upset.

Not at all. Just trying to wrap my head around the fact that two pages were filled up about a 2:00 am B&E getting shot. Poking fun at the tangents in this thread and #####ing about the fact that I had to read them all to catch up with the thread.

 

[Apple Jack]

A kid accidentally going into his neighbors house thinking it's his own house is not analogous to driving drunk.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

A kid accidentally going into his neighbors house thinking it's his own house is not analogous to driving drunk.

What if said kid ignored a warning shot and continued approaching the man that fired the shot? Not the kids fault that he was that drunk?

 

[TobiasFunke]

You don't break DGU's down since their are no recorded reports of each DGU in order to categorize since most of them go unreported. Any rational human can deduce when the number of DGU's are at least 80x the number of homicides, to pick a number in the middle of the spectrum, you only need greater than 1.25% of those incidents to result in saving a life. Unfortunately you cannot understand such simple concepts and need some guy writing a blog post to spell this out for you.

Sigh.

One last time: if this post from you is true, why does the author say this?

So even if you use the worst number provided by people who are just as biased as me but in the opposite direction, gun use is a huge net positive. Or to put it another way, the Brady Center hates guns so much that they are totally cool with the population of a decent sized city getting raped and murdered every year as collateral damage in order to get what they want.

If the bolded in your post is true, what's the basis for that statement? If it's impossible to break down defensive gun uses, how does he draw a conclusion about how many people are saves from being raped and murdered by defensive gun use?Let's see if you can just explain that. No insults from you (trust me, I understand the simple concepts just fine). No pro-gun advocacy. No talk of broken records, no childish emoticons, no arguing with a single sentence pulled out of context from one of my posts. Just explain that statement for me. That's all I want. Explain what the author means to me.

 

[Apple Jack]

A kid accidentally going into his neighbors house thinking it's his own house is not analogous to driving drunk.

What if said kid ignored a warning shot and continued approaching the man that fired the shot? Not the kids fault that he was that drunk?

Hey...where you going with that goalpost?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

A kid accidentally going into his neighbors house thinking it's his own house is not analogous to driving drunk.

What if said kid ignored a warning shot and continued approaching the man that fired the shot? Not the kids fault that he was that drunk?

Hey...where you going with that goalpost?

You are the one that shortened the field, not me.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

You don't break DGU's down since their are no recorded reports of each DGU in order to categorize since most of them go unreported. Any rational human can deduce when the number of DGU's are at least 80x the number of homicides, to pick a number in the middle of the spectrum, you only need greater than 1.25% of those incidents to result in saving a life. Unfortunately you cannot understand such simple concepts and need some guy writing a blog post to spell this out for you.

Sigh.

One last time: if this post from you is true, why does the author say this?

So even if you use the worst number provided by people who are just as biased as me but in the opposite direction, gun use is a huge net positive. Or to put it another way, the Brady Center hates guns so much that they are totally cool with the population of a decent sized city getting raped and murdered every year as collateral damage in order to get what they want.

If the bolded in your post is true, what's the basis for that statement? If it's impossible to break down defensive gun uses, how does he draw a conclusion about how many people are saves from being raped and murdered by defensive gun use?Let's see if you can just explain that. No insults from you (trust me, I understand the simple concepts just fine). No pro-gun advocacy. No talk of broken records, no childish emoticons, no arguing with a single sentence pulled out of context from one of my posts. Just explain that statement for me. That's all I want. Explain what the author means to me.

Funny you say no insults and then you go off insulting me, real mature.

So even if you use the worst number provided by people who are just as biased as me but in the opposite direction, gun use is a huge net positive.

Gun use is a huge net positive because they are used for "the good" many times over more than they are used for "the bad". If you read into this statement any more you are reading too far and putting words into the author's post that are not there.

Or to put it another way, the Brady Center hates guns so much that they are totally cool with the population of a decent sized city getting raped and murdered every year as collateral damage in order to get what they want.

Again he is generalizing that guns prevent more rapes and murders than bad people perform with the aid of guns, I don't know what a decent sized city is, I certainly would not say a decent sized city has to equal 108,000 people. If you read into this statement any more you are reading too far and putting words into the author's post that are not there. There are 30k cities in the U.S. and the U.S. population is 300 million, the average sized city is 10k.

 

[TobiasFunke]

You don't break DGU's down since their are no recorded reports of each DGU in order to categorize since most of them go unreported. Any rational human can deduce when the number of DGU's are at least 80x the number of homicides, to pick a number in the middle of the spectrum, you only need greater than 1.25% of those incidents to result in saving a life. Unfortunately you cannot understand such simple concepts and need some guy writing a blog post to spell this out for you.

