Gun Control

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

   
Although the legal civilian version of the gun fires on semi-automatic ....

.... as does an ordinary hunting rifle.

edge540 wrote:

   
.... it can be highly lethal.

.... as is an ordinary hunting rifle.



What a coincidence.

Nope, contrary to gun lobby bullshit,  an "ordinary hunting rifle" does not have the capability of firing 30 rounds of high velocity rounds that were specifically designed for the military in under 30 seconds.

Exactly. And as I pointed out earlier, no self respecting hunter would ever use such a weapon to "hunt."   Comparing an assault weapon to an "ordinary hunting rifle" is a losing argument, because it simply has no basis in reality.  

Since posting this twice didn’t seem to be enough, here it is again.

http://www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gallery/guns/rifles/centerfire/2011/11/20-best-semi-automatic-rifles-big-game-hunting

Your opinion of hunters notwithstanding, please, browse this gallery of hunting rifles and then explain how they function differently from your very scary assault rifles.

Sorry Rambo, these are not "ordinary hunting rifles."
I love some of the comments at the end of the article where the readers actually admit that fact.
The gun nuts can call them anything they want, except for the longer barreled rifles at the end, they're still semi auto assault  rifles.

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

   
Although the legal civilian version of the gun fires on semi-automatic ....

.... as does an ordinary hunting rifle.

edge540 wrote:

   
.... it can be highly lethal.

.... as is an ordinary hunting rifle.



What a coincidence.

Nope, contrary to gun lobby bullshit,  an "ordinary hunting rifle" does not have the capability of firing 30 rounds of high velocity rounds that were specifically designed for the military in under 30 seconds.

Exactly. And as I pointed out earlier, no self respecting hunter would ever use such a weapon to "hunt."   Comparing an assault weapon to an "ordinary hunting rifle" is a losing argument, because it simply has no basis in reality.  

Since posting this twice didn’t seem to be enough, here it is again.

http://www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gallery/guns/rifles/centerfire/2011/11/20-best-semi-automatic-rifles-big-game-hunting

Your opinion of hunters notwithstanding, please, browse this gallery of hunting rifles and then explain how they function differently from your very scary assault rifles.

Sorry Rambo, these are not "ordinary hunting rifles."
I love some of the comments at the end of the article where the readers actually admit that fact.
The gun nuts can call them anything they want, except for the longer barreled rifles at the end, they're still semi auto assault  rifles.

Yep. The comments were quite amusing.  I especially liked this one...

Quote :

I know this isn't going to be popular, but buckmeister2 said it better than I've ever heard. We need to accept these guns into our hunting culture because they are under constant attack by anti-gunners.

Acceptance doesn't make them good hunting guns. I know that we need lots of pictures of people hunting with these guns, and promote them for that purpose for their own good and for the good of all of us who love guns, just not necessarily THESE guns for hunting. I get it, I will buy one, tell people I hunt with it, whatever it takes to support the cause, I'm on board. But between us, why? Why on Earth would you hunt with one of these?

The gun lobby would be better off arguing honestly about their position instead of pretending that an assault weapon is actually a hunting rifle.  The whole argument is ludicrous on its face.

Yeah, I'd say that's game, set, match.
Thanks for giving us the "smoking gun", jack.

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

Yeah, I'd say that's game, set, match.
Thanks for giving us the "smoking gun", jack.

[b]Game, set, match?
Smoking gun?
Based upon the remarks of some anonymous commenter?
Game, set, match, my ass.

It's the substance dumbass. You lose again. Stop embarrassing yourself.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Since posting this twice didn’t seem to be enough, here it is again.[/b]

Oh trust me. It's more than enough. You have put on an amazing clinic on how to embarrass yourself.

Sorry, but I can't comment on this any further until I consult buckmeister2 and MountainMan6. Apparently, those two speak for me.

Actually, they quite accurately reflect the views of hunters, but they certainly don't "speak for you."  In fact, you've shown quite clearly that you don't know anything about hunting at all.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Since posting this twice didn’t seem to be enough, here it is again.[/b]

Oh trust me. It's more than enough. You have put on an amazing clinic on how to embarrass yourself.

Sorry, but I can't comment on this any further until I consult buckmeister2 and MountainMan6. Apparently, those two speak for me.

