Gun Control

happy jack wrote:

[b]Why in the hell would anyone want to own this watch?]



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

Rolex watches vary in price according to the model and the materials used. In the UK, the retail price for the highly sought-after stainless steel 'Pilots' range (such as the GMT Master II) starts from GBP £5,250. Diamond inlay watches go for considerably more. The book "Vintage Wristwatches" by Antiques Roadshow's Reyne Haines listed a price estimate of Rolex watches that ranged between $650 and $75,000, while listing Tudors between $250 and $9,000.[21] The most expensive Rolex ever produced by the Rolex factory was the GMT Ice reference 116769TBR with a retail price of $485,350.00. A Forbes Magazine article on the Swiss watch industry compared the retail value of Rolexes to that of competing brands.

Comparing a Rolex watch that actually serves a legitimate purpose in life to a weapon whose purpose is to kill or maim has to be one of the dumbest analogies I've ever come across.

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

[b]Why in the hell would anyone want to own this watch?]



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

Rolex watches vary in price according to the model and the materials used. In the UK, the retail price for the highly sought-after stainless steel 'Pilots' range (such as the GMT Master II) starts from GBP £5,250. Diamond inlay watches go for considerably more. The book "Vintage Wristwatches" by Antiques Roadshow's Reyne Haines listed a price estimate of Rolex watches that ranged between $650 and $75,000, while listing Tudors between $250 and $9,000.[21] The most expensive Rolex ever produced by the Rolex factory was the GMT Ice reference 116769TBR with a retail price of $485,350.00. A Forbes Magazine article on the Swiss watch industry compared the retail value of Rolexes to that of competing brands.

Comparing a Rolex watch that actually serves a legitimate purpose in life to a weapon whose purpose is to kill or maim has to be one of the dumbest analogies I've ever come across.

The purpose of this weapon is not to kill or maim - its purpose is to fire a projectile accurately enough to hit the desired target. The person operating the weapon decides whether the target will be a piece of paper with a bulls-eye printed on it or whether the target will be a living thing. The operator, and only the operartor, makes that decision, and this weapon's sole purpose, and the sole purpose of any other weapon, is to do the bidding of its operator.
If you could somehow manage to get that simple fact through your head once and for all, we wouldn't need to have the same conversation over and over.

happy jack wrote:

The purpose of this weapon is not to kill or maim - its purpose is to fire a projectile accurately enough to hit the desired target. The person operating the weapon decides whether the target will be a piece of paper with a bulls-eye printed on it or whether the target will be a living thing. The operator, and only the operartor, makes that decision, and this weapon's sole purpose, and the sole purpose of any other weapon, is to do the bidding of its operator.
If you could somehow manage to get that simple fact through your head once and for all, we wouldn't need to have the same conversation over and over.

You are incredibly naive. This weapon is dimply a dream come true for deranged individuals. It's a sniper rifle that automatically turns any idiot into a marksman.

happy jack wrote:

The purpose of this weapon is not to kill or maim...

Christ. This again?

The purpose of a hammer is not to hit nails. The person operating the hammer decides whether the target will be a piece of paper with a bulls-eye printed on it or a nail.



You do know you sound like an idiot, right? Seriously, your idea that battlefield technology wasn't invented for the purposes of battle do not pass even the most rudimentary tests of logic or history.

happy jack wrote:

And the purpose of a box cutter is to open boxes, not to slit throats.
And the purpose of an airliner is to transport passengers from point A to point B, not to be flown into buildings.

Weapon

Quote :

A weapon, arm, or armament is a tool, device, equipment or instrument used in order to inflict damage or harm to enemies or other living beings, structures, or systems. Weapons are used to increase the efficiency and efficiency of activities such as hunting, crime, law enforcement, self-defense, and warfare. In a broader context, weapons may be construed to include anything used to gain a strategic, material or mental advantage over an adversary.

While ordinary objects such as sticks, stones or cars can be used as weapons, many are expressly designed for the purpose – ranging from simple implements such as clubs to swords and guns and on to complicated modern intercontinental ballistic missiles, biological and cyberweapons. Almost anything can be used as a weapon, such as an iron rack for hanging clothes to a pencil, but most people don't refer to these as "weapons" as they are inconvenient to try to use.