Sigh.

One last time: if this post from you is true, why does the author say this?

So even if you use the worst number provided by people who are just as biased as me but in the opposite direction, gun use is a huge net positive. Or to put it another way, the Brady Center hates guns so much that they are totally cool with the population of a decent sized city getting raped and murdered every year as collateral damage in order to get what they want.

If the bolded in your post is true, what's the basis for that statement? If it's impossible to break down defensive gun uses, how does he draw a conclusion about how many people are saves from being raped and murdered by defensive gun use?Let's see if you can just explain that. No insults from you (trust me, I understand the simple concepts just fine). No pro-gun advocacy. No talk of broken records, no childish emoticons, no arguing with a single sentence pulled out of context from one of my posts. Just explain that statement for me. That's all I want. Explain what the author means to me.

Funny you say no insults and then you go off insulting me, real mature.

So even if you use the worst number provided by people who are just as biased as me but in the opposite direction, gun use is a huge net positive.

Gun use is a huge net positive because they are used for "the good" many times over more than they are used for "the bad". If you read into this statement any more you are reading too far and putting words into the author's post that are not there.

Or to put it another way, the Brady Center hates guns so much that they are totally cool with the population of a decent sized city getting raped and murdered every year as collateral damage in order to get what they want.

Again he is generalizing that guns prevent more rapes and murders than bad people perform with the aid of guns, I don't know what a decent sized city is, I certainly would not say a decent sized city has to equal 108,000 people. If you read into this statement any more you are reading too far and putting words into the author's post that are not there. There are 30k cities in the U.S. and the U.S. population is 300 million, the average sized city is 10k.

Well, thanks for finally trying at least. I could obviously rip several holes in this comical defense of him, but that won't get us anywhere. I'll trust that other readers of the thread can see them and will know not to believe any of the BS that guy was spewing.Also, I'm fairly sure I didn't insult you in that post. Not sure what you take to be an insult, but whatever it is, I guess I apologize? Hopefully you're not that sensitive to "insults" when you're toting a weapon

 

[Run It Up]

Mother and Baby shot in robbery by two kids (10-15 yrs old). Mother survived, baby died.

Obviously we should arm all of our babies.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Also, I'm fairly sure I didn't insult you in that post. Not sure what you take to be an insult, but whatever it is, I guess I apologize? Hopefully you're not that sensitive to "insults" when you're toting a weapon

I don't own any weapons, there you go assuming again. One does not need to own a gun to understand that there are not enough police in the country to protect everyone all of the time. This man is helping to secure our schools by giving free training to hundreds of responsible school employees so they can attain their ccw permits so that they can save lives by responding when seconds count, when it will take minutes for police to arrive on the scene and more time to formulate a plan to intercede. Removing these gun free zones from the map will do a lot more good than banning guns. I think the major issue people have with removing gun free zones is they think anyone that has access to a gun will be allowed to bring it to school, bring it to a movie theater, etc... This is obviously not the case in that the person needs to be licensed to carry (in most states). Now a case could be made for states where no license is required but those are the exceptions.

 

[Rayderr]

Mother and Baby shot in robbery by two kids (10-15 yrs old). Mother survived, baby died.

Obviously we should arm all of our babies.

Actually the whole thing could've been avoided if just imprisoned all children until age 18.

 

[timschochet]

The failure of Feinstein's new assault weapons ban is a good example of pluralism at work. (I tried to explain this concept in the lobbying thread.) The latest polls show that over 50% of the public is in favor of what Feinstein wants to do. If we were a fully democratic society, therefore, Congress should have voted in favor, reflecting the will of the public. But even though the people opposed to the AWB represent a numerical minority, they are actually much more powerful in this instance than the majority in favor. There are lots of reasons for this, but the main one is that those against are willing to vote and spend money opposing, while those in favor are not willing to do as much. Hence the bill fails.

In our society, the motivated is always much more powerful than the disinterested, no matter how the numbers fall.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Mother and Baby shot in robbery by two kids (10-15 yrs old). Mother survived, baby died.

Obviously we should arm all of our babies.

Actually the whole thing could've been avoided if just imprisoned all children until age 18.

