Here is how the NRA uses money to effect legisltors and to block legislation:
This is a false equivalency. e.g., If one of my neighbor's used to take a dump on my front lawn, occasionally, (let's say he did so a relatively small number of times between 2001 and 2009) while another neighbor has taken a dump on my front lawn 100's of times, since then, and continues to do so regularly, to the point that I have to shut down access to my home, which neighbor do you think I should go after, right now? I woukd suggest you place a Port-a-John or two at the edge of your property! :) You could also install a security cam and when you've got a good shot, file a complaint aginst anyone it has caught on the tape. Not sure what might help with Congressional filibusters, though.With the constant use of the bastardized filibuster rules, the Republicans can and have been very consistently preventing any potentially productive legislation from being passed....Democrats like the filibuster when its the Republicans with control and trying to push through legislation that the Democrats do not approve of...
Here is how the NRA effects who gets to be and or remain a congressman. Check out all 6 graphs.
This is a false equivalency. e.g., If one of my neighbor's used to take a dump on my front lawn, occasionally, (let's say he did so a relatively small number of times between 2001 and 2009) while another neighbor has taken a dump on my front lawn 100's of times, since then, and continues to do so regularly, to the point that I have to shut down access to my home, which neighbor do you think I should go after, right now? I woukd suggest you place a Port-a-John or two at the edge of your property! :) You could also install a security cam and when you've got a good shot, file a complaint aginst anyone it has caught on the tape. Not sure what might help with Congressional filibusters, though. Ok, my example was an opening for a funny retort. But your funny retort does not belie my point: that the Republicans have been far more full of crap, so to speak, than have the Democrats, when it comes to using the bastardized filibuster to obstruct the passage of legislation or to block the approval of appointees.With the constant use of the bastardized filibuster rules, the Republicans can and have been very consistently preventing any potentially productive legislation from being passed....Democrats like the filibuster when its the Republicans with control and trying to push through legislation that the Democrats do not approve of...
And now an even more conservative (how is that possible?) gun organization is getting in on the lobbying act and outspending the NRA.
Yes, there’s a new kid in town to insure easy access to guns by one and all. The NGRA. If you are a criminal or if you are insane and wish to continue to have easy access to acquiring guns, I suggest that you join and provide your support to this organization, right away.
And the NRA is inordinately effective not only because of its superb organization to influence or block legislation, but also because of superior tactics. e.g. Five Reasons The NRA Won The Recent Gun Control Debate That Have Nothing To Do With Politics
For those who prefer a humorous take on this issue:
At the end of the 6 min. video, Jon Stewart reveals how the winner of the NRA’s Protector of Freedom Award, inserted a proviso in the Patriot Act that requires Senate approval for an appointment to the Directorship of the ATF.
Personally, I have little respect for the perpetually blundering ATF, but perhaps they would be less prone to bungle if they had a director. But someone has blocked the appointment of a director for over 6 years. Who might want to do that?
I know these posts are long, but I hope some of you progressives will read this stuff. Some of you need to know this stuff, so the next time you're confronted by another LogicMan you don't get hornswaggled! He came in here thinking he could school every one! He's being disingenuous and spreading false propaganda! I see LogicMan wants to make this an endless exhibition on his knowledge of guns. Typical! Let's recap: The Second Amendment allows people to own most guns. He's right with this alone. He's attempting to muddy the waters between sporting guns and law enforcement/military weapons. This is flat out disingenuous.I have asked you repeatedly to distinguish between "civilian" (as sporting use is utterly irrelevant) guns and "law enforcement/military weapons."
An obvious propaganda tool! His only response is that the Second Amendment allows people to own weapons that are semi-automatic and have magazine capacities of over 10 rounds. So far it does. But that will change. Why else would he be on here smearing this NRA type propaganda?Actually, your only response thus far has been to claim, repeatedly, with zero basis whatsoever, that semiautomatics and magazines of larger than ten round capacity should be outlawed.
He's tries to audaciously paint the AR-15 as a safe weapon. This was his best work yet! The AR-15 is the exact copy of the M16(or the M4 of today..minor cosmetic changes) The only difference is the select switch that the Military has to go Fully automatic. Civilians are not allowed to have full automatic capability. But....BUT, this is irrelevant, and this is where some of my progressive friends get bogged down with the likes of our friend LogicMan: Full Automatic vs. Semi-Automatic is a non-issue! Any civilian with an AR-15 or any gun that is semi-automatic and has a magazine capacity of over 10 rounds(whuch are readily available at stores or gun shows) can easily fire over 1 bullet per second. This has 2 dynamics. It is even more devastating than full auto, because of accuracy/recoil issues, and it conserves ammo. It doesn't go through bullets too fast. Thus enabling a soldier or a psychopath to kill more people faster and more efficiently. In fact most military train their infantry men to keep their weapons on the semi-automatic setting for accuracy and ammo conservation. In LogicMans attempt to show how safe the AR-15 is, he used another tactic these NRA sycophants use: He tried to paint the weapon as safe by describing ammunition characteristics. The AR-15 is not a safe weapon. It is semi-automatic, and can be fitted with magazines that go as high as 100 rounds..if not more. It can shoot bullets faster than 1 round per second-as fast as someone can pull the trigger. Which is fast! That's the rifle that was used in Aurora, Newtown, and probably many more massacres. It's the US Military's main infantry weapon.You can also gun people down in large numbers with shotguns. That is why they were known as "trench brooms" in World War I. Semiautomatics are nothing new and go back to the 19th century. Semiautomatics with detachable box magazines for civilians in America go back to the first decade of the 20th century. Guns functionally identical to semiautomatics, such as double-action revolver handguns, go back even further. Your argument seems to be predicated on the idea that because you can get one shot with each pull of the trigger, that the gun should be banned. By that logic, not only would you essentially be taking people nearly back to 18th century guns, but also then you could claim a variety of the 19th century guns are far too powerful for people to own.