Improvised weapon

Quote :

An improvised weapon is a device that was not designed to be used as a weapon but can be put to that use. They are generally used for self-defence or where the person is otherwise unarmed. In some cases improvised weapons are commonly used by attackers in street fights, muggings, murders or during riots, usually when conventional weapons such as firearms are unavailable or inappropriate.

"Improvised Weapons" is a term used to represent common everyday objects that can be used is a variety of defensive applications. These objects are not physically altered in any way, in an effort to make them more functional as weapons. They are generally utilized in their normal state.

Like I said, your childish attempts to redefine weapons do not pass even the most rudimentary tests of logic or history. But please, by all means, continue with the grade school, semantic bullshit. 'Cause we all know you've brought nothing else to the discussion.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Yeah, well I like cool toys too. I just don't see what's "cool" about a gun that (figuratively) a monkey could operate.

Then don’t buy one.

Funny. Actually, I can shoot pretty well, Jack.

Scorpion wrote:

If money wasn't an issue, would you buy this?

happy jack wrote:

If money were not an issue, there would be a lot of things I’d buy, just for the hell of it; this might be one of them, or this might not be one of them.

Wow. That's really profound. Let me ask you the question another way. Do you think this gun is "cool?"

From a technological standpoint, I think it's extremely cool. How could you not be impressed?

A car that drives itself is impressive from a "technological standpoint," but I don't think that it would be much fun to drive. I can't imagine that somebody who is serious about marksmanship and target shooting would have any use whatsoever for a gadget like this.

The only application that I can see for this is that it would enable a n00b to shoot as well as an experienced sniper. Since it obviously wouldn't be allowed in any sort of competition, then the only use that I can see for it is something a bit more nefarious.

happy jack wrote:

The purpose of this weapon is not to kill or maim - its purpose is to fire a projectile accurately enough to hit the desired target.

Nope.
Given the fact that it would not be allowed in any type shooting competition, the only purpose of this weapon IS to kill or maim.
Even the guys that came up with it say so:

Quote :

THE TRACKINGPOINT STORY

The story of TrackingPoint began in early 2009 when founder John McHale went on an African safari. He personally saw the challenge of moderate- to long-distance hunting while taking several challenging shots in Tanzania.

One particularly difficult shot was a 350-yard attempt to hit a Thompson’s Gazelle, a prized, smaller African game animal. McHale had taken every trophy he was after on the trip, except for the Thompson’s. He had had a chance at a shot, but it had just not been possible to factor in the range, ballistics, stability, and other factors in the time available to convert, on multiple attempts.

With a strong background in technology, McHale knew that this problem should be solvable. He started thinking that with the newly emerging sensor technology, he could build a rifle scope that could make that shot possible for any shooter, regardless of training or experience.

Later in 2009, McHale approached an engineering firm with the idea of making a prototype Precision Guided Firearm (PGF). The mission was to develop small arms tracking and fire control technology capable of making a 450-yard shot and hitting a target the size of a volleyball.

Scorpion wrote:

A car that drives itself is impressive from a "technological standpoint," but I don't think that it would be much fun to drive. I can't imagine that somebody who is serious about marksmanship and target shooting would have any use whatsoever for a gadget like this.

The only application that I can see for this is that it would enable a n00b to shoot as well as an experienced sniper. Since it obviously wouldn't be allowed in any sort of competition, then the only use that I can see for it is something a bit more nefarious.

Just imagine the DC Snipers with one of these.

Cars kill people, so quit picking on guns!

Quote :

Conservatives are fond of this argument.

Quote :

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey on Thursday argued that guns should not be regulated after the massacre that killed 12 and wounded 58 in Colorado because the suspect could have “taken a car and driven it into a school bus” [...]

That laughable "argument" has gotten new life in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, as conservatives pretend that there's some kind of equivalency between guns and cars. If you want to take away guns because they kill people, why not take away cars because they kill people?

When I was in the Army, we used vehicles to go places and guns to kill things, not the other way around. But fine. Let's treat guns exactly the way we treat vehicles.
1. You have to pass a proficiency test to get a license, and get that license renewed at specific time intervals.