Actually, they quite accurately reflect the views of hunters, but they certainly don't "speak for you."  In fact, you've shown quite clearly that you don't know anything about hunting at all.

So what are you saying?

I'm saying exactly what I've been saying all along...

Scorpion wrote:

Well I don't know what kind of hunter shoots game with a rifle fitted with a high capacity magazine that can fire... oh lets say 20 shots in 9 seconds, just as an example.  To me, that's not hunting. That's just disgusting... and no hunter that I've ever known would even consider doing such a thing.

Scorpion wrote:

...as I pointed out earlier, no self respecting hunter would ever use such a weapon to "hunt."   Comparing an assault weapon to an "ordinary hunting rifle" is a losing argument, because it simply has no basis in reality.

Scorpion wrote:

The gun lobby would be better off arguing honestly about their position instead of pretending that an assault weapon is actually a hunting rifle.  The whole argument is ludicrous on its face.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/22/watch-daily-shows-trevor-noah-accidentally-destroy-case-gun-control/

Watch The Daily Show’s Trevor Noah Accidentally Destroy The Case For Gun Control

"Maybe he's onto something, because if you think about it, we've never tried that. We've never actually tried to repel terrorists with signs. Yeah, maybe that's all the airports need is a sign that says 'No Terrorists.'"

SEPTEMBER 22, 2016 By Sean Davis

Trevor Noah, the host of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, accidentally destroyed the case for gun control during his show on Wednesday night.
Noah’s accidental broadside against gun-free zones came during a portion of his opening monologue in which he made fun of a Minnesota man fed up with Islamic terrorism. The target of Noah’s ire was an ice cream shop owner in a small town southeast of St. Cloud, Minnesota — the site of a mass stabbing at a mall last weekend — who put up a sign outside of his restaurant that read, “Muslims Get Out.”
Noah mocked the store owner for a little bit, but then he moved on to the meat of his opening bit by mocking the man’s rationale for his “Muslims Get Out” sign:
You know what’s also strange is this man genuinely thought people who go around blowing people up would be stopped by a sign? You realize you’re talking to terrorists, not vampires. They don’t need to be invited in, alright? Or maybe he’s onto something, because if you think about it, we’ve never tried that. We’ve never actually tried to repel terrorists with signs. Yeah, maybe that’s all the airports need is a sign that says “No Terrorists,” yes? Yeah, and then guys are going to be walking going, “Oh, I was going to blow up the airport, but the rules are rules and they said I can’t come in. They said I can’t. They said I can’t come in.”
Does that argument sound familiar?
Noah probably doesn’t know it, but he just accidentally made an airtight case against gun-free zones in particular and gun control in general. He is 100 percent correct: people hell-bent on murdering as many people as possible don’t really care about silly signs or laws that tell them not to murder people. A sign that says “No Guns” will no more keep a violent jihadi from gunning down a bunch of innocent people than will a sign that says “Muslims Get Out.” And how do we know that gun-free zones, nearly always marked with signs designating them as such, don’t deter murderous psychopaths? Because mass shootings, rather than happening at gun ranges or in gun stores, keep happening in gun-free zones.
Contrary to Trevor Noah’s snarky assertion that “we’ve never tried to repel terrorists with signs,” our country has fecklessly tried for years to “repel terrorists with signs.”
The Sandy Hook massacre? Gun-free zone. Columbine? Gun-free zone. The Aurora movie theater shooting? Gun-free zone. The shooting last year at an Oregon community college? Gun-free zone. The shooting at a movie theater in Lafayette? Gun-free zone. The attack on a military recruiting center in Chattanooga? Gun-free zone. The Ft. Hood shooting? You guessed it: gun-free zone. The San Bernardino attack? Gun-free zone. And the massacre perpetrated by an ISIS enthusiast at an Orlando night club? Gun-free zone.
While Noah clearly doesn’t grasp the logical implications of his argument, his particular insight — that evil people who want to do evil things will find ways to carry out their schemes regardless of what signs you post or laws you pass — forms the foundation of the entire argument against gun control.
Bad people who want to murder you don’t care about your stupid signs and stupid laws.
New York City, for example, is a pressure cooker bomb-free zone. That mall in Minnesota was most definitely a weaponized knife-free zone. And yet… Terrorists don’t care that terrorism is illegal. They care about killing you. And they’ll kill you with whatever they can, whether it’s a gun, a knife, a pressure cooker, or a box cutter.
“Yeah, but this just proves we need to have stricter gun laws to prevent terrorists from getting guns in the first place,” Trevor Noah might respond. “Gun control is about more than just signs telling people not to do stuff.”
Except it’s not. The entire premise of gun control is that words on a piece of paper somewhere will prevent a terrorist from killing people. What is a law if not a sign that says what you’re allowed and not allowed to do? Yet time and time and time and time again, strict gun control regimes have completely failed to prevent mass murderers from committing mass murder. Chicago and Washington, D.C., have some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, yet those laws have done little to stem the tide of gun crime in those cities.
As Trevor Noah demonstrated via his mockery of the Minnesota man with the “Muslims Get Out” sign at his restaurant, the logic of gun control that says signs forbidding bad stuff stops bad stuff from happening is nonsensical. “Words stop bad things from happening” is just dumb. A sign that says “Muslims Get Out” will do absolutely nothing to prevent radical Islamists from wreaking havoc. Trevor Noah understands this. If only he would learn to apply his logic to the argument from gun controllers that all we need to end violence are a few more signs telling terrorists not to use guns.