It shoots .223 Caliber or 5.56mm ammunition. They're the same thing, the military just likes to use Metric designations. When the US switched to .223 in the Mid 1960s the United Nations protested. It is a Hypersonic round. It travels at well over 3000 ft per second. The UN protested because it is a horribly wounding and devastating round. It wasn't uncommon in Vietnam for people getting shot in the leg and having the bullet exit through the shoulder. It's also very accurate at long ranges, and easily penetrates walls, car doors, bullet proof vests, steel plating, roofs etc..1)It does not "easily" penetrate walls for the reasons I have described. 2)All rifle rounds will penetrate the standard bulletproof vest of a police officer. Those vests are only go for blocking pistol rounds. Also, has it occurred to you that some people might need penetration ability for self-defense reasons? BTW, any standard big-game hunting rifle has far more penetration ability than any AR-15. AR-15s are among the weakest-powered rifles that one can buy. 3) You say it is "very accurate" at long ranges, as if this is a bad thing.
This is the main type of .223 round...The Full Metal Jacket Round. It is by far the most common, and thousands and thousands of civilians are hoarding them from military surplus. That's right! ex-army ammo that goes stale(not really stale- the army just buys more and has to sell off the old.) gets sold to the public. Millions and Millions of rounds.Standard military AR-15 ammunition is nothing special. The military has for years used ammunition that many consider sub-par.
This is the weapon LogicMan tried to paint as safe! But there are many weapons just like it that are readily available, legally to the public.It is safer than most handguns regarding accuracy and penetration concerns for use in the home.
LogicMan, you are fraud! You thought you could come on here and trounce a bunch of Progressive Liberals with all of your double talk and mis-information. Why don't you get lost? Why would you want to spread this mis-information? Getting scared? You should be. The public aint gonna stand for too much more of this crap.Nope, just seeking to clear up various misconceptions.
Still having computer problems but will attempt to respond here. And here we go again. Yes it is. No soldier in the US military has ever been issued a 410 shotgun for agressive purposes. They were issued 12 gauge pump action shotguns in World War I and II and as you may know fired slugs. They saw use in The Marine Corps in the Pacific for close action to ferret out Japanese soldiers in caves. I'm not sure that they continued the practice in Vietnam so your analogy is totally false.Which is why the Army and Marine Corps have hundreds of thousands of both pistols and 12-gauge shotguns. Point is they are a military weapon, one that has been used before, and will be used again if/when the conditions warrant it. Just like how they've been pulling the M14s out of the armory to use in Afghanistan.
And as to using a tool or civilian weapon to kill and enemy let me offer this vignette explained to me by a Korean War vet friend of mine. His HQ was was overrun by Chinese soldiers and in the attack a cook grabbed a ladle and killed one of the enemy combatants. So, yes soldiers CAN use anything as a weapon if necessary. Ironically the ladle was GI issue so the Army COULD issue them as a weapon. Same with spades in World War I. German soldiers sharpened them for use in the trenches. My point is that soldiers may make use of ANYTHING as a waepon, even rocks can serve a deadly purpose as they did in the 2nd Battle of Manassas. So what?The point then is what is the difference between "civilian" guns and "military" guns? We hear this harped on all the time by gun control pundits, about how civilians should not have "battlefield" weapons and "weapons of war," etc...when it comes to guns, there really is no such thing. A gun is a gun.
And as to modern biggame hunting rifles, snipers have specialty weapons designed for military use so why would they opt for a civilian weapon? Your analogy is weak and has no provenance concerning the issue of gun control. It's a strawman argument at best.Define "specialty weapons designed for military use." What does that mean? You really think there's much of a difference between a "hunting rifle" (i.e. accurate, often very powerful and can kill a large animal) and a "sniper rifle?" The Remington 700 is the most popular hunting rifle in the world. It is also one of the most widely-used sniper rifles by military and law enforcement. The only real difference between the military versions and the civilian versions is the build quality. The military ones are built tougher is all. This has nothing to do with their killing ability, it's just so that they can withstand the abuses of soldiering. In the case of the military ones, the accuracy actually can even be reduced as a result of toughening up the weapon. In addition, snipers have taken to using the AR-15 as a sniper weapon. Why? Because for the civilian world, manufacturers introduced hunting upper receivers, which are elongated and provide a higher muzzle velocity, greater range, and better accuracy. Snipers have found that these hunting uppers also are excellent for using the AR-15 to build a sniper rifle.
Oh, and check your history in reference to the Rev. War. Civilian weapons were used at the beginning of the War but military weapons, when captured in the field or from existing Btirish military arsenals were quickly issued to Washington's troops and other colonial forces as soon as they became available.That's because the colonists did have that many guns to begin with. The manufacturing for guns and other weapons of war was primarily in England at the time. In addition, certain colonists left their firearms at home for their families to use for protection and hunting (for food) purposes. So the colonists resorted to stealing arms from the British.
Also, after the alliance with France in 1778 thousands of stands of French military weapons were sent to colonial troops and civilian weapons, except for sharpshooter rifles were issued, leaving the civilian rifles the ONLY ones on the battlefield. Once again, military weapons trumped civilian and from reading your posts you know what I mean. There is a difference and blurring the lines between them is reaching at best and obfuscation to say the least.There was not much of any difference between "civilian" and "military" guns back then. They used muzzle-loading muskets. What counted was the weapon's robustness in the field and could it be mass-produced for soldiers to use.
I am specifically referring to the Browning Automatic Rifle Caliber .30, M1918A2 The total weight of the weapon with bipod is 20 pounds. That plus the fully loaded magazine weighing over a pound makes it an unwieldly weapon for biggame hunting. I cannot conceive of this military machinegun, even though it may be fired as a single shot weapon, being utilized as a hunting weapon. removing the bipod would still make it unwieldly in the bush. And their manufacture (mostly for police departments, that's what killed Bonnie and Clyde BTW) to the civilian market hasn't stopped collectors from purchasing them. Once again, my collector friend has two, the first issue for WWI and a WW II issue.Sure collectors will purchase them. You can buy semiautomatic versions of Soviet machine guns as well. One doesn't need to have a reason to purchase a gun.
