Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2  
User currently onlineiowaman From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4403 posts, RR: 6
Posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2971 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

As the last thread is almost 300 replies please continue the discussion here.

Previous thread:

NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? (by tugger Dec 21 2012 in Non Aviation)


Next flights: WN DSM-LAS-PHX, US PHX-SJD.
118 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2768 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2954 times:

D.C. police are looking into whether or not "Meet The Press" host David Gregory violated local law when he displayed what he described as a 30 round magazine as part of an interview with an NRA rep on last Sunday's show. And, not too surprisingly, it was "several conservative commentators" who first raised the issue of whether Gregory had broken D.C. law by using the magazine. Sour grapes?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...-moderator-violated-law/?hpt=hp_t3


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11659 posts, RR: 15
Reply 2, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2951 times:

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 1):
D.C. police are looking into whether or not

So, they have time to go after a TV host but not real criminals who are using real bullets to kill real people?

We know where their priorities are...



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2768 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2949 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 2):
So, they have time to go after a TV host but not real criminals who are using real bullets to kill real people?

We know where their priorities are...

I have a strong suspicion there was some political pressure applied to make them open an investigation. I'm pretty sure a police force whose jurisdiction saw a 40% increase in violent crimes this year has higher priorities than going after Daivd Gregory for displaying an empty high-capacity magazine.


User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1884 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2944 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 281):
If I have to explain why I should be allowed to own something, then I'm not really free to own it. It's really that simple. Gun licenses and registrations are fine as far as restrictions go and proving one is responsible enough.

You can be free to own a firearm you just should't be free to own any firearm. All freedom comes with restrictions. There is no such thing as unrestricted freedom. It is not conducive to a civlized society.



The only valid opinions are those based in facts
User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2768 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2938 times:

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 4):
You can be free to own a firearm you just should't be free to own any firearm

Which is exactly what Justice Scalia and four others ruled in D.C v. Heller. But in BMI727's eyes, his opinion carries more weight than that of five Supreme Court Justices.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15745 posts, RR: 27
Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2927 times:

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 4):
You can be free to own a firearm you just should't be free to own any firearm. All freedom comes with restrictions. There is no such thing as unrestricted freedom.

If someone can explain how your rights are violated by someone having a 30 round magazine rather than 10 rounds, you might be able to make a case for restricting that freedom.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5608 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2919 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 6):
If someone can explain how your rights are violated by someone having a 30 round magazine rather than 10 rounds, you might be able to make a case for restricting that freedom.

It's not always/primarily about "rights" being violated, it is often about potential damage and usefulness to society versus the effect of the restriction on the right. Hence the speech restriction on crying "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater etc.

A restriction on 30 round magazines will neither deprive you of your right to a firearm or your ability to use it when needed.

So I will ask you how a restriction on 30 round magazines will detrimentally harm you, your life, or your right to own and bear a firearm?

Tugg

[Edited 2012-12-25 21:57:52]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1884 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2918 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 6):
If someone can explain how your rights are violated by someone having a 30 round magazine rather than 10 rounds, you might be able to make a case for restricting that freedom.

It's not a question of my right's being violated its a matter of the safety of the society at large over weighing your freedom. In the sense you are saying a person owning a bomb or missle does not violate any one else's rights either. There has to be limits. I don't see how it's unreasonable to understand. There are limits to all freedom's why should firearms be exempt.



The only valid opinions are those based in facts
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2874 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2914 times:

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 8):
There has to be limits. I don't see how it's unreasonable to understand. There are limits to all freedom's why should firearms be exempt.

Precisely.


You ask a very good question of your fellow country men.

In every civilized society, there are limits placed on what people can and cant do, from smoking in public, to limiting how fast people can drive. Everyone accepts this without question.....

But when it comes to guns, apparently that's different ????????

Completely bizarre, that its so hard to get this message across.



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15745 posts, RR: 27
Reply 10, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2897 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 7):
It's not always/primarily about "rights" being violated,

It is. That has to be the primary criteria when it comes to outlawing something: "Whose rights are being violated if it's allowed to continue." If the question is concerning shooting in public places, the answer is obvious. If the question is concerning the ownership of assault weapons, the answer is "nobody."

