Conservative Politics & Daily Events Discussion

Quote from Slingblade

I can tell you this, under the assault weapon ban, the ar-15 was not sold. So, under the federal definition, the ar-15 is an assault weapon.

Oh Come on Slingblade - - you can't even define exactly what you want banned?? you sound like a liberal politician and your answer is a bs answer because a whole bunch of other weapons were also banned - weapons that no military person or police officer would ever even consider adequate for that kind of work

Go look at the California "assault weapon ban - they name a few guns by name like the AR-15 or the AK-47 and then they have a stupid list of cosmetic things that they say any gun that has them is an "assault weapon"

I am not for any gun bans, but having said that I might, and it a big might, be persuaded to support some limitations, but when you start throwing guns on the list just because of how they look - - seriously???? And people like you wonder why you can't get support from gun owners?? really??

I own a 9mm carbine, it only holds 10 rounds of pistol caliber ammunition, no military person would even think of taking it to assault anything, but it does have a pistol grip - under current California law I have to keep a plastic fin attached over the pistol grip so that my thumb can not go around the grip - - if I do this it is legal for me to have, if I take the fin off the grip it suddenly magically becomes an "assault weapon" and I could get in trouble - - do you really think this is realistic? that a fin over a grip should make a difference???

If people like you want "assault weapons" banned and you can not clearly define exactly what an "assault weapon" is with a definition that is based solely on the weapons fire power - - - how the hell do you ever expect any gun owner to support the idea? when at any moment they can re-define what qualifies simply by how it looks, which the prior federal ban allowed just like the current California ban does, how do you expect bi partisan support? why would any gun owner ever support a law when that law has a definition of "assault weapon" that is so vague that they can outlaw a gun just because they dont like how it looks, even if that gun would never be considered a weapon of war??

Seriously - you and all of the people who want limits need to educate yourselves about the subject of guns and come up with a real, firepower based definition of at what point you think certain guns cross a line to where people shouldn't have them - - - I can't speak for others, but I can tell you that if do this and come back here I will talk to you, I will hear you out and I will give it consideration - - tell me exactly what calibers you think are too much for peoples needs in hunting and home defense - tell me why and have facts, tell me how many rounds you think a gun should hold for these needs, and again have facts and reasons that you believe support you - - - do this and I will listen and we can debate

but - if all you can say is "ban assault weapons" and you dont even know the difference between the stopping power of a 9mm pistol or a 5.56 carbine or how many rounds it might take or what caliber could be trusted to drop a guy on meth coming into your home with a Glock 19 I have no reason to give anything you say any consideration - - no point if its just uneducated liberal get out the vote political speech

Now go educate yourself so that you can actually know what exactly it is you think gun owners should give up and why.

Quote from Slingblade

if gun laws doesn’t work, would someone explain when assault weapons were banned during the Clinton administration the gun deaths dropped rather significantly? And the once the ban expired, gun deaths rose just as significantly?

Take a look at this site. granted the data is only to 2011 but includes all of the Clinton Years.... Hand gun deaths did go down, but "other weapons" did not (Table 3)... This is from the government so it must be true???

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

Quote from Slingblade

I can tell you this, under the assault weapon ban, the ar-15 was not sold. So, under the federal definition, the ar-15 is an assault weapon.

The Government lists weapons like the AR-15 as an assault weapon, when clearly there is not definition of exactly what an assault weapon is.

The AR-15 can fire approx 45 rounds a minute if the person can squeeze off that many rounds, because it only fires one round per trigger squeeze. A military version of this is the M16 which can fire approx 700 rounds a minute. A Walther PPk 9mm pistol can fire at the same as an AR-15 granted with a smaller magazine.

When one says an AR-15 style weapon, they are talking about what the media calls assault and in reality that would be considered a "battle" type weapon and not assault since it does not have the fire rate. My Browning BAR Safari .270 hunting rifle fires at the same rate as the AR-15 but it doesn't look scary... so I am guessing a lot of folks would not consider it an assault weapon. (I will post a picture of the Browning)

Some people use the definition of pressure and feet per second to define an assault weapon. Again, there is no standard definition of an assault weapon.

The term assault weapon is used in the United States to define different types of firearms. The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine, a pistol grip, and sometimes other features, such as a vertical forward grip, flash suppressor, or barrel shroud. Certain firearms are specified by name in some laws that restrict assault weapons. When the now-defunct Federal Assault Weapons Banwas passed in 1994, the U.S. Department of Justice said, "In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use. The commonly used definitions of assault weapons are under frequent debate, and have changed over time.