Nope.  Not even close.  It's a boring straw man.  "Gun Free Zones" are not magical wards against guns and dangerous people, nor are they meant to be.  It enables the owners/administrators of the site to call the cops when a terrorist/murderer shows up with one prior to their opening fire.  It legally enables them to act without waiting for the usual sacrificial slaughter of children we've become all too used to.  

Also, Davis is just plain wrong, but that's normal.

happy jack wrote:

It is a side by side comparison of two mandates (the gun-free zone sign and any number of gun laws) that say essentially the same thing.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I am unaware of any gun control legislation that says "essentially the same thing" as a sign.

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

"Gun Free Zones" are not magical wards against guns and dangerous people, nor are they meant to be.

Neither is any gun law you choose to enact.

Which is why I never claimed they were.

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

It enables the owners/administrators of the site to call the cops when a terrorist/murderer shows up with one prior to their opening fire.

Yes, because terrorists regularly show up openly wearing guns on their heads, just like Carmen Miranda, but without all the fruit, allowing the potential victims to take their sweet time calling the police, who may show up ten minutes later, just in time to draw chalk lines around the bodies.

Law enforcement disagrees with your grade school analysis.  I'll trust them over... whatever point it was you were trying to make.

Motorized Handheld 5.56mm Gatling Gun: The XM556 Microgun

Quote :

Empty Shell, LLC: their website home page reads “Unique Firearms Design,” and they’re not lying.

The one we’re talking about here is called the XM556 Microgun, and it’s a motorized gatling-style gun that fires 5.56 NATO ammo like it’s going out of style. Oh, and it’s designed to be handheld, which makes it the first of its kind.

Is this available in Wal-Mart yet?  Because I can think of no reason why it shouldn't be.

More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows

Quote :

The claim that gun ownership stops crime is common in the U.S., and that belief drives laws that make it easy to own and keep firearms.

But about 30 careful studies show more guns are linked to more crimes: murders, rapes, and others. Far less research shows that guns help.

Conservatives, still full of shit. Film at 11.

Nailed it.



#worthit

Heretic wrote:

Nailed it.



#worthit

House GOP set to approve bill that could make mass shootings deadlier After the hearing was delayed because of another shooting, the House will vote to deregulate gun silencers.

Quote :

As details emerge about the carnage at a Las Vegas country music concert, the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history, the House is set to move forward with a vote on a gun lobby-backed bill that would deregulate the sale of gun silencers, which make it harder to detect the origin of gunshots.

The flag has been lowered,thoughts and prayers are on their way to imaginary deities. Time to move along and get this important legislation passed,right?

Spot on from The Onion....

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

Americans Hopeful This Will Be Last Mass Shooting Before They Stop On Their Own For No Reason

Welcome to Guntown, where everyone is a Good Guy with a GunTM.

Heretic wrote:

Welcome to Guntown, where everyone is a Good Guy with a GunTM.

I thought that it was kind of a good thing that there was a "Good Guy with a Gun" (actually, a Good Woman with a Gun) in the vicinity when Bernie Sanders' personal hitman decided to start shooting at a bunch of congressmen.
Don't you?

https://thenewright.news/2017/11/its-time-for-gun-controllers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/

It’s Time For Gun Controllers To Put Up Or Shut Up

Generally, if one is seeking a legislative change, one tends to have an idea of what that change would actually be. Not U.S. gun controllers.