If only universal background checks were in place this tragedy could have been avoided.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

The failure of Feinstein's new assault weapons ban is a good example of pluralism at work. (I tried to explain this concept in the lobbying thread.) The latest polls show that over 50% of the public is in favor of what Feinstein wants to do. If we were a fully democratic society, therefore, Congress should have voted in favor, reflecting the will of the public. But even though the people opposed to the AWB represent a numerical minority, they are actually much more powerful in this instance than the majority in favor. There are lots of reasons for this, but the main one is that those against are willing to vote and spend money opposing, while those in favor are not willing to do as much. Hence the bill fails.

In our society, the motivated is always much more powerful than the disinterested, no matter how the numbers fall.

You should be happy then since all of the people responsible for not allowing Feinstein to do what she wants will be voted out of office since "the polls state they represent the majority."Reid passed on the bill and said it only had at most 40 votes since he didn't want to lose Democrat seats in the Senate when Senators from pro-gun states lose their seats in the next election by voting for this.

 

[Rayderr]

The failure of Feinstein's new assault weapons ban is a good example of pluralism at work. (I tried to explain this concept in the lobbying thread.) The latest polls show that over 50% of the public is in favor of what Feinstein wants to do. If we were a fully democratic society, therefore, Congress should have voted in favor, reflecting the will of the public. But even though the people opposed to the AWB represent a numerical minority, they are actually much more powerful in this instance than the majority in favor. There are lots of reasons for this, but the main one is that those against are willing to vote and spend money opposing, while those in favor are not willing to do as much. Hence the bill fails. In our society, the motivated is always much more powerful than the disinterested, no matter how the numbers fall.

Or maybe it's just the more knowledgeable? I'm willing to bet most people in the poll don't even know what an "assault weapon" is. Hell, look at all the people in this thread that were/are clueless as to what it entails.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Also, I'm fairly sure I didn't insult you in that post. Not sure what you take to be an insult, but whatever it is, I guess I apologize? Hopefully you're not that sensitive to "insults" when you're toting a weapon

I don't own any weapons, there you go assuming again. One does not need to own a gun to understand that there are not enough police in the country to protect everyone all of the time. This man is helping to secure our schools by giving free training to hundreds of responsible school employees so they can attain their ccw permits so that they can save lives by responding when seconds count, when it will take minutes for police to arrive on the scene and more time to formulate a plan to intercede. Removing these gun free zones from the map will do a lot more good than banning guns. I think the major issue people have with removing gun free zones is they think anyone that has access to a gun will be allowed to bring it to school, bring it to a movie theater, etc... This is obviously not the case in that the person needs to be licensed to carry (in most states). Now a case could be made for states where no license is required but those are the exceptions.

I'm glad he does that. And I personally don't care one way or another about removing gun free school zones- if anything I would say I agree with you, I think they're kind of pointless. But doing good work doesn't make it OK for him to abuse statistics to make sensationalized, unsupportable or just plain wrong points about overall harm vs. good. But we've beaten that question to death, and I do appreciate you at least addressing that.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Second Amendment expert Joyce Lee Malcolm on the AWB

 

[ATC1]

Also, I'm fairly sure I didn't insult you in that post. Not sure what you take to be an insult, but whatever it is, I guess I apologize? Hopefully you're not that sensitive to "insults" when you're toting a weapon

I don't own any weapons, there you go assuming again. One does not need to own a gun to understand that there are not enough police in the country to protect everyone all of the time. This man is helping to secure our schools by giving free training to hundreds of responsible school employees so they can attain their ccw permits so that they can save lives by responding when seconds count, when it will take minutes for police to arrive on the scene and more time to formulate a plan to intercede. Removing these gun free zones from the map will do a lot more good than banning guns. I think the major issue people have with removing gun free zones is they think anyone that has access to a gun will be allowed to bring it to school, bring it to a movie theater, etc... This is obviously not the case in that the person needs to be licensed to carry (in most states). Now a case could be made for states where no license is required but those are the exceptions.

Just dumb IMO. I did not read his background. Is he the CCP instructor in Utah? Or another place where a person with a permit can carry in a school?

 

[ATC1]

The failure of Feinstein's new assault weapons ban is a good example of pluralism at work. (I tried to explain this concept in the lobbying thread.) The latest polls show that over 50% of the public is in favor of what Feinstein wants to do. If we were a fully democratic society, therefore, Congress should have voted in favor, reflecting the will of the public. But even though the people opposed to the AWB represent a numerical minority, they are actually much more powerful in this instance than the majority in favor. There are lots of reasons for this, but the main one is that those against are willing to vote and spend money opposing, while those in favor are not willing to do as much. Hence the bill fails. In our society, the motivated is always much more powerful than the disinterested, no matter how the numbers fall.