Ok, as to your last statement, all firearms are potentially dangerous in the wrong hands. You can argue and nitpick all you want about military vs. civilian weapons and you and I will continually disagree on this point. We're both gun owners and enthusiasts although I'm strictly black powder and my weapons are just as deadly as yours, emphasis on the deadly which is my bottom line here. Let's not blur the issue with the minutae of weapons knowledge.It isn't really minutae though, it is something important to point out to people who are otherwise fooled by gun control proponents who speak of "military guns" as if there is any real difference between the two. Minutae is when you jump down someone's throat for using terms like "bullets" and "clip" when the appropriate terms would say be cartridges and detachable box magazine. If someone says, "30 bullet clips should be banned," I'm not going to jump down their throat over semantics there. But terms like "high-capacity magazine," "assault weapon," etc...that's a different ballgame, because then it's not just a matter of semantics.
there are people in our society who are out to commit unspeakable acts of terror and mass violence and any weapon that allows them to take the lives of hundreds should be strictly regulated. Background checks may prevent some nut from getting hold of a weapon capable of killing people on a massive scale. It's worth the two week wait for me to purchase a legal weapon. And as I mentioned before, most criminals commit crimes with handguns they were given by relatives and friends or stolen from them so this loophole also needs to be closed.Universal background checks are fine in principle, but in practice, they need to figure out how to enforce them without it leading to possible gun confiscation in the future. As for a wait period, who decides how long that is?
This top down NRA generated paranoia must be stopped by the membership. It has to be done from the inside. That's it for me here. We've gotten into a loop with this disconfirmation bias and to no avail.There is little paranoia coming from the NRA. The major disinformation campaign that I have seen thus far comes from the gun control proponents, who seek to mislead people (such as the Newtown families) and at best grossly oversimplify the issues and at worst just flat-out engage in falsehoods.
Who has proposed "taking away" the right? I suppose that there are those who would support repealing the Second Amendment, but what good reason is there to believe this would take place, let alone the government is going to confiscate firearms? Government in the U.S. (and elsewhere) has always been corrupt, but when has it threatened to confiscate guns?Governor Cuomo and Dianne Feinstein have both talked about gun confiscation. The NY state police said they would enforce such a measure as well. Also, as for taking away the right, just look at Feinstein's proposed "assault weapons ban." She gets to define "assault weapon" to be whatever she wants it to be. So basically it's a stealth gun ban. They write such a ban, make it law, then when they want to ban more guns, they just then claim that the ban has "loopholes" that they need to close (a completely nonsense claim).
There should be some reasonable basis for doubt or fear before it is accepted as grounds on which to make policy, or law. No doubt there have been unreasonable doubts and fears on both sides of the issue. But the claim that there is the possibility that government might confiscate guns is one of the more unreasonable claims being made in opposition to regulations.The government at the state level at least has threatened to confiscate "assault weapons," which pretty much means any and all guns that they deem as "assault weapons." The only thing that really puts a dent into such plans are the logistics of it in this country.
I take it that you do not consider polls as evidence. Nor the fact that 10 more senators voted for the bill than voted against it.You are ignoring the point I made earlier. Saying 90% support universal background checks is like saying a majority support balancing the budget. I doesn't mean that people support the individual plans for how exactly to go about doing this.
This is a false equivalency. e.g., If one of my neighbor's used to take a dump on my front lawn, occasionally, (let's say he did so a relatively small number of times between 2001 and 2009) while another neighbor has taken a dump on my front lawn 100's of times, since then, and continues to do so regularly, to the point that I have to shut down access to my home, which neighbor do you think I should go after, right now?I'd say THAT is a false-equivalency. You are talking about the filibuster process. My point is that Democrats are going to find themselves in a bad position at some point in the future when they find they'd really like that filibuster to stop Republican legislation that they think is very bad.
IMO, it is an extremist position to fight tooth and nail to block legislation that could make it more difficult for criminals and crazies to acquire guns, while only imposing a reasonable waiting period for law abiding sane people.But that's not what the legislation would do, that's what it would claim to do. In reality, it might well make it where the government would have all sorts of information on gun owners from which then to use to confiscate guns in the future. You might as well be saying, with regards to the ACLU, that: "IMO, it is an extremist position to fight tooth and nail to block legislation that could make it more difficult for terrorists to commit acts of terrorism against the United States, while only imposing reasonable restrictions of liberty on law-abiding citizens." However, the ACLU is not demonized for its resistance to things like the Patriot Act for example. Nor should it be. Or let's say things like making mental health records available in the background check process. Would this help stop crazies? Sure. It also would violate privacy rights a lot, and then you get privacy rights activists involved.
The NRA, by its action in April to defeat this legislation, has opened itself up to a level of opposition that it has not previously had. I think that it's time as a venerable institution that is revered by some, and ignored by most, is now in jeapordy.If it is ignored by most, then why is it so influential? Of course, the gun control proponents would just love for the general public to believe this about the NRA, that it is against such "sane" and "common sense" gun legislation. The NRA's concerns are rarely addressed, or to the extent that they are, merely shrugged off as paranoia.
Here is how the NRA uses money to effect legisltors and to block legislation: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000082Are you kidding me? From the link:
The National Rifle Association goes to great lengths (and spends a huge sum of money) to defend the right to bear arms. It is opposed to virtually every form of gun control, including restrictions on owning assault weapons, retention of databases of gun purchases, and registration of firearms. hideThe NRA is NOT opposed to "virtually every form of gun control." And like most gun control proponents, this website either shows its ignorance or its actively misleading people by just off-handedly using the term "assault weapons." Being against a so-called "assault weapons ban," retention of databases of gun owners, and registration of firearms is not being against all gun control.
You have really bought and are spreading the lie that the bill that was blocked in April would have lead to a gun registry. In truth, "the bill would actually have made such a registry explicitly illegal." http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/25/opinion/deception-on-gun-background-checks.htmlIMO, it is an extremist position to fight tooth and nail to block legislation that could make it more difficult for criminals and crazies to acquire guns, while only imposing a reasonable waiting period for law abiding sane people.But that's not what the legislation would do, that's what it would claim to do. In reality, it might well make it where the government would have all sorts of information on gun owners from which then to use to confiscate guns in the future...
The NRA, by its action in April to defeat this legislation, has opened itself up to a level of opposition that it has not previously had. I think that it's time as a venerable institution that is revered by some, and ignored by most, is now in jeapordy.