Quoting tugger (Reply 7):
Hence the speech restriction on crying "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater etc.

But I still get to have a voice. Possession of a voice does not violate anyone's rights or constitute a crime. Using it in a way that violates someone's rights is a problem, and is illegal. The same should apply to guns. All guns.

Quoting tugger (Reply 7):
So I will ask you how a restriction on 30 round magazines will detrimentally harm you, your life, or you right to own and bear a firearm?

Personally, none. I don't feel the need to own any gun, let alone an assault rifle.

But it does violate the rights of people who wish to own such things and do nothing to harm others. Law should be permissive by default rather than restrictive by default. That's what freedom is. The question should be how allowing ownership of such things by others would harm me. The answer is that it wouldn't. Shooting at me would, but of course that's already illegal.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 8):
It's not a question of my right's being violated its a matter of the safety of the society at large over weighing your freedom.

No it isn't. If something you want to do doesn't violate anyone's rights you should be able to do it. If you want to harm my safety by shooting at me, then you're committing a crime. But if you move in next to me with your cache of AR-15s and ammunition, there is absolutely nothing I could do before that I could not continue, nor any onerous task that didn't need to be done before.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 9):
In every civilized society, there are limits placed on what people can and cant do, from smoking in public, to limiting how fast people can drive.

There are already plenty of wise limitations on where and how firearms may be used, but this does not have any bearing on the ownership of weapons. Just as limits on public smoking or speed limits do not constitute or necessitate restrictions on ownership of cigarettes or sports cars.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 9):
Completely bizarre, that its so hard to get this message across.

I'll tell you what this gun control outrage in the wake of Newtown is: it's bullying. It's a large scale scapegoating of gun owners and shouting down of those who don't agree. It has a base of enforced conformity in the form of "I don't need a gun. The (insert nationality) don't need guns. You don't need guns either."

It's like during the Vietnam war when protesters couldn't stop the politicians in charge, so they took it out on returning veterans. After 9/11 people couldn't get their hands on the hijackers. but that didn't stop many from blaming other brown skinned men with beards. And now we can't get a hold of Adam Lanza, so people who own guns like the one he used will have to do. Never mind that most such people pose no threat nor do they infringe upon the rights of others, it isn't good enough. Something has to be done. Americans have to somehow give themselves the illusion of control and justice in the face of chaos, and it's turned many into bullies seeking retribution where none is possible.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5608 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2889 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 10):
It is. That has to be the primary criteria when it comes to outlawing something: "Whose rights are being violated if it's allowed to continue." If the question is concerning shooting in public places, the answer is obvious. If the question is concerning the ownership of assault weapons, the answer is "nobody."

No, the question is: "Is a restriction on "X" (in this case a 30 round magazine) infringing on the right to "bear arms"? And in what we are talking about here it does not.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 10):
But it does violate the rights of people who wish to own such things and do nothing to harm others. Law should be permissive by default rather than restrictive by default. That's what freedom is. The question should be how allowing ownership of such things by others would harm me. The answer is that it wouldn't. Shooting at me would, but of course that's already illegal.

But that is not the discussion. There is no "right" to bear "high capacity magazines". Is there?

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15745 posts, RR: 27
Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2875 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 11):
But that is not the discussion.

That has to be the discussion.

Quoting tugger (Reply 11):
There is no "right" to bear "high capacity magazines". Is there?

Not written down, but that's why Alexander Hamilton was correct about the Bill of Rights.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5608 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2874 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 12):
That has to be the discussion.

Actually no. Because I do not advocate for the denial of the right to keep and bear arms.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 12):
Not written down,

Then it is not an "enshrined" right and can be changed without any impact on the people's rights. It is just is not that big a deal.

Tugg

[Edited 2012-12-25 22:29:50]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15745 posts, RR: 27
Reply 14, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2866 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 13):
Actually no.

When freedom has value, the law has to be permissive by default. Better too much freedom than too little.

Quoting tugger (Reply 13):
Then it is not an "enshrined" right and can be changed without any impact on the people's rights. It is just is not that big a deal.