2. You have to purchase vehicle/gun insurance.

3. You have to pay an annual registration fee per vehicle/gun.

4. There are restrictions to the kinds of vehicles/guns you can own and operate. And restrictions in the places you can operate them. Just like street cars with nitrous oxide injection are illegal in many places, so too can multiple-round magazines be banned.

5. You can't operate vehicles/guns if intoxicated.

6. You must abide by various safety regulations, be it wearing a seatbelt or mandating gun locks.

7. You must pay a transfer tax when selling vehicle/gun to a third party.

8. We should create a federal agency, along the lines of the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, tasked with improving gun safety.
So do conservatives really want to go with this argument? Because if so, then we've just found some rare bipartisan agreement.

Sounds reasonable to me.

edge540 wrote:

…. the only purpose of this weapon IS to kill or maim.
Even the guys that came up with it say so:

Quote :

THE TRACKINGPOINT STORY


Later in 2009, McHale approached an engineering firm with the idea of making a prototype Precision Guided Firearm (PGF). The mission was to develop small arms tracking and fire control technology capable of making a 450-yard shot and hitting a target the size of a volleyball.

Yeah, even the guys that came up with it say that its only purpose is to kill or maim …. a volleyball!

Quote :

Yeah, even the guys that came up with it say that its only purpose is to kill or maim …. a volleyball!

Yep, in other words, the same size as a human head.

BTW, There is also nothing in the Bill of Rights along the lines that says guns can not be regulated.

edge540 wrote:

Quote :

Yeah, even the guys that came up with it say that its only purpose is to kill or maim …. a volleyball!

Yep, in other words, the same size as a human head.

Yup.
Or the same size as a .... wait for it .... volleyball!

yes, it's an unbelievable, strange, amazing coincidence.

edge540 wrote:

Memo to the NRA, Wayne LaPierre, republicans and all paranoid gun worshipers:

Quote :

A Gun Won’t Make Your Penis Larger

By Bob Cesca · January 29, 2013

There’s a brief scene in Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket in which the new recruits, led by Gunnery Sgt. Hartman, chant in unison, “This is my rifle, this is my gun. This is for fighting, this is for fun.” On the words “gun” and “fun” the privates grab their, well, privates, letting the audience know that there’s a Marine-Corp-specific semantic distinction between the words “rifle” and “gun.”

Unfortunately, too many pro-gun American men don’t know the difference and this is a central problem in the process of redefining the purpose and availability of firearms in America. Men, whether intentional or not, tend to confuse their guns for their penises. The bigger the gun/penis, the more masculine they are. Guns have become penis extensions, if not penis substitutes, and the phallic similarities are obvious.

Consequently, our gun culture too often blurs the line between masculinity and firearms, even among people who ought to know better. If you own, hunt, shoot, or generally fetishize firearms, it’s considered to be synonymous with being a tough, virile guy. Likewise, if you’re opposed to guns or, dare I say, afraid of guns, you’re considered girlish or — heaven forbid — gay. From a very early age, men are taught that guns are a manly-man guy thing. Hunting and shooting are manly activities, we’re told, and any dude who’s packing heat is a total badass because guns are badass. (Killing animals for pure sport is another issue for another day.)

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/01/a-gun-wont-make-your-penis-larger/

Hey, edge - do you and Mr. Cesca think that these people wish their penises were larger?


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/11/us/rising-voice-of-gun-ownership-is-female.html?hp&_r=0

Only a lunatic GOP congress critter would invite a draft dodging scumbag who has threatened the President to the SOTU would think it's going to help his nutso pro gun case....
Ted Nugent’s SOTU Invite Is The Best News Gun Control Advocates Have Heard All Week

Quote :

The gun rights community may not be doing itself any favors by giving Ted Nugent a seat at the State of the Union speech Tuesday night.

The outspoken rocker will be a guest of Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX), one of the most vocal opponents of new gun control legislation following the Newtown, Conn., school massacre. But proponents of things like creating universal background checks and other gun regulations predicted on Monday that Nugent’s appearance will be a boon to their side and make it harder for gun rights advocates to make their case.