If it is ignored by most, then why is it so influential? ...If you had read all of my other posts and links, you would have your answer.
Here is how the NRA uses money to effect legisltors and to block legislation: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000082
Are you kidding me? From the link:There you go again cherry picking and calling for a semantics argument. I'm not biting. The real issue is that the NRA over-reached in squashing the bill in April which was really just a token, a crumb to be thrown to gun control advocates, but which could have saved a few innocent lives by making it just a teeny bit harder for crazies and criminals to get guns. The truth is that guns are massively available and will continue to be so. The truth is that there is no real threat to the availabity of AR-15's (civilian version of the military rifle), except that they are flying off the shelves so fast that the price has gone thru the roof. And this is because of the truly ridiculous but ubiquitous claim that Obama is going to take your guns away. That, Sir is PARANOIA (fear with no basis in reality). And as far as the abuse of the filibuster, the Republicans have set a record that hopefully will never be broken. If the Democrats were to follow a similar course of this magnitude, if a Republican wins the White House, then our legislative branch will be blocked from doing anything substantial again. But the Republicans are setting this dangerous precedent unabated. They won't even allow a director of the ATF to be appointed. AFTER SIX YEARS. We are dangerously short of federal judges because the Republicans continue to slow and block the appointments. Don't tell me the Democrats do the same! Sure they have, but not nearly to the level that has been going on since Obama took office.The National Rifle Association goes to great lengths (and spends a huge sum of money) to defend the right to bear arms. It is opposed to virtually every form of gun control, including restrictions on owning assault weapons, retention of databases of gun purchases, and registration of firearms. hideThe NRA is NOT opposed to "virtually every form of gun control." ...
LogicMan-I have asked you repeatedly to distinguish between "civilian" (as sporting use is utterly irrelevant) guns and "law enforcement/military weapons."Why is the term "sporting" utterly irrelevant? Because there is a clear difference between civilian sporting guns and military police weapons? Sporting guns are any guns that are NOT semi-automatic and have a magazine capacity of over 10 rounds. Military or police guns are anything they want. So if the police or the Army want to use a snub nose .38 or an old rusty double barrel, or a machine gun, or a ladle as Village Atheist said- that's fine by me. Why do you keep talking about what teh Army or police can use for weapons? They can and should use just about anything they want to. That's what I've been saying all along. That should clear it up.
Actually, your only response thus far has been to claim, repeatedly, with zero basis whatsoever, that semiautomatics and magazines of larger than ten round capacity should be outlawed.Yeah, that's my favorite response! I've given plenty of basis for that. It revolves around the logical, and practical idea that no civilians need police or military type weapons. Weapons that are semi-automatic and have magazine capacities of more than 10 rounds are a danger to the general public. There's too much potential for mass killings in those guns. People have no use for them anyways except a fetishistic fervor. It's all a result of Hollywood conditioning. Every insecure loser can fancy himself John Wayne. Then they feel victimized by society and they go shoot up a school. They can do far less damage with sporting guns than they can with police/military weapons.
You can also gun people down in large numbers with shotguns. That is why they were known as "trench brooms" in World War I. Semiautomatics are nothing new and go back to the 19th century. Semiautomatics with detachable box magazines for civilians in America go back to the first decade of the 20th century. Guns functionally identical to semiautomatics, such as double-action revolver handguns, go back even further.1. When did semi-automatics with detachable box magazines with bullet capacities of over 10 rounds become available in the US? 2. A shotgun with 5 round capacity is not going to come close to the devastating firepower of a semiautomatic rifle with a magazine capacity of 10 rounds of more. Stop making stuff up out of thin air! The shot gun has to be loaded after five shots-that could give someone in a movie theater or school or church enough time to tackle the shooter. That's after only 5 shots! With an AR-15 for example, the shooter could have 100 round drum magazines attached to his weapon. Now he has 100 shots to take before he has to reload. And the time he has to reload is far quicker than with the shotgun. He simply has to slap another magazine in the gun and now he can begin firing again. Reloading a shotgun-even with intense practice takes considerably longer-and that's only reloading 5 rounds. So you see...the AR-15 can be reloaded faster with 100 rounds than it takes a shotgun to be reloaded with 5 rounds!! I think we all get the general picture with this now, don't we? Sure we do! Oh one more thing...the shotgun(which I'm presuming will be loaded with buckshot!) has an effective range of about 35 yards maximum. The AR-15 has an effective range of 300 yards..or more.
Your argument seems to be predicated on the idea that because you can get one shot with each pull of the trigger, that the gun should be banned. By that logic, not only would you essentially be taking people nearly back to 18th century guns, but also then you could claim a variety of the 19th century guns are far too powerful for people to own.No my argument is predicated on the idea of semi-automatic weapons with magazine capacities of over 10 rounds being banned. I don't care about weapons from the 18th century. You know this. You know my stance. I said I'm not against semi-automatic weapons. And no one here really gives a crap about your shaky knowledge of gun history throughout the ages. We are talking about today's problems.
1)It does not "easily" penetrate walls for the reasons I have described.That's a flat out lie! The .223 full metal jacket round-which is by far the most common round available, (but not exclusively the most dangerous by any means!) It can shoot through walls, car doors, bullet proof vests, brick walls, 1/4 in. to 1/2 in. steel etc. I don't know why you put easily in quotes? But who cares why you did, I'll keep wading through your endless posts about guns and ammo. No one would be willing to stand behind a wall or car door or bullet proof vest and let some one fire the .223 at them through the barrier. Because they know they would be wounded or killed!
2)All rifle rounds will penetrate the standard bulletproof vest of a police officer. Those vests are only go for blocking pistol rounds. Also, has it occurred to you that some people might need penetration ability for self-defense reasons? BTW, any standard big-game hunting rifle has far more penetration ability than any AR-15. AR-15s are among the weakest-powered rifles that one can buy.Yeah so? As long as those bullets aren't being fired from a semi-automatic weapon with magazine capacities of over 10 rounds, I don't see a problem. For reasons I have already described! Hunters need powerful cartridges to take down big game.
