Fucking gun control!

[Natebishop3]

Why aren't the shoulder-mounted rocket-launcher manufacturers arguing that the second amendment covers them? After all, it says militia, and what good's a militia without one of those these days?

 

[oldguy]

Why aren't the shoulder-mounted rocket-launcher manufacturers arguing that the second amendment covers them? After all, it says militia, and what good's a militia without one of those these days?

2nd amendment rights are individual rights, not connected to the militia.

Go Blazers

 

[Further]

Why is a 500% tax on ammo even believable?

It's not believable to anyone with a brain. There are people who believe in all kinds of dumb ass shit. If you think it's believable, I'll give you 20 to 1 odds that 365 days from today there is not a 500% ammo tax. If I win, you send me $10, if you win, I'll send you $200.

But Rush L. and other right wind pundits throw out all this sky is falling crap. Some people unfortunately only listen to those news sources and only associate with people who listen to those sources. So they start believing the crazy because it's all they hear.

Could there be a boost in the tax, sure, it could go up to 16%, 20% or even 25% (although I doubt it) but anything above that is just not going to happen anytime soon. People are freaking out and stocking up on ammo for the apocalypse. If there is an EMP that zaps out all electronics forever, or the dollar becomes worthless, then those people will have enough ammo to kill 20,000 dear and live in the new reality, but somehow I think that's just not how it's going to shake out.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.independentsentinel.com/2012/12/tax-ammo-as-if-it-were-cigarettes/

On Dec. 13, 1999, former Chicago Defender staff writer Chinta Strausberg, wrote an article headlined “Obama unveils federal gun bill,” in which he reported that then-Illinois state Sen. Obama, who was running for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, proposed “to increase the federal taxes by 500% on the sale of firearm, ammunition [sic] – weapons he says are most commonly used in firearm deaths.” [Then-senator Obama never put through any legislation taxing ammo, which was politically wise]

According to Strausberg’s report, the proposal was made at an anti-gun rally held at the Park Manor Christian Church, 600 E. 73rd St., headed by the Rev. James Demus.

Also in the report, Obama is said to have proposed charging a gun owner with a felony if the owner’s firearm was stolen from his residence and caused harm to another person provided that weapon was not securely stored in that home. This proposal coincides with his opposition to the self-defense exemption when he was a state senator.

(sorry, not Rush Limbaugh like you claim)

 

[Denny Crane]

There's also some suspicion that the government is buying up lots of ammo to cause a shortage and thus increase the prices.

 

[BlazerWookee]

Sounds like it's more of an ammo control problem than gun control.

Guns don't kill people. People don't kill people. Bullets kill people.

 

[Denny Crane]

Guns don't kill people. People don't kill people. Bullets kill people.

You have it all wrong. Pressure cookers kill people.

 

[Further]

http://www.independentsentinel.com/2012/12/tax-ammo-as-if-it-were-cigarettes/

On Dec. 13, 1999, former Chicago Defender staff writer Chinta Strausberg, wrote an article headlined “Obama unveils federal gun bill,” in which he reported that then-Illinois state Sen. Obama, who was running for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, proposed “to increase the federal taxes by 500% on the sale of firearm, ammunition [sic] – weapons he says are most commonly used in firearm deaths.” [Then-senator Obama never put through any legislation taxing ammo, which was politically wise]

According to Strausberg’s report, the proposal was made at an anti-gun rally held at the Park Manor Christian Church, 600 E. 73rd St., headed by the Rev. James Demus.

Also in the report, Obama is said to have proposed charging a gun owner with a felony if the owner’s firearm was stolen from his residence and caused harm to another person provided that weapon was not securely stored in that home. This proposal coincides with his opposition to the self-defense exemption when he was a state senator.

(sorry, not Rush Limbaugh like you claim)

I never claimed that Obama never wanted such a thing, I said it would never happen. Two very different things. And the fear does come from Rush et.al. taking that thing from the past and waving it around as if Obama 1) still wants to do that (he may or may not, no evidence) or 2) is able to actually get a 500% tax. It simple will not happen. No chance. regardless of Obama at some point in the past being in favor of it. If he announced today that he wanted the tax (which he won't) there is no chance that he could get anything close. I said earlier I would give you 20 to 1 odds, lets double it. I'll give you 40 to 1 odds. I would go higher but I never bet an amount that I can't afford to lose regardless of the risk. how bout it, 10 bucks to 400 bucks.

