Let Freedom Reign!


 
HomeHome  PublicationsPublications  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 Gun Control

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2, 3 ... 20 ... 39  Next
AuthorMessage
sparks



Posts : 2186

PostSubject: Gun Control   7/21/2012, 7:07 am

The NRA has created a very powerful lobbying effort about gun control in order to stifle anyone who supports restrictions on the kind of weapons that have been used in numerous mass murders across the country.Here is a website of one group that is trying to counter the NRA's power in government. Feel free to add other groups that are trying to stop gun violence from destroying the country to this thread.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   7/21/2012, 8:32 am

A good start would be renewing the Federal Assault Weapons Ban which for some idiotic reason expired almost 8 years ago. There is simply no good use for these weapons other than for law enforcement purposes.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5956

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   7/21/2012, 10:15 am

Artie60438 wrote:
A good start would be renewing the Federal Assault Weapons Ban which for some idiotic reason expired almost 8 years ago. There is simply no good use for these weapons other than for law enforcement purposes.

Actual assault weapons in the hands of civilians have been, with few exceptions, illegal since around the 1930s. The only thing the Federal Assault Weapons Ban did was to ban certain semi-automatic weapons which were functionally no different from an ordinary deer rifle, but which were dressed up with harmless accessories designed to scare liberal girly-men and make them wet their collective panties.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Assault weapon (semi-automatic) refers primarily (but not exclusively) to firearms that possess the cosmetics of an assault rifle (which are fully-automatic). Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again; they do not fire automatically like a machine gun, rather, only 1 round is fired with each trigger pull.
In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
• Folding or telescoping stock
• Pistol grip
• Bayonet mount
• Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
• Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades, though strangely, this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those which are mounted externally)
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
• Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
• Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
• Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
• Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
• A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
• Folding or telescoping stock
• Pistol grip
• Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
• Detachable magazine
The earlier term assault rifle refers to rifles that are capable of fully automatic fire. By that definition the ban did not cover "assault rifles" at all. Instead, it created a new definition of "assault weapon," a term that was broad enough to encompass all three categories of firearm (rifle, pistol and shotgun) capable of semi-automatic fire and having a combination of features as listed above, but did not include fully automatic firearms of any type.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   7/21/2012, 12:02 pm

happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
A good start would be renewing the Federal Assault Weapons Ban which for some idiotic reason expired almost 8 years ago. There is simply no good use for these weapons other than for law enforcement purposes.

[b]Actual assault weapons in the hands of civilians have been, with few exceptions, illegal since around the 1930s. The only thing the Federal Assault Weapons Ban did was to ban certain semi-automatic weapons which were functionally no different from an ordinary deer rifle, but which were dressed up with harmless accessories designed to scare liberal girly-men and make them wet their collective panties.
Holmes was in possession of an AR-15.

An AR-15 is a semi-automatic weapon ... capable of firing off hundreds of rounds per minute.

Explain to all of us,what practical purpose does a weapon capable of firing hundreds of rounds per minute serve in a civilian society,other than to convince conservative fruitcakes they're a real macho man?
Back to top Go down
KarenT



Posts : 1328

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   7/21/2012, 12:07 pm

So he had to pull the trigger for each round?

Sorry if that's a stupid question - the only gun I've ever fired is a paintball gun.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5956

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   7/21/2012, 1:41 pm

KarenT wrote:
So he had to pull the trigger for each round?

Sorry if that's a stupid question - the only gun I've ever fired is a paintball gun.


It's not a stupid question, KarenT; it's a question more people should be asking. Yes, he did have to pull the trigger for each round, because the AR-15 is not an assault weapon. It is nothing more than a tricked out deer rifle, and it has the beneficial added effect of making Artie soil himself at the sight of one.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5956

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   7/21/2012, 2:24 pm

Finally!!!!
An effective solution to all this violence!!!!