LogicMan-Nope, just seeking to clear up various misconceptions.You're not doing a very good job at that!
You have really bought and are spreading the lie that the bill that was blocked in April would have lead to a gun registry. In truth, "the bill would actually have made such a registry explicitly illegal." http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/25/opinion/deception-on-gun-background-checks.htmlThat is what was claimed, but it depends on how one interprets the language of the bill: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/345845/problems-toomey-manchin
If you had read all of my other posts and links, you would have your answer.The links and posts you've made do not jive with reality unless the NRA actually has a very wide base of support within the country.
There you go again cherry picking and calling for a semantics argument.It's not a semantics argument, which you will see if you've read my other posts. Shrugging it off as semantics is a way to avoid the issue. Imagine the following scenario: Pro-Life Advocate: "I do not believe a woman has a right to murder a child." Pro-Choice Advocate: "It's not a child inside. You can't just label it a child from the moment of conception." Pro-Life Advocate: "There you go again cherry picking and calling for a semantics argument." Pro-Choice Advocate: "Pointing out that the life at the very early stage of the pregnancy is not a full-on human being yet is not engaging in 'semantics' to mislead people!" If they decide to enact national Hate Speech Ban or Assault Speech Ban, is that "semantics" too?
I'm not biting. The real issue is that the NRA over-reached in squashing the bill in April which was really just a token, a crumb to be thrown to gun control advocates, but which could have saved a few innocent lives by making it just a teeny bit harder for crazies and criminals to get guns.The NRA is only as powerful as the American people let it be.
The truth is that guns are massively available and will continue to be so. The truth is that there is no real threat to the availabity of AR-15's (civilian version of the military rifle), except that they are flying off the shelves so fast that the price has gone thru the roof. And this is because of the truly ridiculous but ubiquitous claim that Obama is going to take your guns away. That, Sir is PARANOIA (fear with no basis in reality).No it isn't. We've seen multiple states already explicitly ban the AR-15 and talk about confiscation. If Obama could've done so via Executive Order, I have no doubt that he would have. His administration already banned the further import of surplus M1 Carbine rifles from Korea (something that made no sense). President Obama says that "weapons of war" do not belong in the hands of citizens, showing a large degree of ignorance with such a statement. By trying to pass a so-called "Assault Weapons Ban," yes, he is in fact trying to take our guns away. Taking people's guns away does not just consist of confiscation, it consists of banning (or seeking to ban) the further manufacture of. Imagine politicians seeking to ban books, and then having the gall to say, "We are not trying to take away anybody's books." No one would care that they aren't coming to confiscate people's books, the issue would be that they are trying to stop the further publishing and printing of books. That would constitute "coming for our books."
And as far as the abuse of the filibuster, the Republicans have set a record that hopefully will never be broken. If the Democrats were to follow a similar course of this magnitude, if a Republican wins the White House, then our legislative branch will be blocked from doing anything substantial again. But the Republicans are setting this dangerous precedent unabated. They won't even allow a director of the ATF to be appointed. AFTER SIX YEARS.That's because the man that President Obama wanted to appoint was a hardcore anti-gun person.
We are dangerously short of federal judges because the Republicans continue to slow and block the appointments. Don't tell me the Democrats do the same! Sure they have, but not nearly to the level that has been going on since Obama took office.Agree there.
Why is the term "sporting" utterly irrelevant? Because there is a clear difference between civilian sporting guns and military police weapons?No, it's irrelevant because the right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with sporting use.
Sporting guns are any guns that are NOT semi-automatic and have a magazine capacity of over 10 rounds. Military or police guns are anything they want.Who makes this definition? Semiautomatic guns were available to civilians long before the U.S. military started using them.
So if the police or the Army want to use a snub nose .38 or an old rusty double barrel, or a machine gun, or a ladle as Village Atheist said- that's fine by me. Why do you keep talking about what teh Army or police can use for weapons? They can and should use just about anything they want to. That's what I've been saying all along. That should clear it up.No they shouldn't. Police are not military. They are law enforcement. Some countries do not even let the police carry guns except for special units (like the UK).
Yeah, that's my favorite response! I've given plenty of basis for that. It revolves around the logical, and practical idea that no civilians need police or military type weapons.You haven't explained what makes "civilian" weapons different from "military" and "police" weapons.
Weapons that are semi-automatic and have magazine capacities of more than 10 rounds are a danger to the general public. There's too much potential for mass killings in those guns. People have no use for them anyways except a fetishistic fervor. It's all a result of Hollywood conditioning. Every insecure loser can fancy himself John Wayne. Then they feel victimized by society and they go shoot up a school. They can do far less damage with sporting guns than they can with police/military weapons.Very arbitrary reasoning there. Mass killings are very rare and even rarer back when gun laws were far more lenient than they are today. Also, people very much have need for such weapons. People have to deal with the same criminals the police deal with, and the police feel a need to have semiautomatic weapons. Your definitions of "military," "police," and "sporting" weapons are all very arbitrary.
1. When did semi-automatics with detachable box magazines with bullet capacities of over 10 rounds become available in the US?Ones with over 10 round capacity I believe started in the 1920s with the Thompson submachine guns.
2. A shotgun with 5 round capacity is not going to come close to the devastating firepower of a semiautomatic rifle with a magazine capacity of 10 rounds of more.It very much can, because it can unleash far more projectiles from that five rounds due to the pellets.
Stop making stuff up out of thin air! The shot gun has to be loaded after five shots-that could give someone in a movie theater or school or church enough time to tackle the shooter. That's after only 5 shots!Five shots can be enough to take out a lot of people if/when firing into a crowd. With single projectiles though, sure it can give someone time to tackle the shooter. It also puts the person protecting themselves and/or their family at a distinct disadvantage if they run out of ammunition because they missed, or didn't have enough shots to stop the person.
With an AR-15 for example, the shooter could have 100 round drum magazines attached to his weapon. Now he has 100 shots to take before he has to reload. And the time he has to reload is far quicker than with the shotgun. He simply has to slap another magazine in the gun and now he can begin firing again. Reloading a shotgun-even with intense practice takes considerably longer-and that's only reloading 5 rounds. So you see...the AR-15 can be reloaded faster with 100 rounds that it takes a shotgun to be reloaded with 5 rounds!! I think we all get the general picture with this now, don't we? Sure we do!Yes. That is why weapons like the AR-15 are better for home defense purposes IMO.