By the way, it's not just the right wing that does this shit, they do it more, but there are a lot of people at msnbc and huff post that do the same basic sky is falling shit to get the liberals going crazy of something that will never happen.

 

[BlazerWookee]

You have it all wrong. Pressure cookers kill people.

I have a comeback for that, but I don't think it's been long enough yet...

 

[Denny Crane]

I think gun owners are following the news rather closely and they know the anti gun crowd is waiting for any sky is falling opportunity try to ban guns. Since they can't actually do that, they're looking for other things that achieve the same effect. A 500% tax on bullets would do it. If not a 500% tax, they'll figure something else out.

So people are stocking up with the expectation what they buy will be grandfathered in. As assault rifles were back in the 1990s when the ineffective ban was tried.

I seriously doubt that much of a fraction of these people buying guns and ammo give a shit about what Rush Limbaugh says, or anyone else for that matter. They see actual democrats and their constituents and guys like Pierce Morgan and other left wing announcers pushing for a ban on all guns.

 

[Further]

I think gun owners are following the news rather closely and they know the anti gun crowd is waiting for any sky is falling opportunity try to ban guns. Since they can't actually do that, they're looking for other things that achieve the same effect. A 500% tax on bullets would do it. If not a 500% tax, they'll figure something else out.

So people are stocking up with the expectation what they buy will be grandfathered in. As assault rifles were back in the 1990s when the ineffective ban was tried.

I seriously doubt that much of a fraction of these people buying guns and ammo give a shit about what Rush Limbaugh says, or anyone else for that matter. They see actual democrats and their constituents and guys like Pierce Morgan and other left wing announcers pushing for a ban on all guns.

So is that a yes on the bet?





I think I should clearly state my views on the subject.

1) I am against semi-auto guns being banned, period. This is my line.

2) I am for magazine capacity restrictions.

3) I am for a background check with no loopholes.

The two areas I am unsure on and do support but cautiously:
A) requirement that all firearms must be stored with locked trigger lock or in gun safe.
B) gun registration in all cases.

 

[Denny Crane]

[video=youtube;-j5IN3YwG5Y]

If at first you don't succeed, keep on sucking till you do succeed.

[video=youtube;wE-nY60dJLM]

 

[Denny Crane]

What kind of gun isn't "semi-automatic" ? A musket. Some bolt action rifles. Pump action shotguns.

People are talking about a ban on the vast majority of guns. But it'll never happen because people realize what a semi-automatic gun is?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/semi-automatic-gun-assault-weapon-definitions


The vast majority of modern guns sold and collected in the US are semiautomatic, which means they fire a single shot with every pull of the trigger, but automatically reload between shots. That's in contrast to full-automatic weapons, as well as single-shot guns that require the operator to "cock" the gun or hand-feed ammunition between shots. (There are a variety of sporting weapons that are single shot, such as lever-action, bolt-action, and breech-loading rifles, pump-action shotguns, and many revolvers.)

 

[oldguy]

So is that a yes on the bet?

I think I should clearly state my views on the subject.

1) I am against semi-auto guns being banned, period. This is my line.

2) I am for magazine capacity restrictions.

3) I am for a background check with no loopholes.

The two areas I am unsure on and do support but cautiously:
A) requirement that all firearms must be stored with locked trigger lock or in gun safe.
B) gun registration in all cases.

I'll take your bet. Not that I think the tax will be 500%, but what's not to like about 40:1 odds?

As I've said before, gun control advocates have stated that their game plan is to take any incremental control that they can get any chance that they get. The tax doesn't have to be 500%. That number is just out there because that's what (then Senator) Obama said.

The fact is, this tax (if it even happens), whatever the increase, would be just another infringement on the second amendment, in a long string of annoying and ineffective infringements on the rights of the people. That will not stop until we don't have a second amendment right. Registration provides the list to complete their end game. No guns for law abiding citizens. (Even though they KNOW the bad guys will still have guns.)

People that value their rights get annoyed that this shit has been going on for years, and during the whole time it's the same ol' lines from the gun control advocates. 'You're just paranoid. You gun owners always act like the sky is falling. You gun owners are hallucinating that this has been going on for years, so you just listen to right wing gun freaks to get yourselves all worked up over nothing. You just parrot Rush, Beck, Heston, or [fill in the pro gun villain of the time.]'