Daniel Payne
NOVEMBER 9, 2017

Perhaps the chief problem with the U.S. gun control movement is that its proponents seem to have no idea what they want. Few areas of American public policy debate are as fact-free and as devoid of substantive meaning as the repeated and seemingly endless demands for more gun laws.

Take Washington Post writer Jennifer Rubin, who recently used her column to criticize “Republican Second Amendment absolutists.” Claiming the GOP should “address…guns,” Rubin condemns politicians who refuse to talk about “concrete, reasonable measures to reduce gun violence.” She accuses such politicians of “craven hypocrisy,” and implores lawmakers to “discover a sense of moral obligation” and show “concern and legislative determination” on the topic of gun control.


Notably missing from this column is—wait for it—any specific proposal for “concrete, reasonable measures to reduce gun violence.” It’s not there. There’s not even a vague proposal, not even a half-hearted gesture toward anything resembling a proposal. Generally, if one is seeking a legislative change, one tends to have an idea of what that change would actually be.

This is a perennial feature of gun-control partisans: a great deal of blustery talk about “moral obligation” with virtually no meaningful ideas as to what we are supposed to, you know, do about gun violence.

‘Do Something, Anything, I Don’t Know What’
One can witness the same evasive and empty rhetoric from TV show host Stephen Colbert, who on his show this week implored his viewers to “vote for someone who will do something” about gun violence. What that “something” precisely is, he did not say, although he briefly alluded to a desire to “get rid of the guns,” a truly staggering proposal.

Yet even when they offer specific policy prescriptions, gun control advocates are still generally incapable of advancing any legislative proposals that would target gun violence in any meaningful way. On his Facebook page recently, outraged at another “moment of silence” taking place in the House chambers, California Rep. Ted Lieu called for “reasonable gun safety legislation,” including “a universal background check law…a ban on assault rifles, and a ban on bump stocks.”


A ban on bump stocks does indeed seem reasonable enough (so much so that even the National Rifle Association endorsed a law that would accomplish this), but the other two are, in the context of the American gun violence debate, non sequiturs: a “universal background check law” would not have prevented any of the high-profile mass shootings of the past decade or so, and there is debate over whether such a law would have any measurable effect on American gun violence as a whole.

The proposal for a “ban” on “assault rifles,” meanwhile, is meaningless enough to be laughable: assault rifles are already regulated more or less to the point of practical nonexistence in this country, and in any case, in more than eight decades, assault rifles have only been used in three homicides.

Why Don’t You Have Any Ideas?
This is the general tenor of the gun control debate: either substance-free calls to “do something” or demands for needless and ineffective policy measures. It is necessary to ask: Why do gun control advocates continue to practice such empty and useless bombast? What is the point?

One is tempted to suggest pro-gun control partisans are actually interested in a lot more than “reasonable gun safety legislation.” To a great many people, guns are both frightening and repulsive, things to be disdained and opposed rather than tolerated.


There is a decent chance that the individuals who continue to demand nameless gun control, or who propose gun control measures that really wouldn’t do anything to stop gun violence, are actually interested in a lot more than simple gun control policy. They are very likely more interested in greatly diminishing if not outright eliminating gun rights in American society, and are simply taking an incremental approach to getting there.

Maybe that’s an uncharitable assumption. But then it’s worth stating the question to these types of partisans outright: since your gun control ambitions are either incoherent or purposeless, what, exactly, are you after?

It is time, in other words, for gun control advocates to put up or shut up: they need to be honest about their ultimate ambitions, or else they just need to sit down and stop dealing in rank public dishonesty. If they truly want to “get rid of the guns,” then they should stop putting forward all these pointless half-measures and just come out with it.

Daniel Payne is a senior contributor at the Federalist.



"Do something, anything, I don't know what"

http://taskandpurpose.com/chainsaw-bayonet-usa-today/



This is why the mainstream media need to have a 10 day waiting period before they sit down at their keyboards.
Based upon the wealth of knowledge in regard to firearms demonstrated by the other posters on this forum, it appears that it is articles such as this from which they gain their expertise.