Oh one more thing...the shotgun(which I'm presuming will be loaded with buckshot!) has an effective range of about 35 yards maximum. The AR-15 has an effective range of 300 yards..or more.So what? Criminals rarely go on a mass shooting from a distance. If they do shoot from a long distance away, any big-game hunting rifle would work fine. For example, the D.C. sniper of 2002, John Allan Muhammed. He used an AR-15. He could just as easily have used a bolt-action rifle.
No my argument is predicated on the idea of semi-automatic weapons with magazine capacities of over 10 rounds being banned. I don't care about weapons from the 18th century. You know this. You know my stance. I said I'm not against semi-automatic weapons. And no one here really gives a crap about your shaky knowledge of gun history throughout the ages. We are talking about today's problems.If you claim semiautomatic guns with magazine capacities of more than ten rounds should be banned, it's not much of a step to ban repeating rifles like 19th century lever-actions that are more powerful than any AR-15.
That's a flat out lie! The .223 full metal jacket round-which is by far the most common round available, (but not exclusively the most dangerous by any means!) It can shoot through walls, car doors, bullet proof vests, brick walls, 1/4 in. to 1/2 in. steel etc. I don't know why you put easily in quotes? But who cares why you did, I'll keep wading through your endless posts about guns and ammo. No one would be willing to stand behind a wall or car door or bullet proof vest and let some one fire the .223 at them through the barrier. Because they know they would be wounded or killed!.223 is a lot less able to penetrate the walls of a home then pistol rounds. Also you act like the .223 is some big-deal as far as ammunition goes. .223 is a tiny projectile.
Yeah so? As long as those bullets aren't being fired from a semi-automatic weapon with magazine capacities of over 10 rounds, I don't see a problem. For reasons I have already described! Hunters need powerful cartridges to take down big game.Very arbitrary here. Plenty of people have a need for a semiautomatic gun. Plenty of people do not have a need for any bolt-action gun however.
Still having computer problems but will attempt to respond here. And here we go again. Yes it is. No soldier in the US military has ever been issued a 410 shotgun for agressive purposes. They were issued 12 gauge pump action shotguns in World War I and II and as you may know fired slugs. They saw use in The Marine Corps in the Pacific for close action to ferret out Japanese soldiers in caves. I'm not sure that they continued the practice in Vietnam so your analogy is totally false.Which is why the Army and Marine Corps have hundreds of thousands of both pistols and 12-gauge shotguns. Point is they are a military weapon, one that has been used before, and will be used again if/when the conditions warrant it. Just like how they've been pulling the M14s out of the armory to use in Afghanistan. Correct, shotguns were used for room clearing in the Iraq war, probably in Afghanistan too; they aren't standard issue weapons, though.
Five shots can be enough to take out a lot of people if/when firing into a crowd. With single projectiles though, sure it can give someone time to tackle the shooter. It also puts the person protecting themselves and/or their family at a distinct disadvantage if they run out of ammunition because they missed, or didn't have enough shots to stop the person.I think this was mentioned earlier, but there are shotguns that hold eight shells, not aware of any that hold more. You're absolutely right that five shotgun blasts can mess up more than five people, but something like the AR-15 is potentially more destructive, e.g, - a mass public shooting. I mean in that type of situation, firepower is the main point.
LogicMan-Who makes this definition? Semiautomatic guns were available to civilians long before the U.S. military started using them.I just made the definition. So when you say later down this thread that I still haven't explained the difference between civilian weapons and military weapons I can call you out. I've been explaining the difference all along. You keep wanting to trap people with semantics and labels. I'm not falling for your goofy tricks. My designation follows function-not name. All semi-automatic weapons that have magazine capacities of over 10 rounds should be banned. I don't care what you call them! I don't care about the difference between civilian, police, sporting or military. That's your name game. The deciding faction is mechanical functionality. If it's semi-automatic and holds more than 10 rounds it should be illegal for civilians to have.
No they shouldn't. Police are not military. They are law enforcement. Some countries do not even let the police carry guns except for special units (like the UK).Sounds like you live in the UK...The UK police probably don't carry guns because the UK doesn't have a gun problem.
You haven't explained what makes "civilian" weapons different from "military" and "police" weapons.Like I said, let's just get all semi-automatic pistols, shotguns and rifles with magazine capacities of more than 10 rounds banned. 5 round max cap. for shotguns. You can go round and round about your fear of the police and the military with someone else.
Very arbitrary reasoning there. Mass killings are very rare and even rarer back when gun laws were far more lenient than they are today. Also, people very much have need for such weapons. People have to deal with the same criminals the police deal with, and the police feel a need to have semiautomatic weapons. Your definitions of "military," "police," and "sporting" weapons are all very arbitrary.Everything in this statement above is rhetorical lies. 1. My reasoning isn't arbitrary. Concerned lawmakers are getting the facts about weapons and making informed decisions regarding their legislation. 2. Mass Killings are not rare. The fact that you had to say: "even rarer back when..." proves that. But 1 mass killing is one too many anyways. 3. People absolutely DO NOT have to deal with the same criminals as police do. The vast majority of people go through their lives without ever even interacting with a criminal. Police do it every day. They are proactively involved with confronting criminals. 4. Yes, I don't usually use those terms when talking about guns. However the vast majority of people could easily discern between sporting guns and military guns.
Ones with over 10 round capacity I believe started in the 1920s with the Thompson submachine guns.No. That was fully automatic, not semi-automatic. Plus it was banned from civilian use around that same time. The police and Army could still use them though! Can you name another gun that was available to the public that was semi-automatic and had a magazine capacity of over 10 rounds? From how far back did you say? 100 years? I'll make it easy try and go back 80 years. 70?