I think we should require background checks before you can get a driver's license. They should do a DNA check to see if you are likely to be a heavy drinker sometime in your life. If so, or if you are insane, or a felon, you shouldn't get a driver's license. If you are ever convicted of domestic violence, you should have your cars taken away permanently. You should not be allowed to buy a replacement. It should be a felony for you if someone steals your car and hurts someone while driving it.

So, a couple of clairifications about that bet. I guess the bet's for the duration of President Obama's time in office? You win if the tax is increased 500% or less?

Who do you want to have hold the money for us? I'll send my ten bucks tomorrow, just tell me where. Am I limited to $10?

Go Blazers

 

[Further]

I'll take your bet. Not that I think the tax will be 500%, but what's not to like about 40:1 odds?

As I've said before, gun control advocates have stated that their game plan is to take any incremental control that they can get any chance that they get. The tax doesn't have to be 500%. That number is just out there because that's what (then Senator) Obama said.

The fact is, this tax (if it even happens), whatever the increase, would be just another infringement on the second amendment, in a long string of annoying and ineffective infringements on the rights of the people. That will not stop until we don't have a second amendment right. Registration provides the list to complete their end game. No guns for law abiding citizens. (Even though they KNOW the bad guys will still have guns.)

People that value their rights get annoyed that this shit has been going on for years, and during the whole time it's the same ol' lines from the gun control advocates. 'You're just paranoid. You gun owners always act like the sky is falling. You gun owners are hallucinating that this has been going on for years, so you just listen to right wing gun freaks to get yourselves all worked up over nothing. You just parrot Rush, Beck, Heston, or [fill in the pro gun villain of the time.]'

I think we should require background checks before you can get a driver's license. They should do a DNA check to see if you are likely to be a heavy drinker sometime in your life. If so, or if you are insane, or a felon, you shouldn't get a driver's license. If you are ever convicted of domestic violence, you should have your cars taken away permanently. You should not be allowed to buy a replacement. It should be a felony for you if someone steals your car and hurts someone while driving it.

So, a couple of clairifications about that bet. I guess the bet's for the duration of President Obama's time in office? You win if the tax is increased 500% or less?

Who do you want to have hold the money for us? I'll send my ten bucks tomorrow, just tell me where. Am I limited to $10?

Go Blazers

Ok sir, in the bet I said 1 year, but I am fine with the remainder of Obama's term. Hold onto the money for now, I'm not putting 400 in escrow for three years to win ten. I am trustworthy, I have donated to causes on these boards, and will donate to you if I lose. As for when I win, that ten can go towards cancer research.

By the way, as a semi-liberal, I don't want your guns taken away, I just want laws passed that will help keep guns out of the hands of criminals. I understand that many liberals do want guns taken away. I would join your side if it ever came to that. But background checks and securing firearms I believe are actions that could have a positive effect.

 

[oldguy]

Ok sir, in the bet I said 1 year, but I am fine with the remainder of Obama's term. Hold onto the money for now, I'm not putting 400 in escrow for three years to win ten. I am trustworthy, I have donated to causes on these boards, and will donate to you if I lose. As for when I win, that ten can go towards cancer research.

By the way, as a semi-liberal, I don't want your guns taken away, I just want laws passed that will help keep guns out of the hands of criminals. I understand that many liberals do want guns taken away. I would join your side if it ever came to that. But background checks and securing firearms I believe are actions that could have a positive effect.

You don't have to want my guns taken away. If you support registration, you are willing to provide a means for the government to take guns if they want to. If they decide to take the guns, they won't ask for your opinion. Your sympathy for my loss would be of small consequence at that point, don't you think?

If you want to keep the guns out of the hands of the criminals, lobby to enforce the thousands of laws regarding guns that already exist. In Oregon a felon can get 10 years for being in possession of a firearm. The government doesn't have the money to put them away for that long so, instead, they control the guns of non-criminals. Yay!

Go Blazers

 

[MARIS61]

You don't have to want my guns taken away. If you support registration, you are willing to provide a means for the government to take guns if they want to. If they decide to take the guns, they won't ask for your opinion. Your sympathy for my loss would be of small consequence at that point, don't you think?

If you want to keep the guns out of the hands of the criminals, lobby to enforce the thousands of laws regarding guns that already exist. In Oregon a felon can get 10 years for being in possession of a firearm. The government doesn't have the money to put them away for that long so, instead, they control the guns of non-criminals. Yay!