As it should be. Those motivated should be rewarded. Not saying everyone shouldn't have a say, but before you can vote you should have to correctly answer the question of "What is an assault weapon?"

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Also, I'm fairly sure I didn't insult you in that post. Not sure what you take to be an insult, but whatever it is, I guess I apologize? Hopefully you're not that sensitive to "insults" when you're toting a weapon

I don't own any weapons, there you go assuming again. One does not need to own a gun to understand that there are not enough police in the country to protect everyone all of the time. This man is helping to secure our schools by giving free training to hundreds of responsible school employees so they can attain their ccw permits so that they can save lives by responding when seconds count, when it will take minutes for police to arrive on the scene and more time to formulate a plan to intercede. Removing these gun free zones from the map will do a lot more good than banning guns. I think the major issue people have with removing gun free zones is they think anyone that has access to a gun will be allowed to bring it to school, bring it to a movie theater, etc... This is obviously not the case in that the person needs to be licensed to carry (in most states). Now a case could be made for states where no license is required but those are the exceptions.

Just dumb IMO. I did not read his background. Is he the CCP instructor in Utah? Or another place where a person with a permit can carry in a school?

yep, original link

 

[JHuber77]

Also, 15 round restrictions seems like a compromise. Not sure it will do much of anything though IMO.

One reason why I changed my mind on this idea is because you in particular convinced me that it would be impossible to enforce. Now I'm wondering how the State of Colorado will enforce it. What's to prevent someone from simply ordering a larger magazine online from another state?Also, how difficult is it to take a 15 round magazine and convert it on your own to a larger magazine? I've been given to understand that with new technology this is rather easy. Any truth to this?

Magpul is selling 30rd magazines to as many Colorado residents as they can before the ban goes into effect. They have never sold directly to the public that I am aware of. Many of the sheriffs in the Colorado have already said they will not enforce it due principle, manpower, etc. Converting magazines is easy. Takes about 2 seconds. Rifle magazines are a bit trickier but can be done. Here is a link to a handgun magazine that would be illegal starting in July.http://youtu.be/dW-DzOLKEFU

 

[ATC1]

Also, 15 round restrictions seems like a compromise. Not sure it will do much of anything though IMO.

One reason why I changed my mind on this idea is because you in particular convinced me that it would be impossible to enforce. Now I'm wondering how the State of Colorado will enforce it. What's to prevent someone from simply ordering a larger magazine online from another state?Also, how difficult is it to take a 15 round magazine and convert it on your own to a larger magazine? I've been given to understand that with new technology this is rather easy. Any truth to this?

Magpul is selling 30rd magazines to as many Colorado residents as they can before the ban goes into effect. They have never sold directly to the public that I am aware of. Many of the sheriffs in the Colorado have already said they will not enforce it due principle, manpower, etc. converting magazines is easy. Takes about 2 seconds. Rifle magazines are a bit trickier but can be done. Here is a link to a handgun magazine that would be illegal starting in July.http://youtu.be/dW-DzOLKEFU

Link?

 

[JHuber77]

Also, 15 round restrictions seems like a compromise. Not sure it will do much of anything though IMO.

One reason why I changed my mind on this idea is because you in particular convinced me that it would be impossible to enforce. Now I'm wondering how the State of Colorado will enforce it. What's to prevent someone from simply ordering a larger magazine online from another state?Also, how difficult is it to take a 15 round magazine and convert it on your own to a larger magazine? I've been given to understand that with new technology this is rather easy. Any truth to this?

Magpul is selling 30rd magazines to as many Colorado residents as they can before the ban goes into effect. They have never sold directly to the public that I am aware of. Many of the sheriffs in the Colorado have already said they will not enforce it due principle, manpower, etc. converting magazines is easy. Takes about 2 seconds. Rifle magazines are a bit trickier but can be done. Here is a link to a handgun magazine that would be illegal starting in July.http://youtu.be/dW-DzOLKEFU

Link?

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22817663/weld-sheriffs-refusal-enforce-gun-rules-within-letter

 

[ATC1]

Also, 15 round restrictions seems like a compromise. Not sure it will do much of anything though IMO.

One reason why I changed my mind on this idea is because you in particular convinced me that it would be impossible to enforce. Now I'm wondering how the State of Colorado will enforce it. What's to prevent someone from simply ordering a larger magazine online from another state?Also, how difficult is it to take a 15 round magazine and convert it on your own to a larger magazine? I've been given to understand that with new technology this is rather easy. Any truth to this?