"Guns don't kill people - masks do."
Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes




http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/07/20/amc-bans-masks-fake-weapons-in-theaters/

AMC Bans Masks, Fake Weapons In Theaters

July 20, 2012 3:41 PM

CHICAGO (CBS) — A movie theater chain with a large footprint in Chicago is now banning face-covering masks and fake weapons inside their movie houses nationwide.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   7/21/2012, 6:54 pm

Expired Assault Weapons Ban Would Have Covered Rifle Used In Colorado Shooting
Quote :

An AR-15 rifle.
One of the principal weapons used by James Eagan Holmes in the horrific Dark Knight Rises shooting would have been subject to a series of sharp restrictions under the now-expired federal Assault Weapons ban. The AR-15 rife carried by Holmes, a civilian semi-automatic version of the military M-16, would have been defined as a “semiautomatic assault weapon” under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. If the law was still in force, semiautomatic assault weapons would have been outright banned:

Such weapons were “unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess” under section (a)(v)(i).

Though there were several loopholes in the Violent Crime Control Act that allowed gun manufacturers to legally produce slightly modified AR-15s, a new version of the bill proposed in 2008 closed them.

The 1994 Act contained a sunset provision that caused it to automatically expire 10 years after passage, and it was not renewed in 2004, meaning that there are no federal restrictions on the ownership of AR-15s and similar weapons. Both Congressman Ed Perlmutter (who represents Aurora, the site of the shooting) and President Obama proposed a new assault weapons ban during their campaigns.

Today, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg called on the President and Governor Romney to address gun violence, saying “maybe it’s time that the two people who want to be President of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it, because this is obviously a problem across the country.”

Purportedly, the AR-15 used by Holmes had a high-capacity clip, which were banned as “large capacity ammunition feeding devices” in the 1994 legislation.

The primary purpose of this gun was to shoot as many targets (innocent people) as possible.

If access to this weapon and others like it were limited it's a good bet that some of those people killed yesterday would still be alive.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5956

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   7/21/2012, 7:27 pm

Artie60438 wrote:
The AR-15 rife carried by Holmes, a civilian semi-automatic version of the military M-16, would have been defined as a “semiautomatic assault weapon” under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. If the law was still in force, semiautomatic assault weapons would have been outright banned:

Let’s get something straight – it’s either an assault weapon, or it’s a semi-automatic weapon. It is one, or it is the other, but it is not both (although most assault weapons may also be fired in semi-automatic mode); the two terms are not interchangeable, regardless of how semi-automatic weapons have been defined in the Assault Weapons bill, defined by legislators who are either grossly ignorant or attempting to deliberately mislead as to the nature and functionality of such weapons.






Artie60438 wrote:

The primary purpose of this gun was to shoot as many targets (innocent people) as possible.

I am personally acquainted with several AR-15 owners. Not one of them has ever used his AR-15 to kill another person, innocent or otherwise.






Artie60438 wrote:

If access to this weapon and others like it were limited it's a good bet that some of those people killed yesterday would still be alive.

If another person or persons in that theater other than the psycho had had the presence of mind to arm himself or herself, it’s a good bet that some of those people killed yesterday would still be alive.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   7/21/2012, 10:23 pm

happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

The primary purpose of this gun was to shoot as many targets (innocent people) as possible.
[b]I am personally acquainted with several AR-15 owners. Not one of them has ever used his AR-15 to kill another person, innocent or otherwise
Another one of your straw man arguments that proves absolutely nothing.

Now why on earth would your idiot friends even need such powerful weapons? Are they paranoid and afraid of a government military takeover, because if they are you might want to remind them that they would be of little to no use.
Artie60438 wrote:

If access to this weapon and others like it were limited it's a good bet that some of those people killed yesterday would still be alive.

[b]If another person or persons in that theater other than the psycho had had the presence of mind to arm himself or herself, it’s a good bet that some of those people killed yesterday would still be alive.
Nope,dead wrong as usual. The shooter was wearing full body armor. I love how you gun nuts always fantasize that same old scenario that never comes true.

Rather than hope that a modern day Wild Bill Hickock or Annie Oakley is present during one of these rampages and could save the day,I prefer the safer alternative....that the killer would never be able to get his hands on such an unnecessary weapon in the first place.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3092

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   7/22/2012, 9:12 am

happy jack wrote:
If another person or persons in that theater other than the psycho had had the presence of mind to arm himself or herself, it’s a good bet that some of those people killed yesterday would still be alive.