Go Blazers

Repped.

 

[Denny Crane]

FWIW, I'm not the one who made this 500% tax claim. You did, GOD.

In Chicago and the state of California, they're considering a $.05 per bullet tax. Considering a bullet costs ~$.20, that's a 25% tax. In Connecticut, they considered a 50% tax on all ammunition buys.

You say, "see, it didn't happen" and I say, "they're trying and they'll eventually succeed."

I wouldn't take your bet because you seem to think there's some time limit on when they'll succeed or that they'll somehow give up.

 

[maxiep]

The government is buying up all of the ammo, and manufacturers are running out.



Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/feds-admit-drying-up-ammo-supplies/#GxeEOqdyeoYZym0M.99

IMO, this is the primary reason for the price increase. Furthermore, it is my opinion that this purchase order was a policy decision to increase scarcity.

I guess there's actually a hearing on it. Note that the reduction in purchases has to do with sequestration: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...gency-using-1000-more-rounds-per-person-than/

 

[maxiep]

For the record, ammunition supply shortages is just another way to get gun control.

 

[maxiep]

You have it all wrong. Pressure cookers kill people.

Pressure cookers don't kill people; ball bearings and screws do.

 

[maxiep]

You don't have to want my guns taken away. If you support registration, you are willing to provide a means for the government to take guns if they want to. If they decide to take the guns, they won't ask for your opinion. Your sympathy for my loss would be of small consequence at that point, don't you think?

If you want to keep the guns out of the hands of the criminals, lobby to enforce the thousands of laws regarding guns that already exist. In Oregon a felon can get 10 years for being in possession of a firearm. The government doesn't have the money to put them away for that long so, instead, they control the guns of non-criminals. Yay!

Go Blazers

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to oldguy again.

 

[maxiep]

The part of this debate for me that matters has nothing to do with guns. It has to do with how one views the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. For me, it's a list of things the Government CANNOT do to you. It serves as a limit on government.

And what kind of restriction would I be willing to accept on weaponry? Simple. Anything the police can have, I can have. I'm a believer in the idea that where government fears the people, there is liberty and where the people fear the government, there is tyranny. I'm for liberty.

 

[oldguy]

No takers for the DNA background check for a driver's license? No need to stop the carnage on the road caused by drunk drivers. Where is the 'if it could save just one life, it's worth it' crowd?

Go Blazers

 

[Eastoff]

No takers for the DNA background check for a driver's license? No need to stop the carnage on the road caused by drunk drivers. Where is the 'if it could save just one life, it's worth it' crowd?

Go Blazers

Sorry I stopped reading this right wing circle jerk a while ago. I'd sign up. I would also like to add a stipulation that you have to report anytime you sell your car to someone else. And if the car is stolen without you reporting it, then it causes an accident, you are to blame.

e: and while we're playing this "i'm crazier than you game." I genuinely would also want everyone who is on welfare to be required to take birth control. I also think everyone should be allowed no more than 3 children. (yes, I am a "liberal" and yes I'm serious.)

 

[magnifier661]

I think that all cars must have a mandatory breathalyzer installed before the car starts. Anyone over the limit will not be able to start the car.

 

[magnifier661]

The part of this debate for me that matters has nothing to do with guns. It has to do with how one views the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. For me, it's a list of things the Government CANNOT do to you. It serves as a limit on government.

And what kind of restriction would I be willing to accept on weaponry? Simple. Anything the police can have, I can have. I'm a believer in the idea that where government fears the people, there is liberty and where the people fear the government, there is tyranny. I'm for liberty.

Hear hear

 

[PapaG]

Why is DHS buying up so much ammo?

Reps challenge DHS ammo buys, say agency using 1,000 more rounds per person than Army

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...00-more-rounds-per-person-than/#ixzz2RYPrw37w

Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz said Thursday that the Department of Homeland Security is using roughly 1,000 rounds of ammunition more per person than the U.S. Army, as he and other lawmakers sharply questioned DHS officials on their "massive" bullet buys.

"It is entirely ... inexplicable why the Department of Homeland Security needs so much ammunition," Chaffetz, R-Utah, said at a hearing.
The hearing itself was unusual, as questions about the department's ammunition purchases until recently had bubbled largely under the radar -- on blogs and in the occasional news article. But as the Department of Homeland Security found itself publicly defending the purchases, lawmakers gradually showed more interest in the issue.
Democratic Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass., at the opening of the hearing, ridiculed the concerns as "conspiracy theories" which have "no place" in the committee room.
But Republicans said the purchases raise "serious" questions about waste and accountability.

