Just to prove gun control nuts are full of shit

[RedDuke]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Laughable.

If the republicans in congress go along with any of this, they will need armed guards at their district offices.

Like I said all along, it's pointless to even discuss this or debate it. I'm not interested in a debate over "how many of your rights would you be willing to give up." None.

You may bury your head in a sand like ostrich and deny inevitable, but Captain laid out the reasons why the change will take place.

What exact form or shape who knows.

And people will not be shooting their elected representatives, many might gnash their teeth and loose sleep over lost toys but that's will be it.

Btw, one of the changes that I listed was no gun sales without background checks. Why are you against it?

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from RedDuke:

1) Not a single fire arm sale without background check (this must include gun shows)

The vast majority of firearms used to commit crimes are stolen.
1)Are you suggesting gun thieves should be required to submit to a background check prior to the the theft? (serious question)
2)What would you do about private sales?

2) Ban of semi-automatic rifles

You mind if I ask why and or what you think this would accomplish? While you're at it do you plan to confiscate all the existing semi auto rifles - worldwide?

3) Magazines should have no more than 10 bullets

Are you using a study/facts or statistics to come up with the number 10?
And again, could you be specific as to what you think such a limit would accomplish?

4) Fist permit to own a gun should not be expensive or actually free since the owner will pay for background check. However each additional permit’s fee should increase exponentially. This will deter people for owning guns that they do not really need and at the same time allow true enthusiast to build their collections.

Why do you think there should be such an arbitrary limit?

Once again, criminals do not commit these terrible shootings; it is usually law abiding citizens who do. And they know nothing about black markets.

While I think I know what you're trying to say here. Doesn't the mass murder make them a criminal, technically?

The ban is mostly to prevent easy access to assault weapons to psychos.

Do you want a worldwide ban AND world wide confiscation of existing assault weapons? Or did you plan to completely close our borders to prevent smuggling?

CT tragedy would definitely have fewer casualties if his mother did not own ar15 rifle.

Could you be more specific as to what makes you think so? I mean a bullet fired from a 10 round magazine does exactly the same damage as one fired from a 100 round drum.
Have you ever fired an AR15/M16? How long do you think it takes to reload a fresh magazine?

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from BSAM:

Do you mean guns should be sold at gun shows without a background check?

Current law is that private sellers can sell without background checks, although the buyers have to satisfy applicable requirements, such as state residency for handguns, etc.

Firearms dealers currently are required to run checks at guns shows.

Sounds reasonable to me and I have not seen any evidence it is causing problems.

If you sell many guns this way, the ATF will be on your case claiming you are a dealer.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from RedDuke:

You may bury your head in a sand like ostrich and deny inevitable, but Captain laid out the reasons why the change will take place.

What exact form or shape who knows.

And people will not be shooting their elected representatives, many might gnash their teeth and loose sleep over lost toys but that's will be it.

Btw, one of the changes that I listed was no gun sales without background checks. Why are you against it?

If I am in compliance with the law, why is it any of the government's business if I buy a legal firearm from a private seller?

There is no data that I'm aware of that the so-called gun show loophole has created any problems.

Similarly, there is no need for registration of long gun sales. The only time we have had problems was when the government was running the idiotic Fast and Furious scheme to try to gin up support for more restrictions.

We all know that registration is a prelude to confiscation. Have a tidy list of all firearms owners. How convenient.

 

[BSAM]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Current law is that private sellers can sell without background checks, although the buyers have to satisfy applicable requirements, such as state residency for handguns, etc.

Firearms dealers currently are required to run checks at guns shows.

Sounds reasonable to me and I have not seen any evidence it is causing problems.

If you sell many guns this way, the ATF will be on your case claiming you are a dealer.

Unbelievable, brother AAA.
Unbelievable.
In spite of your unbelievable view in this matter, I still respect most of what you post around here, for whatever it's worth.
I'm telling you as a long time ET brother, I believe that you have some very wrong ideas about the gun control issue in the USA.
Of course, I'm just expressing my opinion, and in the most respectful way that I can.
I hope that you might reconsider the state of our nation and add, at least, some moderation to your views in this subject matter.

I know it's hard for somebody to say they are wrong.
Sure, it's hard for me, or you, or anybody.
But, your judgment on this subject is simply inconsistent with many of your other postings, imo.

 

[murray t turtle]

Quote from wjk:

Lott makes some great points in this article.


"Gun Expert Lott: Let Teachers Carry Arms, Ban Gun-Free Zones to Halt Mass Shootings"

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Lott-guns-Connecticut-shooting/2012/12/15/id/467903

=================
Good points;
they hit the target, safely.Thats wisdom

 

[pspr]

Quote from RedDuke:

...ar15, which is a disguised m16......

Not DISGUISED. It is a civilian model made by various manufacturers since the M-16 patent expired. It does not come in a selectable Full Auto version.
We don't need an argument for it. You need a VALID argument against it that would supersede the Constitution. So far I haven't heard any.

 

[pspr]

Quote from RedDuke:

I do not think your usage of a word traitor is proper.

Surprise! Once again we disagree!

 

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Captain, you are often a voice of reason, but I really wonder if you understand who we are dealing with. Unlike some of the liberal posters here, these democrat pols are not well-meaning folks who just want what's best for our country. They are hardleft radicals who see any weakness as an invitation to take more. They hate our values, our culture and our traditions.

Compromise can be a virtue when both sides have something to gain. I don't see that here, or on the fiscal cliff either. Obama and the democrats have targeted republican constituencies and are using demagogic appeals to emotion to try to pressure republicans into breaking their campaign commitments.

Obama figures he wins either way. He may be right because republicans instinctively go into a defensive crouch and start whimpering "we aren't as odious as you think" anytime they are challenged.

How about they go out and make a case on the merits, like Larry Pratt was willing to do. Is it really so hard to stand up for values you believe in? Their timidy reinforces the impression they really don't believe in gun rights.

I don't disagree all that much, but the fact is the country has taken a left turn and I fully expect the Obama administration to step on the pedal. Republicans would do the same. Elections matter. To the victor go the spoils. If not, why have elections at all? 21-20 or 21-0, a win is a win. It's just how it works.
There are consequences to running candidates that can't really articulate their position. There are consequences to a party that can't control it's head cases. Case in point, Sen. Akins crazy ass statements. Team Romney should have grabbed that dumb bastard by the throat and told him he's resigning right now today, or an accident is in his future. That one incident shifted the campaign from the economy to social issues. I believe between that, and Romneys refusal to make a case over Benghazi cost him the election.
At the end of the day the republicans are in a really tough position, and trying to sell merits and values to a nation that has grown decidedly weak in both...a very tough road to hoe.

 

[pspr]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

Elections matter. There are consequences to running candidates that can't really articulate their position.

The consequences are that the party that won just has more votes to try and do what it wants. It doesn't mean the other party stops doing what it wants including being obstructionist if it feels that is the best course of action for the party.

The Republicans retained the House. That means they won that election out of all the House seats. There's no reason to back down. There's no reason to bend to Obama's will. Let them try to get their agenda passed if they think they can. They won't have the votes.

It's two years until another election. Actions the next 12 months aren't going to matter much in that election. Posturing can begin in 2014. If we survive that long. At the very least we will probably be in the Great Obama Recession by the end of 2013.