'Cause the average gun owner has the combat training necessary to put down a fully armed and fully armored suspect in the middle of a dark, incredibly loud, smoked filled theatre full of panicked and terrified people running for their lives?
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5956

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   7/22/2012, 3:54 pm

Artie60438 wrote:
Nope,dead wrong as usual. The shooter was wearing full body armor. I love how you gun nuts always fantasize that same old scenario that never comes true.


Body armor is designed to prevent the penetration of bullets. It does nothing to prevent the person wearing the armor from getting stunned and knocked on his ass hard enough and long enough for someone to disarm and restrain him.






Artie60438 wrote:
…. I prefer the safer alternative....that the killer would never be able to get his hands on such an unnecessary weapon in the first place.

That is because you live in a dream world. The inside of your mind is a liberal circus, complete with calliope music.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5956

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   7/22/2012, 3:55 pm

Heretic wrote:
happy jack wrote:
If another person or persons in that theater other than the psycho had had the presence of mind to arm himself or herself, it’s a good bet that some of those people killed yesterday would still be alive.

'Cause the average gun owner has the combat training necessary to put down a fully armed and fully armored suspect in the middle of a dark, incredibly loud, smoked filled theatre full of panicked and terrified people running for their lives?

No, I wouldn’t expect an average citizen to morph into Rambo at the first sound of gunfire, and I don’t think anyone can predict how someone, even themselves, would react in such a situation. But I don’t think that there is any dispute that this guy would have continued to kill until he ran out of ammo or was somehow stopped, and having even the slim chance of stopping such a psycho, or even keeping him distracted and busy enough to allow more people to escape, is preferable to sitting in the fetal position with a urine stain darkening one’s crotch, meekly waiting to die. You know, the preferred method of the bleeding hearts.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   7/22/2012, 4:18 pm

happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
Nope,dead wrong as usual. The shooter was wearing full body armor. I love how you gun nuts always fantasize that same old scenario that never comes true.
Body armor is designed to prevent the penetration of bullets. It does nothing to prevent the person wearing the armor from getting stunned and knocked on his ass hard enough and long enough for someone to disarm and restrain him.
Really genius? Once again you prove your ignorance for all to see Laughing

Point blank shot with a .40 caliber. Anyone see him get "stunned" or "knocked on his ass"? lol!
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5956

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   7/22/2012, 6:28 pm

Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
Nope,dead wrong as usual. The shooter was wearing full body armor. I love how you gun nuts always fantasize that same old scenario that never comes true.
Body armor is designed to prevent the penetration of bullets. It does nothing to prevent the person wearing the armor from getting stunned and knocked on his ass hard enough and long enough for someone to disarm and restrain him.
Really genius? Once again you prove your ignorance for all to see Laughing

Point blank shot with a .40 caliber. Anyone see him get "stunned" or "knocked on his ass"? lol!



An ad by the president of the company?
I can’t fathom why he would wish to present his product in the best possible light, can you?
Do you know how many grains of powder the cartridge contained?
Was it a full charge?
Get back to me when you find out.
If I believed that every ad I saw was true, then I would be forced to concede that every time people take a sip of Coke, they break out into spontaneous song, and that there is a silly rabbit constantly trying to steal my Trix.




http://science.howstuffworks.com/body-armor2.htm

No bulletproof vest is completely impenetrable, and there is no piece of body armor that will make you invulnerable to attack.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   7/22/2012, 10:44 pm

happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
Nope,dead wrong as usual. The shooter was wearing full body armor. I love how you gun nuts always fantasize that same old scenario that never comes true.
Body armor is designed to prevent the penetration of bullets. It does nothing to prevent the person wearing the armor from getting stunned and knocked on his ass hard enough and long enough for someone to disarm and restrain him.
Really genius? Once again you prove your ignorance for all to see Laughing

Point blank shot with a .40 caliber. Anyone see him get "stunned" or "knocked on his ass"? lol!



An ad by the president of the company?
I can’t fathom why he would wish to present his product in the best possible light, can you?
Do you know how many grains of powder the cartridge contained?
Was it a full charge?
Get back to me when you find out.