“If there’s better evidence that the NRA’s Washington lobbyists have lost their way, I can’t think of it,” Mark Glaze, director of New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns, told TPM Monday. “They keep finding new ways to alienate their own members, which is a strange way to run a membership organization.”

Glaze and other gun control proponents often point to surveys of gun owners that showed broad support for expanded background checks, the chief post-Newtown goal of gun control advocates and a measure the NRA leadership opposes.

Nugent’s role as a political bomb thrower and an especially incendiary critic of President Obama gives him a strong gravitational pull for TV cameras covering the SOTU. And that means more coverage for Obama’s gun violence plan, according to gun control advocates.

“It definitely adds more coverage. And it’s going to play terribly for them,” Ladd Everitt, spokesperson for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence told TPM.

Gun control advocates have lobbied their allies in Congress to invite survivors of gun violence and their relatives to sit in the SOTU audience. USA Today reported about 20 will be in attendance. Michelle Obama is also hosting relatives of Hadiya Pendleton, a Chicago teen who was gunned down days after returning from the President’s inauguration, at the speech.

A spokesperson for Stockman’s office told DCist the congressman invited Nugent “because he is a supporter of the Second Amendment and American values.”

“We thought he would be a good representative,” spokesperson Donny Ferguson said.

But the juxtaposition between the group of survivors and a hardcore gun activist like Nugent during the SOTU is exactly what gun control advocates want.

“You’re going to have a guy who recently threatened the life of the President opposite over 20 survivors from some of our nation’s most gruesome episodes of gun violence,” Everitt said. “It’s heartless, and emblematic of just how radical the Republican Party has become on this issue.”

(Nugent was cleared by the Secret Service in April after he said he’d be “dead or in jail” if Obama was reelected.)

Nugent plans to make himself known at the SOTU, too, already promising to make comments to the press before and after the speech. Gun control advocates found it hard to contain their excitement.

“The country is having a once in a generation debate, and the NRA offers armed guards, Steve Stockman and Ted Nugent,” Glaze said. “They picked a strange moment to unilaterally disarm.”

The problem runs a lot deeper than Ted Nugent

Quote :

But really, this episode is significant for reasons that go well beyond Nugent. The key actor here who matters is Steve Stockman. The problem lies in all the over-the-top stuff GOP lawmakers say regularly that isn’t quite crazy enough to earn widespread condemnation, as Nugent’s quotes have, but are still whacked out enough to encourage an atmosphere that helps keep millions of GOP base voters sealed off from reality. The problem is the perpetual winking and nodding to The Crazy that is deemed marginally acceptable – the hints about creeping socialism, the claim that modest Obama executive actions amount to tyranny, the suggestions that Obama’s values are vaguely un-American and that Obama is transforming the country and the economy into something no longer recognizably American, and so on — more so than the glaringly awful stuff that gets the media refs to throw their flags.

As Jonathan Bernstein put it the other day, Republican lawmakers who flirt with this type of talk regularly are helping create an environment in which moderate Republicans are forever on the defensive and in fear of the base. If moderate Republicans want to change this, they will have to dial this stuff back:

Quote :

They have to stop educating their rank-and-file voters to accept crazy stuff. That means cutting out the teleprompter jokes, the winks to birthers, the claims that Democrats are anti-American — all of it. It means that if a backbench member of the House yells out “you lie” during a presidential speech, he gets censured instead of praised. That’s going to mean some short-term sacrifices for long-term gains. It may be hard to go in front of a conservative crowd and resist an applause line calling Barack Obama a socialist.

Can Republicans shut it all down? Of course not. But they could choose to minimize it. That means politicians steering clear of it; it means those party actors who care about winning elections doing what they can to discourage it from those party actors who have different incentives (such as those hawking that merchandise or who can make a very good living selling to a group which is a large market but a small portion of the electorate).

happy jack wrote:

Hey, edge - do you and Mr. Cesca think that these people wish their penises were larger?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/11/us/rising-voice-of-gun-ownership-is-female.html?hp&_r=0

Yep, that's what we need, more gun loons like Nancy Lanza.