Magpul is selling 30rd magazines to as many Colorado residents as they can before the ban goes into effect. They have never sold directly to the public that I am aware of. Many of the sheriffs in the Colorado have already said they will not enforce it due principle, manpower, etc. converting magazines is easy. Takes about 2 seconds. Rifle magazines are a bit trickier but can be done. Here is a link to a handgun magazine that would be illegal starting in July.http://youtu.be/dW-DzOLKEFU

Link?

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22817663/weld-sheriffs-refusal-enforce-gun-rules-within-letter

Thanks, what a mess.

 

[JHuber77]

Also, 15 round restrictions seems like a compromise. Not sure it will do much of anything though IMO.

One reason why I changed my mind on this idea is because you in particular convinced me that it would be impossible to enforce. Now I'm wondering how the State of Colorado will enforce it. What's to prevent someone from simply ordering a larger magazine online from another state?Also, how difficult is it to take a 15 round magazine and convert it on your own to a larger magazine? I've been given to understand that with new technology this is rather easy. Any truth to this?

Magpul is selling 30rd magazines to as many Colorado residents as they can before the ban goes into effect. They have never sold directly to the public that I am aware of. Many of the sheriffs in the Colorado have already said they will not enforce it due principle, manpower, etc. converting magazines is easy. Takes about 2 seconds. Rifle magazines are a bit trickier but can be done. Here is a link to a handgun magazine that would be illegal starting in July.http://youtu.be/dW-DzOLKEFU

Link?

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22817663/weld-sheriffs-refusal-enforce-gun-rules-within-letter

Thanks, what a mess.

It's a mess because its a knee jerk reaction to all things involved. A better solution would have been to pass a law regarding sales of safes or discounted safes that way people have a better way to lock up weapons. If Adam Lanza could not have accessed his mothers AR-15, would it have happened?

 

[ATC1]

Also, 15 round restrictions seems like a compromise. Not sure it will do much of anything though IMO.

One reason why I changed my mind on this idea is because you in particular convinced me that it would be impossible to enforce. Now I'm wondering how the State of Colorado will enforce it. What's to prevent someone from simply ordering a larger magazine online from another state?Also, how difficult is it to take a 15 round magazine and convert it on your own to a larger magazine? I've been given to understand that with new technology this is rather easy. Any truth to this?

Magpul is selling 30rd magazines to as many Colorado residents as they can before the ban goes into effect. They have never sold directly to the public that I am aware of. Many of the sheriffs in the Colorado have already said they will not enforce it due principle, manpower, etc. converting magazines is easy. Takes about 2 seconds. Rifle magazines are a bit trickier but can be done. Here is a link to a handgun magazine that would be illegal starting in July.http://youtu.be/dW-DzOLKEFU

Link?

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22817663/weld-sheriffs-refusal-enforce-gun-rules-within-letter

Thanks, what a mess.

It's a mess because its a knee jerk reaction to all things involved. A better solution would have been to pass a law regarding sales of safes or discounted safes that way people have a better way to lock up weapons. If Adam Lanza could not have accessed his mothers AR-15, would it have happened?

Yup. I don't know if it wouldn't have happened. He has been planning this for a long time. I doubt anything would have prevented him beyond someone being able to respond to the shooter with force. However, getting more gun owners to safety and self defense classes will certainly increase the awareness of a threat, importance of safety, what to do in situations etc.

 

[ATC1]

Mother and Baby shot in robbery by two kids (10-15 yrs old). Mother survived, baby died.

Obviously we should arm all of our babies.

I don't get the point of posting the link with either side of the argument, but the story as it sits right now is kinda fishy. Shoot the baby in the head and give the women who can ID you a flesh wound? I guess criminals are dumb, but something just doesn't add up.

 

[zDragon]

Yeah, nobody's saying that this single incident alters the debate in any meaningful way. It's just one data point that sometimes owning a gun leads to tragedy that might otherwise have been avoided.

Just as easily avoided by not drinking.

 

[zDragon]

And someone getting killed while breaking into another persons home at 2am is not a tragedy.

In what world is this not a tragedy? A 16 year old kid was shot and killed.

It is a tragedy and speaks to how we should make it more difficult to obtain alcohol. This would never have happened if the 16 year old did not have access to it.

 

[ATC1]

And someone getting killed while breaking into another persons home at 2am is not a tragedy.