Chaffetz, who chairs one of the House oversight subcommittees holding the hearing Thursday, revealed that the department currently has more than 260 million rounds in stock. He said the department bought more than 103 million rounds in 2012 and used 116 million that same year -- among roughly 70,000 agents.
Comparing that with the small-arms purchases procured by the U.S. Army, he said the DHS is churning through between 1,300 and 1,600 rounds per officer, while the U.S. Army goes through roughly 350 rounds per soldier.

He noted that is "roughly 1,000 rounds more per person."

"Their officers use what seems to be an exorbitant amount of ammunition," he said.

Nick Nayak, chief procurement officer for the Department of Homeland Security, did not challenge Chaffetz's numbers.
However, Nayak sought to counter what he described as several misconceptions about the bullet buys.
Despite reports that the department was trying to buy up to 1.6 billion rounds over five years, he said that is not true. He later clarified that the number is closer to 750 million.

He said the department, on average, buys roughly 100 million rounds per year.

He also said claims that the department is stockpiling ammo are "simply not true." Further, he countered claims that the purchases are helping create broader ammunition shortages in the U.S.
The department has long said it needs the bullets for agents in training and on duty, and buys in bulk to save money.
While Democrats likened concerns about the purchases to conspiracy theories, Republicans raised concern about the sheer cost of the ammunition.

"This is not about conspiracy theories, this is about good government," Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who chairs the full Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said he suspects rounds are being stockpiled, and then either "disposed of," passed to non-federal agencies, or shot "indiscriminately."
If that is the case, he said, "then shame on you."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...00-more-rounds-per-person-than/#ixzz2RYQ88roE

 

[oldguy]

Sorry I stopped reading this right wing circle jerk a while ago. I'd sign up. I would also like to add a stipulation that you have to report anytime you sell your car to someone else.

Classic. If I think it's better to keep my constitutional rights than to give them up for no reason, then I'm a right winger. Cool. What do you call my lefty friends that don't want their second amendment rights further infringed upon?

There is already a law that says you must report the sale of your car. So let's make another law that says the same thing. Then we'll be twice as safe. Or, just maybe they should enforce the existing law instead of duplicating an existing one....but maybe that's just me.

And if the car is stolen without you reporting it, then it causes an accident, you are to blame.

Apparently, you did quit reading. What I said was if your car is stolen and hurts someone, the legitimate owner should be charged with a felony....just like President Obama suggested about stolen guns.

You're ok with the idea of losing your cars permanently, if you are convicted of domestic violence? Never be able to replace those cars?

e: and while we're playing this "i'm crazier than you game." I genuinely would also want everyone who is on welfare to be required to take birth control. I also think everyone should be allowed no more than 3 children. (yes, I am a "liberal" and yes I'm serious.)

Screw it, go for the gusto. Let's just sterilize those lazy welfare bastards. Seriously, how could any true liberal ever suggest that any of the 47%'ers be demeaned like that? I think you might be a closet conservative, and just don’t know it. Come into the light, young man.

How do you propose to enforce that three child limit? Once the third kid is born, the woman is spayed and the man is castrated? Or, maybe just abort any further pregnacies?

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Benjamin Franklin

Go Blazers

 

[Eastoff]

There is already a law that says you must report the sale of your car. So let's make another law that says the same thing. Then we'll be twice as safe. Or, just maybe they should enforce the existing law instead of duplicating an existing one....but maybe that's just me.



Apparently, you did quit reading. What I said was if your car is stolen and hurts someone, the legitimate owner should be charged with a felony....just like President Obama suggested about stolen guns.

You're ok with the idea of losing your cars permanently, if you are convicted of domestic violence? Never be able to replace those cars?

This was a crack at gun control.

Screw it, go for the gusto. Let's just sterilize those lazy welfare bastards. Seriously, how could any true liberal ever suggest that any of the 47%'ers be demeaned like that? I think you might be a closet conservative, and just don’t know it. Come into the light, young man.

How do you propose to enforce that three child limit? Once the third kid is born, the woman is spayed and the man is castrated? Or, maybe just abort any further pregnacies?



Go Blazers

I didn't say you could do these things. Sterilizing is not permanent.