That's an unspeakably backwards way of thinking. If that's the way many people think, then the Bill of Rights is possibly the biggest blunder of American government.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5608 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2856 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 14):
When freedom has value, the law has to be permissive by default. Better too much freedom than too little.

Very true.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 14):
That's an unspeakably backwards way of thinking. If that's the way many people think, then the Bill of Rights is possibly the biggest blunder of American government.

You are thinking backwards. Rights belong to people not things but people do have the "right" to those things that are legal and meet the requirement of applicable law.. Passing legislation on how "things" should be does not grossly affect the rights of people. Cars are required to have seat belts. Aircraft required to pass rigorous certification. Products required to have certain information available on demand. Are you saying these are all blunders? Are you saying this is "backwards"?

Tugg

[Edited 2012-12-25 22:45:15]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1884 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2827 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 10):
It is. That has to be the primary criteria when it comes to outlawing something: "Whose rights are being violated if it's allowed to continue." If the question is concerning shooting in public places, the answer is obvious. If the question is concerning the ownership of assault weapons, the answer is "nobody."

How are your rights to bear arms being violated when restrictions are placed on what type of arms you can bear. With your interpetation I have the right to own a missle or bomb. If you believe that I shouldn't have the right to own that, then it has to be feesable that others can believe that the right to own an assult rifle. A gun designed for infatry usage during wartime.



The only valid opinions are those based in facts
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2791 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 10):
I'll tell you what this gun control outrage in the wake of Newtown is: it's bullying.

Other way around. It is a reaction to the bullying pro-gunners have done over the last 40 years.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14026 posts, RR: 62
Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2766 times:

To add to the discussion above:
Actually the public has nothing to fear from a law abiding, responsible gun owner, who knows gun safety by heart, stores his guns and ammunition safely and has no mental issues (and I think that the large majority of the gun owners in the US fall into this category, though training might be an issue as I´ve been rold by a licenced gun trainer. Too many people buy guns in the US without having any idea about gun safety. He assumes that only 1 % of all gun owners in the US had formal training).

The problem is a minority of unsafe, criminal or plain crazy gun owners. They are the real danger, and as I have said in the previous thread, I wouldn´t let them get their hands on on anything more dangerous than a plastic spoon.

The question is how to reasonably prevent guns or other dangerous materials (e.g. chemicals which can be used for making bombs) to fall into the hands of the last group. 30 years ago, when I was a teenager interested in chemical experiments, I still could buy a lot of chemicals freely at the local chemicals supplier. Nowadays you´ll need documentation of commercial use and police clearances before they will sell you anything. To be fair, it is not only the threat of terrorist bombs, which caused this change, also a lot of formerly easily available chemicals (e.g. potassium permanganate) have been used for the manufactire of illegal synthetic drugs.
Similarly possession of lasers will probably restricted because of of idiots, who aim them at aircraft. Nobody cares if this rule will affect those who e.g. create holographic pictures as a hobby in their garage or carry out scientific experiments as a hobby.
I know you can never really stop a determined person from getting what he wants. E.g. during WW2 the Danish resistance built thousands of copies of the British Army Sten submachine gun right under the noses of the Gestapo
During my apprenticeship as a mechanic I have been trained in operating tooling machines, like lathes and milling machines as well as to weld. I could easily churn out illegal guns, with the quality ranging from crude to professional.

One thing I´ve heard about (but don´t know if it true) the US that once it becomes official that you are insane (and maybe get put into a closed institution), you´ll lose your constitutional citizen´s rights for good and for life, even if your condition has been successfully treated. Maybe this is also one of the reasons why people with mental issues in the US are so reluctant to go for help.

Jan


User currently offlineluv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 12110 posts, RR: 48
Reply 19, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2760 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

What is sad is that NYC has laws on the size of sodas to curb obesity and the gun people won't work with us to limit the size of magazine to hopefully save lives. What does that tell us about our society.