In what world is this not a tragedy? A 16 year old kid was shot and killed.

It is a tragedy and speaks to how we should make it more difficult to obtain alcohol. This would never have happened if the 16 year old did not have access to it.

Let's ban alcohol so it won't be possible to get into the wrong hands.

 

[General Malaise]

I support Judge Judy

IQ tests for gun ownership. Boom. Done.

 

[Rayderr]

I support Judge Judy

IQ tests for gun ownership. Boom. Done.

Can we require IQ tests for voting?

 

[timschochet]

Also, 15 round restrictions seems like a compromise. Not sure it will do much of anything though IMO.

One reason why I changed my mind on this idea is because you in particular convinced me that it would be impossible to enforce. Now I'm wondering how the State of Colorado will enforce it. What's to prevent someone from simply ordering a larger magazine online from another state?Also, how difficult is it to take a 15 round magazine and convert it on your own to a larger magazine? I've been given to understand that with new technology this is rather easy. Any truth to this?

Magpul is selling 30rd magazines to as many Colorado residents as they can before the ban goes into effect. They have never sold directly to the public that I am aware of. Many of the sheriffs in the Colorado have already said they will not enforce it due principle, manpower, etc. converting magazines is easy. Takes about 2 seconds. Rifle magazines are a bit trickier but can be done. Here is a link to a handgun magazine that would be illegal starting in July.http://youtu.be/dW-DzOLKEFU

Link?

http://www.denverpos...s-within-letter

Thanks, what a mess.

It really is. And the more I read about stuff like this is for me a more compelling argument against new gun restrictions than any philosophical position that has been presented in this thread.

 

[General Malaise]

I support Judge Judy

IQ tests for gun ownership. Boom. Done.

Can we require IQ tests for voting?

Voting doesn't kill people...unless those votes go to blood thirsty criminals like Bush/Cheney.

 

[ATC1]

I support Judge Judy

IQ tests for gun ownership. Boom. Done.

Can we require IQ tests for voting?

Voting doesn't kill people...unless those votes go to blood thirsty criminals like Bush/Cheney.

IQ test before being able to buy alcohol?

 

[General Malaise]

I support Judge Judy

IQ tests for gun ownership. Boom. Done.

Can we require IQ tests for voting?

Voting doesn't kill people...unless those votes go to blood thirsty criminals like Bush/Cheney.

IQ test before being able to buy alcohol?

Can I take one first before I lend support to this?

 

[ATC1]

I support Judge Judy

IQ tests for gun ownership. Boom. Done.

Can we require IQ tests for voting?

Voting doesn't kill people...unless those votes go to blood thirsty criminals like Bush/Cheney.

IQ test before being able to buy alcohol?

Can I take one first before I lend support to this?

Why? You worried? Well obviously, you should be.

 

[Cookiemonster]

The failure of Feinstein's new assault weapons ban is a good example of pluralism at work. (I tried to explain this concept in the lobbying thread.) The latest polls show that over 50% of the public is in favor of what Feinstein wants to do. If we were a fully democratic society, therefore, Congress should have voted in favor, reflecting the will of the public. But even though the people opposed to the AWB represent a numerical minority, they are actually much more powerful in this instance than the majority in favor. There are lots of reasons for this, but the main one is that those against are willing to vote and spend money opposing, while those in favor are not willing to do as much. Hence the bill fails. In our society, the motivated is always much more powerful than the disinterested, no matter how the numbers fall.

Why do you think they are not happily voting it through? The majority does not support this, and they are afraid of losing future votes if they did because in a true democratic society, they would not have the support to do so. They know it will cost them valuable seats and votes.You should really expand your news sources to those outside the strong anti-gun rights capitols of L.A., New York and Washington. The only topic getting anywhere close to 50% is for universal background checks. Magazine restrictions are a distant second and AWBs are closer to 10-20% outside of CNN, the Post and the Times. If you look at pro-gun polls, the results are closer to 40%, 20% and 5% respectively. The White House polls, NY Times etc. have been religiously taking down polls that don't reflect their agenda before the day is over. I imagine the truth lies somewhere in between the two, but to say that 50% of the population supports Feinstein's proposals is living in a very small world.