The origin of the term has been attributed to legislators, the firearms industry, gun control groups, and the media. It is often used interchangeably with the term "assault rifle", which traditionally refers to selective fire rifles that use intermediate cartridges. After the December 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, many news organizations ran stories about assault weapons, explaining their varying definitions and presenting varying opinions about whether they should be banned again at the federal level.

So even under the Clinton days... a .308 or a 30.06 or a Colt 1911 .45 hand gun could be considered an assault weapon....

Wading into the minutia you can go on and on and on. I wholeheartedly reject the notion that when a tragedy happens I must lose my rights with the illusion that those who are criminals will somehow be thwarted. If the gun crazy liberal left gets their ways only the state will have these types of weapons. If these guys can have them and they are my friends and neighbors why can’t I?

And if guns were the problem trust me you’d know it with billions of them in the United States. It’s not the gun it’s the person holding it. Stick a fork in it!

As I have said before - - its all political talking points to make the touchy feely snow flakes feel good and want to vote for them - - - in the end, you can't stop a person who has no respect for the law or human life by telling them what they want to do is illegal - - - - simple fact is they dont give a shit if its illegal and wont even blink at the idea of breaking a new gun law.

Back in 2019 some deranged kid here in California decided to shoot up the Gilroy Garlic Festival - - - killing 3 people and wounding 17 others. The Gun he used was banned and illegal in the State of California - - he not only broke the law by having it, but he also broke the law by having a 75 round drum magazine - - and on top of this he actually drove out of the state to another State to buy the gun and then illegally brought the gun into California - - the number of laws he broke is probably more than you could count and they didn't even slow him down

Seriously, tell me please, why does anyone think a new law will stop a person when the existing laws don't - - - - - with an estimated 105 guns for every 100 people in this country already out there in the hands of the public please tell me what law or ban is going to stop a person who really wants a gun from getting their hands on a gun???

Sorry, this made me really laugh out loud...

Quote from Bill Martin

let’s suppose all assault rifles ( after they can intelligently define what one is) are POOF - banned and removed and destroyed. Little Joey gets ahold of 2 Glock 17’s holding 17 rounds each. He is cocked and locked with 34 rounds. On his belt he holds 10 more clips holding another 170 for a total of 204 bullets. If insane Little Joey has practiced and is proficient with both weapons. Psycho Joey goes to shoot up a school and being proficient with 2 pistols he kills way more than the assault rifle. It is not about the weapon - it is deranged people who know the law and to get what they want to commit murder!!

and this points out the slippery slope that banning "assault weapons" would put us on. first the Assault weapons, then after little joey is done they would want Simi auto pistols, then another little joey with a pair of revolvers and a belt full of speed loaders would come along and kill just as many and they would want to ban any gun that held more than one round - - - and so long as they keep blaming the weapon and not the person using the weapon it would be a never ending slope

seriously - those who know guns, how many people in a closed classroom could a mad man kill in an hour with a single barrel break action shotgun with a belt full of shells - - - I would imagine even having to reload after every shot the number of dead could easily exceed most so called mass shootings

I

Quote from SoCal

Wading into the minutia you can go on and on and on. I wholeheartedly reject the notion that when a tragedy happens I must lose my rights with the illusion that those who are criminals will somehow be thwarted. If the gun crazy liberal left gets their ways only the state will have these types of weapons. If these guys can have them and they are my friends and neighbors why can’t I?

And if guns were the problem trust me you’d know it with billions of them in the United States. It’s not the gun it’s the person holding it. Stick a fork in it!

BINGO.

SO here is my argument.

Based on that, don't ban a specific type of gun, don't ban "assault rifles", or what every they classify as that category. I have absolutely no issues with that. All the legal gun owners can have whatever they want. No questions asked. they are trying to ban all handguns up here with no grandfathering. It's ridiculous. Put more emphasis on the illegal guns being smuggled over the border and through the reserves that share the border.

We also agree that criminals will get guns. Any type and any style they want. We all seem to agree on that. Banning guns will not keep them out of the hands of criminals.

If guns are not banned, and criminals can still get them, then there is nothing that can be done about the criminal element. So lets take the criminals out of the picture, they are a lost cause in this fight.