It very much can, because it can unleash far more projectiles from that five rounds due to the pellets.Yes than it has to be reloaded. Very different from a box magazine or drum magazine rifle. Even if you counted all the pellets in a shotgun loaded with 5 rounds of 00 Buck it wouldn't match the number of BULLETS in a drum fed AR-15. The shot gun would have about 45-50 pellets total. The AR-15 would have 100 rounds. Each of those 100 rounds could be shot at a different person. The shotgun has 5 shots for 5 targets. The AR-15 has 100 shots for 100 targets. Of course that's why the crazies are using AR-15s for their mass-shootings and not shotguns. That's a no-brainer! So..No technically the AR-15 unleashes far more rounds than any shotgun could ever. You obviously don't know much about patterning either I see.
Yes. That is why weapons like the AR-15 are better for home defense purposes IMO.Who cares about your VideoGame/Hollywood opinions? They are also better for mass shooters, bank robbers, terrorists and psychos.
So what? Criminals rarely go on a mass shooting from a distance. If they do shoot from a long distance away, any big-game hunting rifle would work fine. For example, the D.C. sniper of 2002, John Allan Muhammed. He used an AR-15. He could just as easily have used a bolt-action rifle.How do you know? He used an AR-15, that's all I know.
If you claim semiautomatic guns with magazine capacities of more than ten rounds should be banned, it's not much of a step to ban repeating rifles like 19th century lever-actions that are more powerful than any AR-15.Well, I guess you'll have to take our word for it when the time comes.
.223 is a lot less able to penetrate the walls of a home then pistol rounds. Also you act like the .223 is some big-deal as far as ammunition goes. .223 is a tiny projectile.What pistol rounds? There's no such thing as "pistol rounds". Who's being arbitrary? The US Military and law enforcement sure do like those tiny rounds that you say are no big deal. They sure kill people pretty good for being a tiny projectile. Did you want to tell everyone how safe .223 is again?
Very arbitrary here. Plenty of people have a need for a semiautomatic gun. Plenty of people do not have a need for any bolt-action gun however.Good, as long as they hold less than 10 rounds everyone will be happier.
Who has proposed "taking away" the right? I suppose that there are those who would support repealing the Second Amendment, but what good reason is there to believe this would take place, let alone the government is going to confiscate firearms? Government in the U.S. (and elsewhere) has always been corrupt, but when has it threatened to confiscate guns?Governor Cuomo and Dianne Feinstein have both talked about gun confiscation. The NY state police said they would enforce such a measure as well. Also, as for taking away the right, just look at Feinstein's proposed "assault weapons ban." She gets to define "assault weapon" to be whatever she wants it to be. So basically it's a stealth gun ban. They write such a ban, make it law, then when they want to ban more guns, they just then claim that the ban has "loopholes" that they need to close (a completely nonsense claim).
There should be some reasonable basis for doubt or fear before it is accepted as grounds on which to make policy, or law. No doubt there have been unreasonable doubts and fears on both sides of the issue. But the claim that there is the possibility that government might confiscate guns is one of the more unreasonable claims being made in opposition to regulations.The government at the state level at least has threatened to confiscate "assault weapons," which pretty much means any and all guns that they deem as "assault weapons." The only thing that really puts a dent into such plans are the logistics of it in this country. You think the likes of Cuomo and Feinstein are the government? You must live in fear. They're not, of course, and ramblings regarding the "option" of confiscation is just that and nothing more. More significantly, they refer to a type of firearm, not all firearms. You've made it exceedingly clear you have concerns regarding the use of the words "assault weapons" but even this toothless discussion of possibilities by some politicians doesn't suggest that all guns should, must or will be confiscated. And the Second Amendment doesn't grant a right to bear arms of any kind, because it is subject to the test of reasonability. It is not sacrosanct, nor is any other constitutional right. So, our politicians should be discussing what reasonable regulation may be, and unsupported fears of confiscation of all guns by the government doesn't contribute to such a discussion in any useful sense. Claims that certain kinds of firearms should or should not be sold or owned is a different issue, and may or may not violate the Second Amendment if implemented.
I just made the definition. So when you say later down this thread that I still haven't explained the difference between civilian weapons and military weapons I can call you out. I've been explaining the difference all along. You keep wanting to trap people with semantics and labels. I'm not falling for your goofy tricks. My designation follows function-not name. All semi-automatic weapons that have magazine capacities of over 10 rounds should be banned. I don't care what you call them! I don't care about the difference between civilian, police, sporting or military. That's your name game.1) You seem to think that because you define something a certain way, then that's that. That isn't the case. 2) Why should such weapons be banned? Who makes you the ultimate authority on this? And I am not engaging in semantics at all. I am glad that you ignore the term "assault weapon" and just focus on function (semiautomatic), but that is what the standard gun control response is to do. In the aftermath of Aurora, Newtown, etc...we see lots of yelling about why are "automatic fire weapons" so readily-available. Then when it is pointed out that they are not, the claim then goes to, "Well then semiautomatic guns should be banned!" If it was a scary-looking pump-action rifle, they would want those banned too.
The deciding faction is mechanical functionality. If it's semi-automatic and holds more than 10 rounds it should be illegal for civilians to have.Why?
Sounds like you live in the UK...The UK police probably don't carry guns because the UK doesn't have a gun problem.No, I live in the United States. The UK doesn't let the police carry guns for a few reasons. One is because they are so anti-gun that they do not even believe that the police should have them. Only the military and specialized units of the police should have them is their view. The original reason however was because when police first appeared, they were not armed as the citizens were armed. It wasn't seen as a need to have armed police. The UK has a violent crime problem, in some ways more severe than the United States. Much of the "gun problem" with the United States is due to gang violence. BTW, if you think the job of the police in the United States is to protect people, that is incorrect. The Supreme Court has ruled that there is no Constitutional right to police protection. I just point this out because there are many people who have the attitude of, "Why do people need guns? Aren't the police there to protect us?"
Like I said, let's just get all semi-automatic pistols, shotguns and rifles with magazine capacities of more than 10 rounds banned. 5 round max cap. for shotguns. You can go round and round about your fear of the police and the military with someone else.It isn't just about that, it is also about self-defense. If you have a criminal kick your door in with a gun and you have to shoot him six or seven times just to get him to drop because he's high on some narcotic, and then his friend breaks in through a side window, well with ten rounds, you're pretty much out of ammunition at that point. People, especially people on narcotics, do not necessarily drop with just one or two shots (or three, four, or five). It depends. That is why police like standard capacity magazines. You also can miss.