 

[timschochet]

The failure of Feinstein's new assault weapons ban is a good example of pluralism at work. (I tried to explain this concept in the lobbying thread.) The latest polls show that over 50% of the public is in favor of what Feinstein wants to do. If we were a fully democratic society, therefore, Congress should have voted in favor, reflecting the will of the public. But even though the people opposed to the AWB represent a numerical minority, they are actually much more powerful in this instance than the majority in favor. There are lots of reasons for this, but the main one is that those against are willing to vote and spend money opposing, while those in favor are not willing to do as much. Hence the bill fails. In our society, the motivated is always much more powerful than the disinterested, no matter how the numbers fall.

Why do you think they are not happily voting it through? The majority does not support this, and they are afraid of losing future votes if they did because in a true democratic society, they would not have the support to do so. They know it will cost them valuable seats and votes.You should really expand your news sources to those outside the strong anti-gun rights capitols of L.A., New York and Washington. The only topic getting anywhere close to 50% is for universal background checks. Magazine restrictions are a distant second and AWBs are closer to 10-20% outside of CNN, the Post and the Times. If you look at pro-gun polls, the results are closer to 40%, 20% and 5% respectively. The White House polls, NY Times etc. have been religiously taking down polls that don't reflect their agenda before the day is over. I imagine the truth lies somewhere in between the two, but to say that 50% of the population supports Feinstein's proposals is living in a very small world.

This is an amazing post. So I should simply ignore CNN, the Post , the Times, and follow "pro-gun sources" because they offer an opposing set of facts?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

The second half of this talking about NYPD police practices

article

and

wiki

for the lazy

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

ridiculous

2nd time he has been robbed:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/party_heist_bags_nvMUTcj1kyr9BDEgSB8jII

 

[Glass Joe]

I thought gun nuts want existing laws enforced???

 

[Cookiemonster]

The failure of Feinstein's new assault weapons ban is a good example of pluralism at work. (I tried to explain this concept in the lobbying thread.) The latest polls show that over 50% of the public is in favor of what Feinstein wants to do. If we were a fully democratic society, therefore, Congress should have voted in favor, reflecting the will of the public. But even though the people opposed to the AWB represent a numerical minority, they are actually much more powerful in this instance than the majority in favor. There are lots of reasons for this, but the main one is that those against are willing to vote and spend money opposing, while those in favor are not willing to do as much. Hence the bill fails. In our society, the motivated is always much more powerful than the disinterested, no matter how the numbers fall.

Why do you think they are not happily voting it through? The majority does not support this, and they are afraid of losing future votes if they did because in a true democratic society, they would not have the support to do so. They know it will cost them valuable seats and votes.You should really expand your news sources to those outside the strong anti-gun rights capitols of L.A., New York and Washington. The only topic getting anywhere close to 50% is for universal background checks. Magazine restrictions are a distant second and AWBs are closer to 10-20% outside of CNN, the Post and the Times. If you look at pro-gun polls, the results are closer to 40%, 20% and 5% respectively. The White House polls, NY Times etc. have been religiously taking down polls that don't reflect their agenda before the day is over. I imagine the truth lies somewhere in between the two, but to say that 50% of the population supports Feinstein's proposals is living in a very small world.

This is an amazing post. So I should simply ignore CNN, the Post , the Times, and follow "pro-gun sources" because they offer an opposing set of facts?

Read it again... carefully. I said the truth is somewhere in between. I did not say to ignore them, only to not limit yourself to them. They have a very anti-gun agenda. Pro-gun media will give you drastically different numbers and I don't think either side are too interested in actual numbers but in pumping support for their side. You obviously fall under the umbrella of the CNN, Post, Times demographic and their polls help you puff your chest about your (and their) views. Just recommending to you that before you profess how the American public feels, you may want to venture out of your social circle.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Plus universal background checks are unconstitutional, have at it. Today it is illegal for an individual to sell a firearm out of state. Private sales of firearms represent intrastate commerce not to be confused with interstate commerce. Given this, the Commerce Clause does not apply and it is out of the domain of the federal government. It is the responsibility of each state to regulate private sales.

Stellar as always

No content as always, ignored.

He's laughing at you because even a first year law student knows that what you wrote above is completely wrong.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...-Legal-Action-Against-New-York-Governor-CuomoNRA files legal action against Gov. Cuomo and the NY Safe Act citing violations of the Interstate Commerce Clause

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...-Legal-Action-Against-New-York-Governor-Cuomoarticle

 

[Henry Ford]

Plus universal background checks are unconstitutional, have at it. Today it is illegal for an individual to sell a firearm out of state. Private sales of firearms represent intrastate commerce not to be confused with interstate commerce. Given this, the Commerce Clause does not apply and it is out of the domain of the federal government. It is the responsibility of each state to regulate private sales.