You can cut the irony with a knife
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2758 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 18):
Actually the public has nothing to fear from a law abiding, responsible gun owner, who knows gun safety by heart, stores his guns and ammunition safely and has no mental issues

Problem is how to identify those who are not. How do you identify the guy who shot a person for complaining that the pizza line is moving too slow. How do you identify the guy who gets too angry over some incident out in public? The warning signals expressed by them are expressed by large parts of the population. I don't think it is possibly to track.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7914 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2757 times:

I wouldn't be opposed to making 30 round magazines harder to get, but after going through hoops, let legal, good gun owners use them. I'll flat out tell you now there is no reason why they are NEEDED. The reason why they are desirable is simple: go shooting using 30 round magazines, then shoot the same amount using 5 round magazines.

Very annoying.

MILLIONS of Americans use them safely and legally every year. We have a problem that needs to be addressed, yes. Isn't there a middle ground that limits them from the hands of weirdos yet allows the MILLIONS of good gun owners the right to possess them?



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently onlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4231 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2744 times:

"I'm perfectly fine with punishing those who actually do something illegal. As far as the rest, I really don't care what guns they own. Believe me, I'll be the first to throw the book at anyone who shoots at me, but until someone does I don't have any interest in punishing people for what they might do."

The above is a quote from the previous thread in which I would like to respond.

The 26 kindergarten children and adults and their families I am sure would like to do like wise. I would like to know how to prevent such atrocities from occurring and to take semi-automatic assault files out the hands of the untrained and the general populace would be a great way to start.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1884 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2740 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 21):
Isn't there a middle ground that limits them from the hands of weirdos yet allows the MILLIONS of good gun owners the right to possess them?

How about only shooting ranges. So you can have the joy of shooting it and low chance of getting into unsavory hands.



The only valid opinions are those based in facts
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14026 posts, RR: 62
Reply 24, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2736 times:

Quoting brilondon (Reply 22):

The 26 kindergarten children and adults and their families I am sure would like to do like wise. I would like to know how to prevent such atrocities from occurring and to take semi-automatic assault files out the hands of the untrained and the general populace would be a great way to start.

AFAIK there were no semiautomatic rifles used in the kindergarten massacre. AFAIK, the killing was carried out with handguns.
And per definition a semiautomatic rifle is NOT an assault rifle, even if it looks like an M-16 or an AK-47. Per definition an assault rifle has to have a full auto function and is as such not accessible to the general population in the US.