That's why I saved the best example for last knowing full well you'd try to explain it away without offering any real evidence to dispute the video.Very Happy Let's just call it the icing on the cake Razz

Ever hear of the "North Hollywood Shootout",genius? Here are 2 bank robbers in full body armor shooting it out with the Police,including their SWAT team. It took the Cops and the SWAT team 44 minutes to subdue these guys,and btw,the Cops were heavily armed with more than just pistols. 11 cops and 7 civilians were injured before the robbers were finally subdued,yet in your little fantasy world an average guy armed with a sidearm was going to stop the Batman killer? LOL!



North Hollywood shootout
Quote :
The North Hollywood shootout was an armed confrontation between two heavily armed and armored bank robbers and officers of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) in the North Hollywood district of Los Angeles on February 28, 1997. Both robbers were killed, eleven police officers and seven civilians were injured, and numerous vehicles and other property were damaged or destroyed by the nearly 2,000 rounds of ammunition fired by the robbers and the police.[2]

At 9:17 am, Larry Phillips, Jr. and Emil Mătăsăreanu entered and robbed the North Hollywood Bank of America branch. Phillips and Mătăsăreanu were confronted by LAPD officers when they exited the bank and a shootout between the officers and robbers ensued. The two robbers attempted to flee the scene, Phillips on foot and Mătăsăreanu in their getaway vehicle, while continuing to engage the officers. The shootout continued onto a residential street adjacent to the bank until Phillips was mortally wounded, including by a self-inflicted gunshot wound; Mătăsăreanu was killed by officers three blocks away. Phillips and Mătăsăreanu are believed to have robbed two other banks using virtually identical methods by taking control of the entire bank and firing automatic weapons for control and entry past 'bullet-proof' security doors, and are possible suspects in two armored vehicle robberies.[3]

Local patrol officers at the time were typically armed with their personal 9 mm or .38 Special pistols, with some having a 12-gauge shotgun available in their cars. Phillips and Mătăsăreanu carried illegally modified fully automatic AKMs and an AR-15 rifle with high capacity drum magazines and ammunition capable of penetrating police body armor. They also wore body armor of their own. Since the police handguns could not penetrate the bank robbers' body armor, the patrol officers' bullets were ineffective. SWAT eventually arrived with rifles powerful enough to penetrate the body armor. Several officers also appropriated AR-15 rifles from a nearby firearms dealer. The incident sparked debate on the need for patrol officers to upgrade their capabilities in similar situations in the future.[4]

Because of the large number of injuries, rounds fired, weapons used, and overall length of the shootout, it is regarded as one of the longest and bloodiest events in US police history.[5]

Back to top Go down
KarenT



Posts : 1328

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   7/23/2012, 7:46 am

My neighbor's son is sure that if he and his pistol were there, he would have stopped the shooter. That would be the first successful thing he's done in his 30 years.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3092

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   7/23/2012, 8:03 am

KarenT wrote:
My neighbor's son is sure that if he and his pistol were there, he would have stopped the shooter.

Their life, in their own heads, plays out exactly like a Walker: Texas Ranger episode.
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   7/23/2012, 8:16 am

happy jack wrote:
If another person or persons in that theater other than the psycho had had the presence of mind to arm himself or herself, it’s a good bet that some of those people killed yesterday would still be alive.
Right.
Yeah I can see it now. Psycho shooter enters dark theater, pops smoke cannister, and starts firing his AR 15. Wanabe Rambo one pulls his manhood out to return fire, missing the psycho shooter and instead shooting two innocent people. Wanabe Rambo two joins the fray by pulling his manhood out, starts shooting wildly and in a hail of gunfire takes out Wanabe Rambo one and three more people in the dark smoke filled theater. Psycho shooter calmly continues shooting his AR 15 killing more people while Wanabe Rambo two keeps on missing wildly taking down four more innocents.
Meanwhile, psycho shooter runs out of ammo and heads out the back door, goes home, has a cold one and watches live on Fox News the ensuing shootout between Wanabe Rambo two and the SWAT team.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   7/23/2012, 8:36 am

KarenT wrote:
My neighbor's son is sure that if he and his pistol were there, he would have stopped the shooter. That would be the first successful thing he's done in his 30 years.
Great comment,Karen. That's the exact picture that comes to my mind when I hear one of these wannabe heroes claim that they could have stopped it.
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   7/23/2012, 8:42 am

happy jack wrote:
It is nothing more than a tricked out deer rifle...
It's really fascinating how gun worshiping nuts see things.