Stellar as always

No content as always, ignored.

He's laughing at you because even a first year law student knows that what you wrote above is completely wrong.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...-Legal-Action-Against-New-York-Governor-CuomoNRA files legal action against Gov. Cuomo and the NY Safe Act citing violations of the Interstate Commerce Clause

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...-Legal-Action-Against-New-York-Governor-Cuomoarticle

Just doubling down without understanding any of it, aren't you?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Meanwhile in FL

Firearm-related violent crimes in Florida have dropped by one-third in just four years, 2007 to 2011, while concealed carry permits jumped by 90 percent in that period. Further, violent crime of any kind dropped almost as much, 26 percent.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Plus universal background checks are unconstitutional, have at it. Today it is illegal for an individual to sell a firearm out of state. Private sales of firearms represent intrastate commerce not to be confused with interstate commerce. Given this, the Commerce Clause does not apply and it is out of the domain of the federal government. It is the responsibility of each state to regulate private sales.

Stellar as always

No content as always, ignored.

He's laughing at you because even a first year law student knows that what you wrote above is completely wrong.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...-Legal-Action-Against-New-York-Governor-CuomoNRA files legal action against Gov. Cuomo and the NY Safe Act citing violations of the Interstate Commerce Clause

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...-Legal-Action-Against-New-York-Governor-Cuomoarticle

Just doubling down without understanding any of it, aren't you?

The lawsuit says the gun law, which passed in January, violates the U.S. Constitution’s commerce clause, which empowers the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, because the law restricts interstate commerce by requiring private gun owners to go through dealers if they want to sell guns to a private party in another state.

Are you saying the NRA is wasting their time challenging the SAFE Act as unconstitutional?I know there were a lot of people laughing in this thread at the thought of the AWB as being unconstitutional.

 

[timschochet]

Are you saying the NRA is wasting their time challenging the SAFE Act as unconstitutional?I know there were a lot of people laughing in this thread at the thought of the AWB as being unconstitutional.

1. Yes.2. I'm still laughing.

 

[timschochet]

The failure of Feinstein's new assault weapons ban is a good example of pluralism at work. (I tried to explain this concept in the lobbying thread.) The latest polls show that over 50% of the public is in favor of what Feinstein wants to do. If we were a fully democratic society, therefore, Congress should have voted in favor, reflecting the will of the public. But even though the people opposed to the AWB represent a numerical minority, they are actually much more powerful in this instance than the majority in favor. There are lots of reasons for this, but the main one is that those against are willing to vote and spend money opposing, while those in favor are not willing to do as much. Hence the bill fails. In our society, the motivated is always much more powerful than the disinterested, no matter how the numbers fall.

Why do you think they are not happily voting it through? The majority does not support this, and they are afraid of losing future votes if they did because in a true democratic society, they would not have the support to do so. They know it will cost them valuable seats and votes.You should really expand your news sources to those outside the strong anti-gun rights capitols of L.A., New York and Washington. The only topic getting anywhere close to 50% is for universal background checks. Magazine restrictions are a distant second and AWBs are closer to 10-20% outside of CNN, the Post and the Times. If you look at pro-gun polls, the results are closer to 40%, 20% and 5% respectively. The White House polls, NY Times etc. have been religiously taking down polls that don't reflect their agenda before the day is over. I imagine the truth lies somewhere in between the two, but to say that 50% of the population supports Feinstein's proposals is living in a very small world.

This is an amazing post. So I should simply ignore CNN, the Post , the Times, and follow "pro-gun sources" because they offer an opposing set of facts?

Read it again... carefully. I said the truth is somewhere in between. I did not say to ignore them, only to not limit yourself to them. They have a very anti-gun agenda. Pro-gun media will give you drastically different numbers and I don't think either side are too interested in actual numbers but in pumping support for their side. You obviously fall under the umbrella of the CNN, Post, Times demographic and their polls help you puff your chest about your (and their) views. Just recommending to you that before you profess how the American public feels, you may want to venture out of your social circle.

No. The truth is not something inbetween. I don't care what kind of "agenda" you claim that CNN, the Washington Post, and the New York Times has. If they claim poll results, those poll results are accurate. You have no call to view them as not accurate. I realize that it's a standard conservative thing these days to discount anything reported by the "mainstream media", but the only result is that you live in your own false world. It's the same reason so many conservatives believed that Obama was sure to lose his re-election, because they discounted every poll done by the mainstream media.