Jan


25 Post contains links scbriml : Then it looks like you'd be wrong. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20744701 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shoot
26 MD11Engineer : I stand corrected. But what Istill wonder is the increased frequency of such massacres (and especially of copy cat attacks a short while after) durin
27 cmf : The reports I have see state AR-15 but I have not seen an official report. I think that is a difference without meaning. It is the closest thing you
28 MD11Engineer : The definition clearly marks weapons which in the US would fall under the 1934 Federal Firearms Act as machine guns and are highly regulated (very di
29 BMI727 : I'm saying the Bill of Rights was a blunder, and for exactly the reasons some opposed it when it was written. What bullying? What of your rights have
30 cmf : Technically that is absolutely correct. But everyone know what weapons are meant and we all know how they are advertised. It is pretty much the same
31 D L X : I come onto this thread only to state that on this point alone, I agree with BMI -- the Bill of Rights was a blunder, put into the Constitution as an
32 cmf : You have been told several times. The freedom to walk in public spaces without fear that a weapon will be used because a person not adequately traine
33 MD11Engineer : Well, you could interpret the "well regulated" part of the 2nd amendment that whoever wants to own a gun has to fullfill certain conditions, e.g. be t
34 ER757 : Let's go back to the speed limit for cars analogy and try it to help explain suggested restrictions on guns and or ammo. Why are some cars classified
35 BMI727 : Fear is in your own mind. Unless someone is threatening you, there is nothing that can be done. Again, you're trying to preemptively punish those who
36 Maverick623 : Is NOT a right enumerated in the Constitution... similar to when people want to ban "offensive" speech, with not only the right to free speech enumer
37 ER757 : [quote=Maverick623,reply=36]False analogy. There is nothing in the Constitution that says, "The right of the people to keep and operate cars on public
38 cmf : Great, lets implement the German system. It more than covers what I feel is needed. That is not what the Supreme Court said. It is a basic human righ
39 Post contains images MD11Engineer : I could take a 100 years old British Army WW1 Lee Enfield rifle in .303 (therefore mudch stronger than the .223 round of the AR-15 / M-16) and fill my
40 D L X : So? Lots of Constitutional rights are not enumerated. These rights are specifically protected by the Ninth Amendment. "The enumeration in the Constit
41 TheCommodore : BMI727 With all due respect. How can you say its "in his mind" when killings occur on such a regular, almost daily basis in the US ? It is a reality,
42 MD11Engineer : Well, as I´ve written in the other thread you could argue that "well regulated" can mean: Everybody has the right to own guns provided he fullfills
43 Post contains images TheCommodore : That fact that this isn't already a requirement on behalf of the gun owner is simply unbelievable.... I suppose its got something to do with peoples
44 MD11Engineer : Mentalities have changed. When my mother was a little girl back in the 1950s my grandfather was a customs officer, who used to patrol along the border
45 cptkrell : In reference to the occassionally presented "car analogy", it certainly isn't against the law for me to own a top fuel dragster or another racing only
46 FlyDeltaJets : The car analogy I use is that all cars are registered so why not all guns. Also cars are not designed to kill so it would only make sense that they w
47 cptkrell : FlyDeltaJets: I support 100% registering all guns and also support licensing (only after training) people passing a background check. I simply do not
48 FlyDeltaJets : We have come to far to ban them but track ability and ease of access needs to be addressed. Also a right to gun ownership just for the sake of having
49 itsjustme : I'm having a hard time understanding and accepting the argument that registration is the answer, or even a partial answer to the number of firearm-re
50 brilondon : This is precisely the reason why the AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle should not be available to the general public. Whose rights are being violate
51 Post contains links ltbewr : A daily newspaper based in the suburbs of New York City, in NY State (Winchester County and serving 2 adjacent counties), published the FOIL obtained
52 DeltaMD90 : Millions of people use them peacefully and legally each year. Yes, we have a gun problem. I do admit that (to the disagreement with most of my friend
53 itsjustme : Well, on this we agree. You want to shoot an AR-15, or an AK-47 or a Browning M2 50 cal machine gun because you it's "fun", that's fine. Go to a rang
54 DeltaMD90 : Classy. There is no "need" for a lot of things. What kind of benchmark is that? What is the "need" for alcohol? Sure you can use it "safely and legal
55 Post contains links Mir : But it does make it very easy for police to catch and punish those who do, since you can immediately see who owns what particular car. You can't do t
56 seb146 : I am just throwing this idea out there: Since the Second Amendment mentions a "well-regulated milita" and people seem to want and crave automatic weap