So let's talk about the non-criminal element that are not safe to have guns. The mentally unfit, the unstable, the suicidal, the misunderstood, the loners that are shooting up schools. They (for the most part) are not criminals before they do this. This is where the "red flag" law will come into play. They will not stop the normal, average joe, with a job and family, wanting to have a gun to protect himself. Which seems most of you are in this category. Go nuts, fill up a room with guns. BUT, what it will potentially stop is some of the ones that will shoot up a school, supermarket, a library, concert, etc. So if guns are limited from certain people that have the potential to cause this damage, even a portion, then it helps. There have been 233 mass killings in 2022 so far in the US (they classify this is 4 or more dead). If you even cut that by 1/3 or 1/4 that is an improvement. Who would not be willing to do that, and at the same time, not have to give up your existing gun rights. Do you want your crazy psychotic neighbour, who is unstable, having a gun, shooting at cars, like the methed out guy just did in Florence, SC, or the Buffalo teen who purchased his guns legally, and was questioned by police over a possible threat prior to this, and no red flags put up?

If you threaten murder, suicide, etc. you should not be allowed to own a gun. You are a hazard to yourself and others.

Is that not a win, potentially less deaths, and no banning of any guns?

Quote from Sparcky

I

BINGO.

SO here is my argument.

Based on that, don't ban a specific type of gun, don't ban "assault rifles", or what every they classify as that category. I have absolutely no issues with that. All the legal gun owners can have whatever they want. No questions asked. they are trying to ban all handguns up here with no grandfathering. It's ridiculous. Put more emphasis on the illegal guns being smuggled over the border and through the reserves that share the border.

We also agree that criminals will get guns. Any type and any style they want. We all seem to agree on that. Banning guns will not keep them out of the hands of criminals.

If guns are not banned, and criminals can still get them, then there is nothing that can be done about the criminal element. So lets take the criminals out of the picture, they are a lost cause in this fight.

So let's talk about the non-criminal element that are not safe to have guns. The mentally unfit, the unstable, the suicidal, the misunderstood, the loners that are shooting up schools. They (for the most part) are not criminals before they do this. This is where the "red flag" law will come into play. They will not stop the normal, average joe, with a job and family, wanting to have a gun to protect himself. Which seems most of you are in this category. Go nuts, fill up a room with guns. BUT, what it will potentially stop is some of the ones that will shoot up a school, supermarket, a library, concert, etc. So if guns are limited from certain people that have the potential to cause this damage, even a portion, then it helps. There have been 233 mass killings in 2022 so far in the US (they classify this is 4 or more dead). If you even cut that by 1/3 or 1/4 that is an improvement. Who would not be willing to do that, and at the same time, not have to give up your existing gun rights. Do you want your crazy psychotic neighbour, who is unstable, having a gun, shooting at cars, like the methed out guy just did in Florence, SC, or the Buffalo teen who purchased his guns legally, and was questioned by police over a possible threat prior to this, and no red flags put up?

If you threaten murder, suicide, etc. you should not be allowed to own a gun. You are a hazard to yourself and others.

Is that not a win, potentially less deaths, and no banning of any guns?

Display More

oaky Sparcky

I have absolutely no problem with efforts that try to keep guns out of the hands of people who are mentally unfit as you say

so my question to you is how do we determine who is unfit? and who gets to decide?

seems to me that this could easily be abused by individuals or a corrupt government to disarm anyone they dont want to have a gun.

You have to remember the United States is a country that was born out of a revolution and that the entire point of our Second Amendment was to allow the "people" to have the tools to form militias and take back control should our government ever become corrupt - The Second amendment is not about the right to hunt or the right to protect your home, The entire point was and is making sure the people have the tools to take back the government if, God forbid, the shit ever really hits the fan

so if you consider this - - do we let the government decide who is "unfit" - - would simply being outspoken against the government make a person mentally unfit?

so tell me who would you trust to decide who is or is not fit for gun ownership?

Quote from Edward Neal

oaky Sparcky

I have absolutely no problem with efforts that try to keep guns out of the hands of people who are mentally unfit as you say

so my question to you is how do we determine who is unfit? and who gets to decide?

seems to me that this could easily be abused by individuals or a corrupt government to disarm anyone they dont want to have a gun.

You have to remember the United States is a country that was born out of a revolution and that the entire point of our Second Amendment was to allow the "people" to have the tools to form militias and take back control should our government ever become corrupt - The Second amendment is not about the right to hunt or the right to protect your home, The entire point was and is making sure the people have the tools to take back the government if, God forbid, the shit ever really hits the fan

so if you consider this - - do we let the government decide who is "unfit" - - would simply being outspoken against the government make a person mentally unfit?

so tell me who would you trust to decide who is or is not fit for gun ownership?

Display More

I agree with this... Here in Colorfornia we have a Red Flag Law... While I think some of this may be ok, it has a real likely hood for abuse because the person can ask for a temp order to go into effect before there is a hearing on the issue.