Everything in this statement above is rhetorical lies. 1. My reasoning isn't arbitrary. Concerned lawmakers are getting the facts about weapons and making informed decisions regarding their legislation."Concerned lawmakers" are using myths, distortions, falsehoods, and ideology to promote ideologically-driven gun control legislation from what I have seen, ranging from Governor Cuomo to the Nevada politician who didn't thought magazines were the same as ammunition.
2. Mass Killings are not rare. The fact that you had to say: "even rarer back when..." proves that. But 1 mass killing is one too many anyways.They're rare. I said "even rarer back when..." with regards to gun laws. The fact that mass killings practically never happened back when you could go into a hardware store and buy an automatic fire Tommy gun without any background check or have it sent to you via mail-order, shows that gun control and mass shootings are not linearly related.
3. People absolutely DO NOT have to deal with the same criminals as police do. The vast majority of people go through their lives without ever even interacting with a criminal. Police do it every day. They are proactively involved with confronting criminals.Most police go through their jobs without getting into gun fights as well. The average cop is not all that well-trained with a firearm. But that's irrelevant. If a criminal breaks into your home, it's the same criminal that the police are going to have to deal with. So yes, the people do deal with the same criminals as the police when they end up having to deal with them.
4. Yes, I don't usually use those terms when talking about guns. However the vast majority of people could easily discern between sporting guns and military guns.Would have to disagree completely. The average person cannot at all distinguish a sporting gun from a military gun. Some sporting guns are made to look like "military guns" even though the military doesn't use them while other military guns could easily be mistaken for "grandpa's hunting rifle" by those who don't know what they are looking at. In California, they banned a single-shot shotgun as an "assault weapon" because the method the legislators used was to flip through a book and look at pictures of the guns and decide which ones to ban.
No. That was fully automatic, not semi-automatic. Plus it was banned from civilian use around that same time. The police and Army could still use them though!They were capable of fully-automatic fire, but they also have a setting for firing them on semi-automatic as well. And Thompson submachine guns were not banned from public use at that time. You could buy them via mail-order or in a hardware store, no background check or anything. Automatic fire weapons came under heavy regulation in the early 1930s, and their further manufacture for sale to the civilian market was banned in 1986.
Can you name another gun that was available to the public that was semi-automatic and had a magazine capacity of over 10 rounds? From how far back did you say? 100 years? I'll make it easy try and go back 80 years. 70?Semi-automatics with detachable box magazines themselves were available as early as the late 19th century. In terms of rifles, you could also get Remington Model 8 rifles with a larger than 10 round detachable box magazine if you had it custom-ordered (the Model 8 rifle, a semiautomatic rifle, came out in 1906). As said, Tommy guns have been around since the 20s. AR-15s with 30 round magazines came out in 1964, so almost fifty years now for those.
Yes than it has to be reloaded. Very different from a box magazine or drum magazine rifle. Even if you counted all the pellets in a shotgun loaded with 5 rounds of 00 Buck it wouldn't match the number of BULLETS in a drum fed AR-15. The shot gun would have about 45-50 pellets total. The AR-15 would have 100 rounds.But to fire those 100 rounds would take a lot longer (especially with jams, which 100 round drum magazines are prone to doing) than to fire those pellets. I'm thinking of an Adam Lanza situation, where you want to gun down a bunch of school children in a classroom very quickly. You order them to crowd together and then pump the shotgun and you can imagine the result. If you have to reload, that is not a problem for a mass-murderer like that, because in Adam Lanza's case, the police took around 30 minutes or so to arrive. Loading another five shots by that standard doesn't take long at all. OTOH, for someone protecting their home (themself and their family), the time to reload for shotgun can be excessively long. So the only person really at a disadvantage here is the law-abiding citizen, not the criminal. In such situations, people end up fighting on the criminal's terms.
Each of those 100 rounds could be shot at a different person. The shotgun has 5 shots for 5 targets. The AR-15 has 100 shots for 100 targets.The shotgun has five shots where each shot can hit multiple targets. Shotguns can be superior anti-personnel weapons in that sense. That is why they were so effective in the trenches in World War I. Because you don't need to just aim directly at each target and shoot, you just fire repeatedly in the general direction of the men in the trench and due to the pellets spreading, you can hit multiples of them. You also have to stop looking at it solely from the perspective of a shooter and take into account defensive uses.
Of course that's why the crazies are using AR-15s for their mass-shootings and not shotguns. That's a no-brainer! So..No technically the AR-15 unleashes far more rounds than any shotgun could ever. You obviously don't know much about patterning either I see.James Holmes used both an AR-15 and a shotgun. And the reason AR-15s are used so much is because it is one of the most common weapons in existence. It isn't as if it is some exotic, "high-powered assault weapon" that is available. It's one of the most common rifles people purchase. In the case of Adam Lanza, he stole his mother's AR-15. BTW, there are pump-action shotguns and pump-action rifles with detachable box magazines too.
Who cares about your VideoGame/Hollywood opinions? They are also better for mass shooters, bank robbers, terrorists and psychos....all of whom make up a minority of gun violence cases. I don't think we've ever had terrorists utilize such weapons and as for bank robbers, most definitely not in modern times. You can't just take away people's rights because of something that is a rare occurrence. And my opinions are not videogame or Hollywood-based.
How do you know? He used an AR-15, that's all I know.Because he was firing from inside the trunk of a car. He didn't need quick follow-up shots.
Well, I guess you'll have to take our word for it when the time comes.I can trust your word on that, but: 1) I disagree with your opinion that said weapons should be banned 2) What is to stop the next round of anti-gun people from seeking to ban the 19th century weapons? This is conducted in stages. You first ban automatic fire weapons. Then you call for semiautomatics to be banned. Then when a another mass shooting happens, you call for whatever that type of gun is to be banned. Sometimes gun control laws can be passed by reasonable legislators, but the fear is then what comes next when those legislators get replaced by legislators who can be unreasonable and/or very ignorant and/or ideological? cont'd...