57 DeltaMD90 : Kinda a pet peeve, but you are talking about semi-automatic weapons. Legal automatic weapons are rare and cost like $10,000 minimum even for crappy o
58 Mir : Except that you can buy an AR-15, which is supposed to be semi-automatic, and then buy a few accessories to make it automatic. So the term "automatic
59 MD11Engineer : Nope. First, you cannot change a legal civilian semi auto AR-15 (and it´s clones) or a legal semi auto AK-47 clone easily into full auto configurati
60 FlyDeltaJets : That incident is not a problem with stricter gun laws. That is a problem with laxed privacy laws. No matter what your stance on guns are we have to a
61 brilondon : This is the apples and oranges comparison. When you pour a drink or open a bottle of beer, you aren't pouring for other people to kill them. You have
62 D L X : It is effective in the way that it prevents people from having guns legally if they do not meet the conditions of a license, which in turn requires t
63 DeltaMD90 : Um no. It takes quite a bit more than that. How often do you even see that happen? I can't think of any case, I'm sure there are a *few* out there. Y
64 flipdewaf : air pistols and air rifles shoot at targets surely, target shooting is fun but does not require live rounds. Fred
65 brilondon : You did not include the rest of the quote and that is why the idiots at the NRA seem to think that everybody should be armed to the tee. I also said
66 BMI727 : There are many places that are quite safe. I don't feel in danger whenever I'm in public, and I'm sure many other Americans don't either. Don't confu
67 AirframeAS : The only question I have is where in the hell did he get this rifle? I am pretty sure his mother never had one and he had "friends" that supplied thi
68 Post contains links Mir : There's this one, which "simulates" automatic fire. http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/slid...ns-ssar-15-bump-fire-device-ar-15/ Is it properly automati
69 DeltaMD90 : I can see making these magazine more difficult to obtain. I wouldn't go as far as making a tax stamp but there exists a system in the US where you ca
70 DeltaMD90 : Oh that... I'm just waiting for the ATF to ban that. They allowed the devices that rapidly pulled the triggers for a short while then banned them Thi
71 itsjustme : The Newtown shooter didn't possess the firearm he used in that massacre legally. The two shooters at Columbine didn't possess the weapons they used l
72 itsjustme : You obviously have selective reading and/or memory skills. Several times now, both in this thread and the first one, I have acknowledged that, for wh
73 BMI727 : You actually did one better. You acknowledged that there are such people, and then insinuated that they had issues. Most of them have no such effects
74 Post contains links scbriml : Based on what? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/ny...m-recall-her-as-generous.html?_r=0
75 cmf : Well, as reported the mother had it. US is nowhere near the German requirements. Weapons must be unloaded and locked when carried in public. You need
76 D L X : Quite safe... like Newtown, Connecticut. Sort of. If I understand correctly, the guns in both of those events were obtained legally... just not by th
77 Post contains links BN747 : Yep, time for shooting for fun ..to be micromanaged. I used to like to, for fun...slap women on the ass every night I was storming the clubs, today..
78 roswell41 : You can't take pictures of airliners? You equate that to gun rights? Get real, these aren't even comparable. One is a right and one is something you a
79 cmf : Time will tell. I think you're wrong. Ironically, I think the NRA "solution" is what tipped the scale. It was on my local news this morning.
80 BN747 : They are very comparable. Both are mainly recreational activities and Public Safety was used to crush one...and now Public Safety is front n' center
81 roswell41 : I realize my comments are cynical, but that is the reality of how things are done in D.C. these days. Diane Feinstein's proposed law has nothing to do
82 Post contains images AirframeAS : I never said anything of the sort. I was referring to this: We already have this requirement in the U.S. and proof is on the form that you fill out a
83 BMI727 : Requiring one to waive one right to exercise another isn't going to cut it. Talking about America like it's all a war zone is disingenuous. If you fe
84 BN747 : The carelessness of TOO MANY gunowners are infringing on TOO MANY INNOCENT people - to their DEATHS....period. Is that clear enough? Yep..and the Civ
85 AirframeAS : Wait.... are we talking about law abiding gun owners or the criminals who get their guns through illegal means (IE: stolen)? Two totally different th
86 BMI727 : Then feel free to prosecute careless gun owners. Americans do not, and never did have, the right to treat others as second class, for the very reason
87 BN747 : The Federal Gov't infringed on virtually all of our rights after 9/11 ... after 3000+ people were killed in a single blow. ..if 3000 Americans were k
88 AirframeAS : Please answer my questions: and also this: Quit dodging questions, BN747.[Edited 2012-12-28 11:46:47]
89 BN747 : To much of delayed reaction, it's time for proactive preventative measures..long overdue. They sure did..there were actual slave laws as well as pres
90 BN747 : AirframeAS, your questions are answered very clearly and concisely in my replies. See the pitbull analogy..I paired that perfectly with a gun owner.
91 itsjustme : As I and a few others have reminded you, several Supreme Court justices have stated the 2nd Amendment has limitations and doesn't give someone the ri
92 roswell41 : BN747 is clearly expressing an extreme, emotionally driven opinion. Thankfully for us freedom loving, 2nd Amendment supporters, it is people like him
93 AirframeAS : No, they are not. Not even remotely close. You cannot even answer a question in a straight forward manner even with a simple yes or no. Speaks volume
94 BN747 : Well, that's rather incomplete... add the rest.. "The outcome will be to our benefit: stalemate and more dead innocent people as we watch and eat pop
95 Maverick623 : No, it is not... for the simple fact that "too many" is an abstract phrase with no clear definition. After all, you often hear "one is too many", rig
96 DeltaMD90 : Just ignore... there are plenty of sensible people on this thread from both sides. I do agree that gun owners MUST be responsible with their weapons.
97 AirframeAS : You want an answer to this? Then you answer my questions first since I asked first. Fair is fair. You cannot have it one way then switch to the other
98 roswell41 : Although this sounds callous, statistically these mass shootings should not be a major concern to people. You are more likely to be struck by lighteni
99 ER757 : You should read up on US history. I believe a few Native Americans and Blacks might disagree with your statement
100 BN747 : You know what they say about personalities of cheap shot artist... AirframeAS, if you played fair, I'd honor your request..but you directly disrespec
101 FlyDeltaJets : Well the problem with that is the gun manufacturing companies make far more money in the civilian market then they do in the military market. That is
102 Post contains images AirframeAS : You offered to answer my questions after I answered yours.....especially when I asked you first... that doesn't sound very fair at all. That is a sim
103 cmf : You quoted me stating I would be fine implementing the German system. You do not carry it on you. You carry it in a locked container. I saw several p
104 BN747 : And on that note... ..have a nice day, the weather's nice here in SoCal, hope it is where you are as well. BN747
105 Post contains images BMI727 : Then do background checks and require registration. To simply brand every American as a potential criminal is unconscionable. You pointed to the chan
106 ER757 : Yes that is correct, but the point I was making referred to your earlier statement that said: Americans do not, and never did have, the right to trea
107 FlyDeltaJets : Dread scott ruling removed the rights of the slaves.
108 BMI727 : Only if you don't believe in natural rights. Again, simply saying that someone doesn't have rights does not make it so. You're proving why the Bill o
109 BN747 : And yet it's real. Every American is considered a terrorist..try traveling and see. But I agree, Registration is now a must but it and background che
110 BMI727 : And it's considered a travesty. The TSA is extremely disliked, people hate airport security, and complain endlessly about restrictions on liquids, et
111 Aaron747 : Statistically, no. Socially a concern? Yes. It's not so much something to be scared of, but something to really get to the bottom of. People snap eve
112 BN747 : Well I'm sorry you lumped me in with that crowd because where I sit..this is squarely one of those..."who didn't see that coming" catgories. Feelings
113 BMI727 : And yet people keep giving teens cars. So you feel awful about being treated as a terrorist, forced to remove your shoes, and being scanned every tim
114 BN747 : Dead wrong! I was expressing what we all feel/think when hold and shot a weapon the very first time...very few people think of basket weaving or sket
115 YVRLTN : I really dont get why there have to be extreme "sides" in so many social issues in the USA. Complete ban. Complete right to own enough weapons to take
116 BMI727 : So you're saying that you know the feelings of everyone who ever shot a gun. One, how is this not a ridiculous claim on par with Pat Roberson leg pre
117 FlyDeltaJets : That at one point was one of the NRA's core missions. They were up until the early 60s a supporter of gun laws. Then there was a change in leadership
118 SA7700 : This thread has run its course with particular members choosing to trade personal insults instead of debating the topic at hand. Any posts added after
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Really Really Big Problem With MSN posted Sat Oct 7 2006 03:32:09 by JAGflyer
Spiders, Anyone Encountered A Really Big One? posted Thu Sep 30 2004 01:48:28 by Sabena332
Is This Really Disrespectful? posted Wed Nov 21 2012 12:23:50 by alberchico
Trump's "Big Wednesday" Announcement posted Tue Oct 23 2012 14:35:31 by Ken777
Wisconsin Mall Shooting. Really, Another Shoot Out posted Sun Oct 21 2012 11:05:15 by varigb707
Got A Really Nice Book Review Today! posted Thu Oct 18 2012 17:50:51 by zrs70
Do Tourist Train Drivers Really Make This Much! posted Tue Jul 3 2012 19:59:44 by Ps76
So Who Likes Big Organs? posted Tue Jan 4 2011 18:23:55 by JBirdAV8r
This Guy Wants Spam. Really? posted Fri Dec 31 2010 21:11:14 by varigb707
RE: What If Obama Really Wasn't Born In The USA? posted Thu Dec 30 2010 09:08:39 by falstaff