A Ft. Collins woman who's son was shot and killed by a CSU policeman filed an ERPO against the cop. Needless to say she lied and was found not to be credible, but there was a bunch of time and money spent regarding this and the cop was eventually cleared of any wrong doing by the DA's office and they eventually arrested the woman. Just an example of how this could go stupid.

https://www.coloradoan.com/sto…jeremy-holmes/4472112002/

https://www.coloradoan.com/sto…ond-amendment/4480034002/

Quote from Bill Martin

let’s suppose all assault rifles ( after they can intelligently define what one is) are POOF - banned and removed and destroyed. Little Joey gets ahold of 2 Glock 17’s holding 17 rounds each. He is cocked and locked with 34 rounds. On his belt he holds 10 more clips holding another 170 for a total of 204 bullets. If insane Little Joey has practiced and is proficient with both weapons. Psycho Joey goes to shoot up a school and being proficient with 2 pistols he kills way more than the assault rifle. It is not about the weapon - it is deranged people who know the law and to get what they want to commit murder!!

How about the 30 round mags for the Glock 17. You could have a lot more rounds in your pocket than let us say 5.56 mags. GO FIGURE

When the police show up they are loaded for bear. They have every toy imaginable available to them and the only limitations they have are the budget within their program. Their Arsenal grows as does technology and if you’re going to stay ahead of the game rightfully so.

But what if, what if, one day and we have already seen glimpses of it, the words you say are considered subversive to the state or to the powers that be? What then?

What if the day comes when you need to be protecting yourself against the state who has now become the criminal. It has happened countless times in history and in our history as in 1776. Our founders knew this all too well and that’s why they made free speech number one and the ability to hold a weapon number two - they go hand-in-hand.

As the Japanese said in World War II “how could we ever invade America there is a gun behind every blade of grass” .

Quote from FunCycle

How about the 30 round mags for the Glock 17. You could have a lot more rounds in your pocket than let us say 5.56 mags. GO FIGURE

I can carry a few thousand .22 rounds on my person ... Joe wouldn't have a problem with that would he.

As I have stated before, when you consider all variables my custom built 10/22 is the most "dangerous" weapon I own. The Mossad understands, but the dems never will.

........

.

Why ban guns? Why not make murder or attempted murder against the law. Oh that's right it is. Why would any person worry about any laws if they were planning on murder?

@billythekidd that is a nice rifle. It would break my heart to have to throw it in the back of a dump truck.

Quote from Slingblade

I also have to ask, if an AR-15 type weapon isn’t really any different from other rifles (as so many argue), why does it seem to be the weapon of choice is most of these mass shootings?

think of the mindset of the shooter. Many want the publicity and think that these weapons make them more powerfully and cool. We are dealing with shooters with a mind set of an adolescent. P

When I was growing up I remember outlaw gangs carrying (unregistered) “Zip Guns.” Of coarse as the saying goes, never bring a knife to a gun fight. As time goes on, so have criminal minds expanded only to put more of society in its jeopardy of life. Better Parenting is the 1st solution. THEN OUT LAW THE CRIMINAL and Untie The Hands Of the Police.

I'm trying to find some of those 9mm shells that can rip the lung out if the body. Apparently all the 9mm I have is defective.

Quote from Slingblade

I can tell you this, under the assault weapon ban, the ar-15 was not sold. So, under the federal definition, the ar-15 is an assault weapon.

One thing to understand about gun control; it isn't about safety, it's about control.

Let's look at silencers.I would like to get one for my 9mm carbine (home defense weapon) for the purpose of preserving my hearing should I have to defend my family. I need to pay $200 tax stamp and undergo another background check for the privilege of buying one.

The people that made those laws thought that it made a firearm whisper quiet so you could shoot up a library and not disturb those you don't want to murder. That is wrong, the gun is still very loud, just not ear drum busting loud. What happens to that single mom that purchased a firearm to protect her family in a high crime neighborhood? She can go f*ck herself as far as gun control advocates go.

Next, if I want to put a stock on a "pistol" version of a rifle I need to pay for another tax stamp. Why would I want to put a stock on a "pistol" version of a rifle? Control. A pistol version makes it easier to move about when you are clearing a room (say you want to reach your kids). A stock adds an extra point of contact making aiming more effective because in a defensive scenario you want to be as precise as possible to avoid hitting an innocent.

Again that single mom can go to hell as far as the compassionate gun control advocates go.

So these are 2 instances where gun safety laws make things less safe.

When you ask your typical left wing politician to create gun control laws to keep you safe, it akin to asking your mechanic to do surgery on you.