Winchester® Model 70 Deer Rifle



AR 15 Military-style semi-automatic rifle

Yeah, I can't tell the difference
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5956

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   7/23/2012, 10:27 am

edge540 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
It is nothing more than a tricked out deer rifle...
It's really fascinating how gun worshiping nuts see things.


Winchester® Model 70 Deer Rifle



AR 15 Military-style semi-automatic rifle

Yeah, I can't tell the difference
Of course you can't tell the difference. You see a scary looking gun and the urine begins to run down your leg. But you can't be bothered to admit that both guns function identically. One trigger pull, one shot.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   7/23/2012, 12:01 pm

happy jack wrote:
edge540 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
It is nothing more than a tricked out deer rifle...
It's really fascinating how gun worshiping nuts see things.


Winchester® Model 70 Deer Rifle



AR 15 Military-style semi-automatic rifle

Yeah, I can't tell the difference
[b]Of course you can't tell the difference. You see a scary looking gun and the urine begins to run down your leg. But you can't be bothered to admit that both guns function identically. One trigger pull, one shot.
Nice try,genius. The difference is that the AR-15 can easily be modified to shoot between 400 to 800 rounds a minute. Regardless of how small your penis is,a gun like that is simply not necessary in a civilized society.
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   7/23/2012, 12:32 pm

happy jack wrote:

Of course you can't tell the difference
It's a shame that sarcasm is one the many things that sail over the heads of conservative gun worshiping nuts.
Quote :
You see a scary looking gun and the urine begins to run down your leg.
Well no, the gun does not look "scary" to me at all. There isn't any gun that looks "scary" to me. I'm surprised that it looks "scary" to you.
Must be one of the reasons why gun nuts have a need for them. Most likely compensating for something.
Quote :
But you can't be bothered to admit that both guns function identically. One trigger pull, one shot.
Really?...no kidding? That's amazing.

Except the Winchester is a bolt action hunting rifle designed for hunting big game. It has a longer range, more stopping power, and of course is much more accurate at long range than the AR 15 which was derived from a military assault rifle, the M16 whose primary purpose is killing people.
No wait, it's the other way around:
Quote :
The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire assault rifle for the United States... The select-fire AR-15 entered the US military system as the M16.


Most people with a knowledge of guns and some common sense would actually know that.

Claiming that "it is nothing more than a tricked out deer rifle" is laughable and ridiculous....and just plain stupid.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5956

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   7/23/2012, 4:30 pm

edge540 wrote:
happy jack wrote:

Of course you can't tell the difference
It's a shame that sarcasm is one the many things that sail over the heads of conservative gun worshiping nuts.
Quote :
You see a scary looking gun and the urine begins to run down your leg.
Well no, the gun does not look "scary" to me at all. There isn't any gun that looks "scary" to me. I'm surprised that it looks "scary" to you.
Must be one of the reasons why gun nuts have a need for them. Most likely compensating for something.
Quote :
But you can't be bothered to admit that both guns function identically. One trigger pull, one shot.
Really?...no kidding? That's amazing.

Except the Winchester is a bolt action hunting rifle designed for hunting big game. It has a longer range, more stopping power, and of course is much more accurate at long range than the AR 15 which was derived from a military assault rifle, the M16 whose primary purpose is killing people.
No wait, it's the other way around:
Quote :
The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire assault rifle for the United States... The select-fire AR-15 entered the US military system as the M16.


Most people with a knowledge of guns and some common sense would actually know that.

Claiming that "it is nothing more than a tricked out deer rifle" is laughable and ridiculous....and just plain stupid.

AR-15 - one trigger pull, one shot.
Deer rifle - one trigger pull, one shot.
Why is that so difficult for you to grasp?
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   

Back to top Go down
 
Gun Control
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 39Go to page : 1, 2, 3 ... 20 ... 39  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Let Freedom Reign! :: Nation/Other :: Nation/World-
Jump to: