goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: ednksu on December 02, 2015, 01:49:27 PM
-
http://www.broadcastify.com/listen/feed/12443/web
-
@SanBernardinoPD has confirmed an active shooter in the area of Orange Show Rd/ Waterman Ave near Park center. #SBCSD assisting."
http://go.cnn.com/?stream=cnn
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html
20 Victims
-
bomb/arson working on a device with a robot
-
Lame
-
12 fatalities, possibly 40 total victims, BOLO for dark SUV
-
shootings might involve a center for the developmentally disabled
-
eff anyone that doesn't support gun control. Seriously, eff you and I don't want to rough ridin' know you. I don't give a crap about your political rhetoric. You are THE rough ridin' problem
-
Bring that zeal Froman! :excited:
-
witness says coworker was acting weird, left early and then shooting started, shooter matched general build of coworder
-
Who brings their buddies to shoot up their workplace?
-
Who brings their buddies to shoot up their workplace?
Well, most shooters are probably insane, so I could see why they might ask. I don't get what kind of person would agree to go help his buddy shoot up their workplace, though.
-
Who brings their buddies to shoot up their workplace?
Well, most shooters are probably insane, so I could see why they might ask. I don't get what kind of person would agree to go help his buddy shoot up their workplace, though.
it would stand to reason that psychos might have psycho friends
-
This is an odd shooting. Something more than a disgruntled employee.
-
Initial reports of 14 dead. :frown:
eff guns. eff people.
-
In edn world, everyone has the Internet and can view this site, but all news sites (where they're streaming live) are blocked.
-
Mooooooooooslims?
-
In edn world, everyone has the Internet and can view this site, but all news sites (where they're streaming live) are blocked.
What a weird post
-
i think greta got drunk before her show
-
and blazed a little. it's pretty ridiculous how clueless she is
-
shep (gigantic stud) gave a huge sigh off air while she was asking some dumb question and it was fantastic :lol:
-
I can't bring myself to watch Fox News.
-
she's asked shep about 10 times if it was a meeting or a party and finally he's like "the police said it was a party at a meeting"
-
police scanner sent out that a cop got caught smoking weed behind a house :lol:
-
I hope it's just crazy white ppl as normal. I mean, we are pretty mumped, as citizens, if this was foreign sourced, funded, or organized.
-
police scanner sent out that a cop got caught smoking weed behind a house :lol:
doesn't everyone in California have a prescription?
-
one of the dead is probably a woman :Wha:
-
I hope it's just crazy white ppl as normal. I mean, we are pretty mumped, as citizens, if this was foreign sourced, funded, or organized.
Yeah, so much better that white people are slaughtering people instead of dark skinned people
-
eff anyone that doesn't support gun control. Seriously, eff you and I don't want to rough ridin' know you. I don't give a crap about your political rhetoric. You are THE rough ridin' problem
Well that didn't take long
-
One is the norm and the other sends us to war with the most convenient country full of brown ppl.
I hope it's just crazy white ppl as normal. I mean, we are pretty mumped, as citizens, if this was foreign sourced, funded, or organized.
Yeah, so much better that white people are slaughtering people instead of dark skinned people
-
eff anyone that doesn't support gun control. Seriously, eff you and I don't want to rough ridin' know you. I don't give a crap about your political rhetoric. You are THE rough ridin' problem
Well that didn't take long
Look at him, politicizing this tragedy.
http://www.theonion.com/article/man-cant-believe-obama-would-use-tragedy-push-anti-51455
-
police scanner sent out that a cop got caught smoking weed behind a house :lol:
doesn't everyone in California have a prescription?
Yes. I'm sure it was for stress, which is a good reason.
-
eff anyone that doesn't support gun control. Seriously, eff you and I don't want to rough ridin' know you. I don't give a crap about your political rhetoric. You are THE rough ridin' problem
Well that didn't take long
ad hominem attacks or calls for gun control?
-
Mooooooooooslims?
Welp :frown:
-
Mooooooooooslims?
Welp :frown:
still waiting! :ohno:
-
whew - was worried it was one of us for a bit there
-
Listened to both CNN and FOX on Sat Radio. Both were excellent during play by play. Stayed with Fox for a bit longer because they had a couple experts I found insightful.
Then Greta came on, I could tell Shep was pissed. Went and stayed with CNN the rest of the drive.
-
I can't stand Shep.
-
I can't stand Shep.
this makes me so happy :D
-
Anderson Cooper ain't exactly smooth at rapid fire events. A bit of a bumbler and stumbler when things are moving fast.
-
whew - was worried it was one of us for a bit there
uh oh... his wife is white :ohno:
-
Obama will classify this as workplace violence.
-
whew - was worried it was one of us for a bit there
uh oh... his wife is white :ohno:
The woman in the SUV with him is reportedly a citizen of Qatar.
-
side chick :ohno:
-
Nobody is going to be madder about this than Barack guys, he is gonna be super mad. :dubious:
-
One is the norm and the other sends us to war with the most convenient country full of brown ppl.
I hope it's just crazy white ppl as normal. I mean, we are pretty mumped, as citizens, if this was foreign sourced, funded, or organized.
Yeah, so much better that white people are slaughtering people instead of dark skinned people
:flush:
-
Fox has mark furman omg :lol:
-
:love:
-
Fox has mark furman omg :lol:
I just saw that too, he's been on FNC for a while, he was a real peach during Ferguson.
-
Oh goodness
-
So FNC just reported that the second name reported was complete bullshit and then just continued to discuss radical islam, literally without taking a breath in between.
-
How dare they do that when talking about a man described by his own family as a "devout Muslim".
They killed 14 people, but RPLJB's are upset that anyone is discussing radical Islam.
Pathetic, yet typical.
-
How did they get the gun(s)?
-
So the dude is an American born Muslim with family from Pakistan and the wife is from Saudi Arabia. Dude had gone to Saudi Arabia for a month, came home with this broad, married her (not sure if he married her in Saudi Arabia or here, or elsewhere), and grew a beard. They had a kid, dropped it off with a grandma or something before the shooting. Clearly there was planning and coordination. All "facts" as reported by NPR.
-
How did they get the gun(s)?
How did the folks in France get the guns?
-
Gems from this thread....
@SanBernardinoPD has confirmed an active shooter in the area of Orange Show Rd/ Waterman Ave near Park center. #SBCSD assisting."
http://go.cnn.com/?stream=cnn
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html
20 Victims
Lame
eff anyone that doesn't support gun control. Seriously, eff you and I don't want to rough ridin' know you. I don't give a crap about your political rhetoric. You are THE rough ridin' problem
^ This one might be a direct quote from Barack "eff America" Obama in Paris - I'm still googling that.
This is an odd shooting. Something more than a disgruntled employee.
Mooooooooooslims?
Let's not jump to conclusions.
I hope it's just crazy white ppl as normal.
This was said.
One is the norm and the other sends us to war with the most convenient country full of brown ppl.
Doubling Down.
whew - was worried it was one of us for a bit there
whew - was worried it was one of us for a bit there
uh oh... his wife is white :ohno:
The woman in the SUV with him is reportedly a citizen of Qatar.
Nobody is going to be madder about this than Barack guys, he is gonna be super mad. :dubious:
So the dude is an American born Muslim with family from Pakistan and the wife is from Saudi Arabia. Dude had gone to Saudi Arabia for a month, came home with this broad, married her (not sure if he married her in Saudi Arabia or here, or elsewhere), and grew a beard. They had a kid, dropped it off with a grandma or something before the shooting. Clearly there was planning and coordination. All "facts" as reported by NPR.
Ok, now we can do this, less than 24 hours later.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.meme.am%2Finstances%2F500x%2F65529788.jpg&hash=046c3f10a3d91dadb08d0b93d4b85f7c461b1432)
-
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/12/police-san-bernardino-killers-were-wearing-gopro-cameras-during-massacre/ (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/12/police-san-bernardino-killers-were-wearing-gopro-cameras-during-massacre/)
-
What's really terrifying is that, by the accounts I've heard so far (on NPR), that these folks were living the "American Dream," they were integrated, they had a kid. And yet they do this?
-
Gems from this thread....
@SanBernardinoPD has confirmed an active shooter in the area of Orange Show Rd/ Waterman Ave near Park center. #SBCSD assisting."
http://go.cnn.com/?stream=cnn
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html
20 Victims
Lame
eff anyone that doesn't support gun control. Seriously, eff you and I don't want to rough ridin' know you. I don't give a crap about your political rhetoric. You are THE rough ridin' problem
^ This one might be a direct quote from Barack "eff America" Obama in Paris - I'm still googling that.
This is an odd shooting. Something more than a disgruntled employee.
Mooooooooooslims?
Let's not jump to conclusions.
I hope it's just crazy white ppl as normal.
This was said.
One is the norm and the other sends us to war with the most convenient country full of brown ppl.
Doubling Down.
whew - was worried it was one of us for a bit there
whew - was worried it was one of us for a bit there
uh oh... his wife is white :ohno:
The woman in the SUV with him is reportedly a citizen of Qatar.
Nobody is going to be madder about this than Barack guys, he is gonna be super mad. :dubious:
So the dude is an American born Muslim with family from Pakistan and the wife is from Saudi Arabia. Dude had gone to Saudi Arabia for a month, came home with this broad, married her (not sure if he married her in Saudi Arabia or here, or elsewhere), and grew a beard. They had a kid, dropped it off with a grandma or something before the shooting. Clearly there was planning and coordination. All "facts" as reported by NPR.
Ok, now we can do this, less than 24 hours later.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.meme.am%2Finstances%2F500x%2F65529788.jpg&hash=046c3f10a3d91dadb08d0b93d4b85f7c461b1432)
What a hilarious romp down memory lane
-
The handguns were apparently legally purchased 2 or 3 years ago. Cali has a 10 day waiting period on all gun purchases FYI.
Reports are the rifles were bought by a relative or former roommate (of course now news reports are emerging of witnesses saying they'd seen a number of men of apparent Middle Eastern descent in the area of this guys home recently, one person was apparently afraid to 'see something say something' out of fear of profiling). Cali has closed the gun show loophole FYI and AR type weapons are banned for sale in Cali.
-
Knee slapper
-
What's really terrifying is that, by the accounts I've heard so far (on NPR), that these folks were living the "American Dream," they were integrated, they had a kid. And yet they do this?
While possibly true, it isn't the first shooting like that, Muslim or not.
-
List of things that will need to be banned:
All Guns
Pipes and all materials relevant to making improvised explosive devices, so, a lot of stuff
Cars (used to get to and leave the scene, as well as engaged in violent acts)
-
The handguns were apparently legally purchased 2 or 3 years ago. Cali has a 10 day waiting period on all gun purchases FYI.
Reports are the rifles were bought by a relative or former roommate (of course now news reports are emerging of witnesses saying they'd seen a number of men of apparent Middle Eastern descent in the area of this guys home recently, one person was apparently afraid to 'see something say something' out of fear of profiling). Cali has closed the gun show loophole FYI and AR type weapons are banned for sale in Cali.
Uh hey dax, you can get "California legal" AR's in California.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15s_in_California
-
So what prompts a young couple to drop their 6mo child off with mom, knowing they'll almost certainly never see that child again, to go kill a bunch of people? Oh yeah, religous zealotry. Islam seems to have a particular problem with this. Someone should start a thread about that.
-
He was forced to attend a Christmas party and that set him off I bet.
-
Apparently they thought 6 months was too young to enjoy 72 virgins.
-
The handguns were apparently legally purchased 2 or 3 years ago. Cali has a 10 day waiting period on all gun purchases FYI.
Reports are the rifles were bought by a relative or former roommate (of course now news reports are emerging of witnesses saying they'd seen a number of men of apparent Middle Eastern descent in the area of this guys home recently, one person was apparently afraid to 'see something say something' out of fear of profiling). Cali has closed the gun show loophole FYI and AR type weapons are banned for sale in Cali.
Uh hey dax, you can get "California legal" AR's in California.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15s_in_California
thanks for correcting another blatant lie from Dax. Also I have yet to see anything about a straw sale for the long guns (probably another lie from Dax based on his track record, but we don't know for sure.).
-
What a hilarious romp down memory lane
Knee slapper
Nothing funny about the shooting. But calling out the libtards? Hilarious.
thanks for correcting another blatant lie from Dax. Also I have yet to see anything about a straw sale for the long guns (probably another lie from Dax based on his track record, but we don't know for sure.).
See? Edna still pursuing the "gun control" angle. :lol: Not unlike Obama, who stood in Paris and said of the Planned Parenthood slaughter "I mean, I say this every time we’ve got one of these mass shootings; this just doesn’t happen in other countries."
-
Edn whack-a-doodle thinks that a argument in technical semantics such as what is or is not an assault weapon is a "blatant lie".
Just more over the top BS from the perpetually angry Chief WhackaDoodle.
-
What's really terrifying is that, by the accounts I've heard so far (on NPR), that these folks were living the "American Dream," they were integrated, they had a kid. And yet they do this?
Everyone's dream is different.
-
EDN whack-a-doodle is just pissed off that the perps weren't angry white guys.
-
List of things that will need to be banned:
All Guns
Pipes and all materials relevant to making improvised explosive devices, so, a lot of stuff
Cars (used to get to and leave the scene, as well as engaged in violent acts)
Probably need a law stating residential real estate for the use of bomb manufacturing is prohibited.
-
The handguns were apparently legally purchased 2 or 3 years ago. Cali has a 10 day waiting period on all gun purchases FYI.
Reports are the rifles were bought by a relative or former roommate (of course now news reports are emerging of witnesses saying they'd seen a number of men of apparent Middle Eastern descent in the area of this guys home recently, one person was apparently afraid to 'see something say something' out of fear of profiling). Cali has closed the gun show loophole FYI and AR type weapons are banned for sale in Cali.
Uh hey dax, you can get "California legal" AR's in California.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15s_in_California
thanks for correcting another blatant lie from Dax. Also I have yet to see anything about a straw sale for the long guns (probably another lie from Dax based on his track record, but we don't know for sure.).
I don't see it as a blatant lie. The folks that pushed through this legislation, in their victory speeches, said the same thing that dax said.
-
You can be for gun control and also be anti-terrorism. I don't understand why dax thinks we can only talk about gun control when white people do this. Very weird stance by him.
-
Oh, wow! So the facts come out and it wasn't white Americans who did this? Not that it matters to me, but I have some libtards I need to troll on Facebook, that shot the gun too early yesterday.
-
I think a lot of people believe that more gun control either wouldn't be effective, or would infringe on 2nd amendment rights, or both.
-
You can be for gun control and also be anti-terrorism. I don't understand why dax thinks we can only talk about gun control when white people do this. Very weird stance by him.
So when the Planned Parenthood shooting occurred, the liberal narrative was all about how Dear was motivated by Christianity and the undercover PP videos (both claims dubious at best). When Muslims commit terrorism, the argument shifts to gun control. Interesting.
-
You dorks who constantly tell other people what their "narrative" is are the lamest people alive. I am not referring to one particular poster either
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F11%2Fimageedit_2431_7349675469.jpg&hash=10b688b10d99724e5be7e910160c920994f768cb)
-
You can be for gun control and also be anti-terrorism. I don't understand why dax thinks we can only talk about gun control when white people do this. Very weird stance by him.
So when the Planned Parenthood shooting occurred, the liberal narrative was all about how Dear was motivated by Christianity and the undercover PP videos (both claims dubious at best). When Muslims commit terrorism, the argument shifts to gun control. Interesting.
Looks like gun control applies to both, do you disagree?
-
Edn whack-a-doodle thinks that a argument in technical semantics such as what is or is not an assault weapon is a "blatant lie".
Just more over the top BS from the perpetually angry Chief WhackaDoodle.
sorry you've been caught lying again. You made a blanket statement that all ARs were banned and anyone who knows anything about gun laws knows that is wrong. So you can either tap out by admitting you know nothing about the current state of gun issues in America or that you were lying.
-
The handguns were apparently legally purchased 2 or 3 years ago. Cali has a 10 day waiting period on all gun purchases FYI.
Reports are the rifles were bought by a relative or former roommate (of course now news reports are emerging of witnesses saying they'd seen a number of men of apparent Middle Eastern descent in the area of this guys home recently, one person was apparently afraid to 'see something say something' out of fear of profiling). Cali has closed the gun show loophole FYI and AR type weapons are banned for sale in Cali.
Uh hey dax, you can get "California legal" AR's in California.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15s_in_California
thanks for correcting another blatant lie from Dax. Also I have yet to see anything about a straw sale for the long guns (probably another lie from Dax based on his track record, but we don't know for sure.).
I don't see it as a blatant lie. The folks that pushed through this legislation, in their victory speeches, said the same thing that dax said.
You're right thats it's interesting to see how different people perceive gun control and what certain types of bans mean. I think it's important to call out people who spread misinformation in order to further a political agenda. It's the same level of lying in my book when a Cali rep talks about banning features as a practical measure of gun control and Dax saying entire categories or styles/types of weapons are banned thereby implying these weapons were purchased illegally.
-
You can be for gun control and also be anti-terrorism. I don't understand why dax thinks we can only talk about gun control when white people do this. Very weird stance by him.
So when the Planned Parenthood shooting occurred, the liberal narrative was all about how Dear was motivated by Christianity and the undercover PP videos (both claims dubious at best). When Muslims commit terrorism, the argument shifts to gun control. Interesting.
Looks like gun control applies to both, do you disagree?
Honestly, gun control was the only "narrative" I heard with regard to CO Springs, but I really only listen to NPR.
-
Oh, wow! So the facts come out and it wasn't white Americans who did this? Not that it matters to me, but I have some libtards I need to troll on Facebook, that shot the gun too early yesterday.
One brown American and one brown non-american.
-
I think a lot of people believe that more gun control either wouldn't be effective, or would infringe on 2nd amendment rights, or both.
Only people who are in their state militia would be concerned about 2nd
-
Oh, wow! So the facts come out and it wasn't white Americans who did this? Not that it matters to me, but I have some libtards I need to troll on Facebook, that shot the gun too early yesterday.
One brown American and one brown non-american.
:horrorsurprise:
-
I think a lot of people believe that more gun control either wouldn't be effective, or would infringe on 2nd amendment rights, or both.
Only people who are in their state militia would be concerned about 2nd
But all military aged males are in the militia, so says the founders.
-
I think a lot of people believe that more gun control either wouldn't be effective, or would infringe on 2nd amendment rights, or both.
Only people who are in their state militia would be concerned about 2nd
people don't like giving up freedoms/rights they've become accustomed to. i get it.
-
You can be for gun control and also be anti-terrorism. I don't understand why dax thinks we can only talk about gun control when white people do this. Very weird stance by him.
Stance? Weird....as usual.
-
:whistle1:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.deathpenaltyinfo.org%2Fimages%2Fmurderrate.png&hash=eaa632ee02847322872c8bc29fb33b238b83b288)
-
I think a lot of people believe that more gun control either wouldn't be effective, or would infringe on 2nd amendment rights, or both.
Only people who are in their state militia would be concerned about 2nd
But all military aged males are in the militia, so says the founders.
17-45
-
:whistle1:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.deathpenaltyinfo.org%2Fimages%2Fmurderrate.png&hash=eaa632ee02847322872c8bc29fb33b238b83b288)
Clinton chilled everyone out :love:
-
Not so fast my friend!
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpoliticsarizona.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F10%2Flee-corso1.jpg&hash=411df87d2eb5ad0b2339d60b30eb5d11dd16c59a)
https://twitter.com/Rockprincess818/status/672433211604013057
-
Sauce?
-
LOL. The State of California orginally passed a law which banned specific assault weapons by name, they came back and amended that legislation in 2000 or 2001 and genericized it as best they could to cover as many variations that were understood at the time with specific emphasis on AK and AR weapons.
Are people skirting the law with derivatives and variations and grandfathering etc. etc. Sure. that happens all the time, with 1000's of laws covering all matter of issues.
But the jest of the law was and still is an attempt to ban the sale of, and requiring the special permitting and registration of assault weapons.
Only a hyperactive whack-a-doodle would attempt to argue otherwise . . . thus we have EDN.
-
Gun control Obama style would not have stopped this. Suspect was a Muslim married to a radical Saudi woman last spring. They walk into a Christmas party and shot people. Christmas is about the birth of Christ. Lone dog hate attack, just like Colorado.
-
Lol @ Christmas being about the birth of christ :lol:
-
Oh, wow! So the facts come out and it wasn't white Americans who did this? Not that it matters to me, but I have some libtards I need to troll on Facebook, that shot the gun too early yesterday.
One brown American and one brown non-american.
Some are missing my point, I guess. I would rather this be what seems to be a continuation of what has become a norm, rather than something that would indicate a terrorist attack on our soil that was funded, planned, organized, or whatever by a terrorist org such as ISIS. The former will still suck, but I would think we would all prefer chalking this up to whatever the normal reasons are vs the the latter which would force us into a much more forward approach to addressing whatever terroist org may/maynot be involved(if this even ends up being the case) than what we are already doing.
That is neither a lib or pub appoach, imo. Simply not wanting to be drawn further into a guaranteed to be messy conflict by the actions of three assholes in CA.
-
Oh, wow! So the facts come out and it wasn't white Americans who did this? Not that it matters to me, but I have some libtards I need to troll on Facebook, that shot the gun too early yesterday.
One brown American and one brown non-american.
Some are missing my point, I guess. I would rather this be what seems to be a continuation of what has become a norm, rather than something that would indicate a terrorist attack on our soil that was funded, planned, organized, or whatever by a terrorist org such as ISIS. The former will still suck, but I would think we would all prefer chalking this up to whatever the normal reasons are vs the the latter which would force us into a much more forward approach to addressing whatever terroist org may/maynot be involved(if this even ends up being the case) than what we are already doing.
That is neither a lib or pub appoach, imo. Simply not wanting to be drawn further into a guaranteed to be messy conflict by the actions of three assholes in CA.
It's secret door #3, lone wolf radical Muslim. Doubt he had help or support from any formal organization we have heard of. Which is also very scary.
-
You can be for gun control and also be anti-terrorism. I don't understand why dax thinks we can only talk about gun control when white people do this. Very weird stance by him.
So when the Planned Parenthood shooting occurred, the liberal narrative was all about how Dear was motivated by Christianity and the undercover PP videos (both claims dubious at best). When Muslims commit terrorism, the argument shifts to gun control. Interesting.
FWIW I think all religion is bad and gun control would prevent both Christians and Muslims from doing this crap
-
You can be for gun control and also be anti-terrorism. I don't understand why dax thinks we can only talk about gun control when white people do this. Very weird stance by him.
So when the Planned Parenthood shooting occurred, the liberal narrative was all about how Dear was motivated by Christianity and the undercover PP videos (both claims dubious at best). When Muslims commit terrorism, the argument shifts to gun control. Interesting.
FWIW I think all religion is bad and gun control would prevent both Christians and Muslims from doing this crap
Credibility: none.
-
Religion will kill again
Source: looking outside the window
-
I mean, gun control is coming. Gun advocates can sit down at the table and be part of crafting something meaningful. they have unique knowledge of the subject matter.
Or they can keep being insane about it and be left out of the discussion.
-
You can be for gun control and also be anti-terrorism. I don't understand why dax thinks we can only talk about gun control when white people do this. Very weird stance by him.
So when the Planned Parenthood shooting occurred, the liberal narrative was all about how Dear was motivated by Christianity and the undercover PP videos (both claims dubious at best). When Muslims commit terrorism, the argument shifts to gun control. Interesting.
FWIW I think all religion is bad and gun control would prevent both Christians and Muslims from doing this crap
The French have really strict gun control. Gun control doesn't stop terrorism. Maybe mass confiscation might deter it a little, but if we're going to piss all over the Constitution by confiscating guns, we'd probably be more effective engaging in mass surveillance/incarceration of crazy people and religious fanatics.
-
I mean, gun control is coming. Gun advocates can sit down at the table and be part of crafting something meaningful. they have unique knowledge of the subject matter.
Or they can keep being insane about it and be left out of the discussion.
It's coming? Are you saying we don't already have it? Tell me any form of gun control, besides mass confiscation of guns, that would even remotely deter mass shootings and terrorism?
-
The root of the increase in mass shootings can be traced to facebook.
-
I mean, gun control is coming. Gun advocates can sit down at the table and be part of crafting something meaningful. they have unique knowledge of the subject matter.
Or they can keep being insane about it and be left out of the discussion.
It's coming? Are you saying we don't already have it? Tell me any form of gun control, besides mass confiscation of guns, that would even remotely deter mass shootings and terrorism?
You're kind of proving his point. If the gun lobby can come up with possible solutions short of mass confiscation of guns instead of just throwing up their hands and saying "this is the price of freedom, nothing will work" every time it happens, they'll be less likely to have mass confiscation of guns when something really bad hits.
-
I mean, gun control is coming. Gun advocates can sit down at the table and be part of crafting something meaningful. they have unique knowledge of the subject matter.
Or they can keep being insane about it and be left out of the discussion.
It's coming? Are you saying we don't already have it? Tell me any form of gun control, besides mass confiscation of guns, that would even remotely deter mass shootings and terrorism?
The "it probably wouldn't work anyway so let's not try it" is so mentally feeble I think you are better than that.
-
Maybe I'm being hard on religion, but there are too many individuals in positions of influence, who regard themselves as "deeply religious people", that use their religion to create a culture of ignorance that leads to the less stable people going off and murdering those they have been told are the opposition. Until the influential people start preaching a more positive message (Pope Francis is a nice start), I see religion as a burden on society.
-
Won't happen, Abe. Control is control and politicians need as much of that as they can get if they want to keep their job or get a better one.
Same with campaign money. Nothing will change unless something extraordinarily radical happens.
-
I mean, gun control is coming. Gun advocates can sit down at the table and be part of crafting something meaningful. they have unique knowledge of the subject matter.
Or they can keep being insane about it and be left out of the discussion.
It's coming? Are you saying we don't already have it? Tell me any form of gun control, besides mass confiscation of guns, that would even remotely deter mass shootings and terrorism?
The "it probably wouldn't work anyway so let's not try it" is so mentally feeble I think you are better than that.
You may be misunderstanding me. I think that mass-confiscation would probably decrease gun-related deaths, I just don't that's worth mass confiscation of guns. I honestly can't think of other gun control measures that would do much of anything besides inconvenience law-abiding gun owners. I asked you for suggestions.
-
You can be for gun control and also be anti-terrorism. I don't understand why dax thinks we can only talk about gun control when white people do this. Very weird stance by him.
So when the Planned Parenthood shooting occurred, the liberal narrative was all about how Dear was motivated by Christianity and the undercover PP videos (both claims dubious at best). When Muslims commit terrorism, the argument shifts to gun control. Interesting.
FWIW I think all religion is bad and gun control would prevent both Christians and Muslims from doing this crap
The French have really strict gun control. Gun control doesn't stop terrorism. Maybe mass confiscation might deter it a little, but if we're going to piss all over the Constitution by confiscating guns, we'd probably be more effective engaging in mass surveillance/incarceration of crazy people and religious fanatics.
Agreed, we need to undo the damage done by Reagan in the 1980s to mental health.
I think you can allow people to have their hand guns, and not allow them to have their assault rifles, and I wouldn't consider that pissing on the constitution. When the constitution was written they didn't have guns that shoot 700 rounds per minute.
Also the French don't have 355 mass shooting incidents. crap will still happen, but having say, 30 mass shooting incidents per year vs. the 355 we are currently at would be a pretty amazing improvement.
-
The root of the increase in mass shootings can be traced to facebook.
qft
-
Maybe I'm being hard on religion, but there are too many individuals in positions of influence, who regard themselves as "deeply religious people", that use their religion to create a culture of ignorance that leads to the less stable people going off and murdering those they have been told are the opposition. Until the influential people start preaching a more positive message (Pope Francis is a nice start), I see religion as a burden on society.
I agree that religion is the problem in many cases, but it is the shooter's problem, and it's usually Islam. To suggest that Christianity has "created a culture of ignorance," and that is what's to blame for shooting like this, is frankly bizarre.
-
We should hire sports athletes to run the country. Ppl would listen to Lebron. #WWLD
-
I mean, gun control is coming. Gun advocates can sit down at the table and be part of crafting something meaningful. they have unique knowledge of the subject matter.
Or they can keep being insane about it and be left out of the discussion.
It's coming? Are you saying we don't already have it? Tell me any form of gun control, besides mass confiscation of guns, that would even remotely deter mass shootings and terrorism?
The "it probably wouldn't work anyway so let's not try it" is so mentally feeble I think you are better than that.
You may be misunderstanding me. I think that mass-confiscation would probably decrease gun-related deaths, I just don't that's worth mass confiscation of guns. I honestly can't think of other gun control measures that would do much of anything besides inconvenience law-abiding gun owners. I asked you for suggestions.
Just wondering is there like any amount of gun deaths that would make you trade in your freedom for security? I mean we basically did that with the 4th amendment after 9/11.
-
I mean, gun control is coming. Gun advocates can sit down at the table and be part of crafting something meaningful. they have unique knowledge of the subject matter.
Or they can keep being insane about it and be left out of the discussion.
It's coming? Are you saying we don't already have it? Tell me any form of gun control, besides mass confiscation of guns, that would even remotely deter mass shootings and terrorism?
The "it probably wouldn't work anyway so let's not try it" is so mentally feeble I think you are better than that.
You may be misunderstanding me. I think that mass-confiscation would probably decrease gun-related deaths, I just don't that's worth mass confiscation of guns. I honestly can't think of other gun control measures that would do much of anything besides inconvenience law-abiding gun owners. I asked you for suggestions.
any number of proposals are out there. I think limiting capacity of what is available, background checks and some commonsense type measures.
I know you have a talking point for each proposal so save it. People are burying their family members everyday in this country because some nutball goes off with an AR. pounding on the table yelling that we don't know how to stop it is insulting to anyone with a brain.
-
You can be for gun control and also be anti-terrorism. I don't understand why dax thinks we can only talk about gun control when white people do this. Very weird stance by him.
So when the Planned Parenthood shooting occurred, the liberal narrative was all about how Dear was motivated by Christianity and the undercover PP videos (both claims dubious at best). When Muslims commit terrorism, the argument shifts to gun control. Interesting.
FWIW I think all religion is bad and gun control would prevent both Christians and Muslims from doing this crap
The French have really strict gun control. Gun control doesn't stop terrorism. Maybe mass confiscation might deter it a little, but if we're going to piss all over the Constitution by confiscating guns, we'd probably be more effective engaging in mass surveillance/incarceration of crazy people and religious fanatics.
Agreed, we need to undo the damage done by Reagan in the 1980s to mental health.
I think you can allow people to have their hand guns, and not allow them to have their assault rifles, and I wouldn't consider that pissing on the constitution. When the constitution was written they didn't have guns that shoot 700 rounds per minute.
You're throwing the term "assualt rifle" around like that has any actualy meaning. It appears that you are referring to fully automatic weapons?
-
So we have half the murders we used to, but more mass murders and more widespread access to the coverage of the events, leading us to feel more fearful than ever. The 'randomness' of the mass shootings is terrifying because anyone can be a victim whereas the vast majority of other murders are domestic or from an existing dispute/argument. I really think that the extended news coverage and the chance to become infamous drives so many of these crazies to go out in a blaze of 'glory'.
-
I mean, gun control is coming. Gun advocates can sit down at the table and be part of crafting something meaningful. they have unique knowledge of the subject matter.
Or they can keep being insane about it and be left out of the discussion.
It's coming? Are you saying we don't already have it? Tell me any form of gun control, besides mass confiscation of guns, that would even remotely deter mass shootings and terrorism?
The "it probably wouldn't work anyway so let's not try it" is so mentally feeble I think you are better than that.
You may be misunderstanding me. I think that mass-confiscation would probably decrease gun-related deaths, I just don't that's worth mass confiscation of guns. I honestly can't think of other gun control measures that would do much of anything besides inconvenience law-abiding gun owners. I asked you for suggestions.
Just wondering is there like any amount of gun deaths that would make you trade in your freedom for security? I mean we basically did that with the 4th amendment after 9/11.
4th amendment doesn't have a huge lobby that could lose a lot of money if it's changed/ignored.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html
They do their best to avoid saying it (as usual), but they were radicalized Islamic Terrorists. They'll fall all over themselves to blame it on the workplace, but they clearly had this all planned out and were just waiting for their moment.
-
You're throwing the term "assualt rifle" around like that has any actualy meaning. It appears that you are referring to fully automatic weapons?
Yes. No need for them IMO
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html
They do their best to avoid saying it (as usual), but they were radicalized Islamic Terrorists. They'll fall all over themselves to blame it on the workplace, but they clearly had this all planned out and were just waiting for their moment.
first sentence mentions international terrorism, second sentence says the guy was "radicalized"
-
You're throwing the term "assualt rifle" around like that has any actualy meaning. It appears that you are referring to fully automatic weapons?
Yes. No need for them IMO
How many of these mass shootings have involved fully automatic weapons?
-
So we have half the murders we used to, but more mass murders and more widespread access to the coverage of the events, leading us to feel more fearful than ever. The 'randomness' of the mass shootings is terrifying because anyone can be a victim whereas the vast majority of other murders are domestic or from an existing dispute/argument. I really think that the extended news coverage and the chance to become infamous drives so many of these crazies to go out in a blaze of 'glory'.
No doubt this is true about the media. If these animals really wore goPros then that is just further proof
-
Dax arguing with clouds again
-
You're throwing the term "assualt rifle" around like that has any actualy meaning. It appears that you are referring to fully automatic weapons?
Yes. No need for them IMO
How many of these mass shootings have involved fully automatic high capacity weapons?
-
Dax arguing with clouds again
Making a statement is arguing with clouds? Fascinating . . . yet stupid, as usual.
-
the motives are all very secondary to me.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html
They do their best to avoid saying it (as usual), but they were radicalized Islamic Terrorists. They'll fall all over themselves to blame it on the workplace, but they clearly had this all planned out and were just waiting for their moment.
first sentence mentions international terrorism, second sentence says the guy was "radicalized"
No $hit, then read the rest of the equivocations and how they're "not sure" and "just don't know" and how may have been driven by workplace grievances.
yeah good reporting would have said they were sure they knew what caused it great point
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html
They do their best to avoid saying it (as usual), but they were radicalized Islamic Terrorists. They'll fall all over themselves to blame it on the workplace, but they clearly had this all planned out and were just waiting for their moment.
first sentence mentions international terrorism, second sentence says the guy was "radicalized"
No $hit, then read the rest of the equivocations and how they're "not sure" and "just don't know" and how may have been driven by workplace grievances.
yeah good reporting would have said they were sure they knew what caused it great point
I'm not talking about the reporting . . . the reporters either directly quoted or certainly paraphrased the words of government sources, including the president either saying or implying those very things. Hypersensitivity is not becoming cRusty aka Captain White Guilt.
-
Lol dax, good grief
-
Just wondering is there like any amount of gun deaths that would make you trade in your freedom for security? I mean we basically did that with the 4th amendment after 9/11.
Right. And I think that was a pretty stupid, knee-jerk, reaction and has been almost universally criticized as such.
-
You're throwing the term "assualt rifle" around like that has any actualy meaning. It appears that you are referring to fully automatic weapons?
Yes. No need for them IMO
How many of these mass shootings have involved fully automatic high capacity weapons?
Ok, so now we're switching over to capacity of the magazines. Ok. So if someone buys a gun for self defense, what is the appropriate number of bullets it should hold?
-
Lol dax, good grief
Good grief is right . . . don't respond if you don't read the entire article and then actually, you know, comprehend it.
-
Yes EDN Whack-A-Doodle, CLEARLY this was not an attempt to ban the sale of assault weaponsl
My gawd you are a dumbass.
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/awguide.pdf
-
"We don't have a motive at this point. We are still searching the motive."
Reporters paraphrasing! :curse:
-
You're throwing the term "assualt rifle" around like that has any actualy meaning. It appears that you are referring to fully automatic weapons?
Yes. No need for them IMO
How many of these mass shootings have involved fully automatic high capacity weapons?
Ok, so now we're switching over to capacity of the magazines. Ok. So if someone buys a gun for self defense, what is the appropriate number of bullets it should hold?
It seems like 2 or 3 would be enough to stop somebody from killing you. :dunno:
-
Yes EDN Whack-A-Doodle, CLEARLY this was not an attempt to ban the sale of assault weaponsl
My gawd you are a dumbass.
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/awguide.pdf
Sorry you were caught lying again. Next time edit your posts and remove the factual errors.
-
"We don't have a motive at this point. We are still searching the motive."
Reporters paraphrasing! :curse:
:lol:
Yep, the entire article :lol:
-
You're throwing the term "assualt rifle" around like that has any actualy meaning. It appears that you are referring to fully automatic weapons?
Yes. No need for them IMO
How many of these mass shootings have involved fully automatic high capacity weapons?
Ok, so now we're switching over to capacity of the magazines. Ok. So if someone buys a gun for self defense, what is the appropriate number of bullets it should hold?
Assault Rifles has a meaning, assault weapons does not. You need to educate yourself on the meanings of these words/phrases.
-
Well the workplace was the target, so saying it's unclear how big of a factor workplace grievances are at this time seems like a fairly rational statement. If he picked the target because of some grudge, that doesn't lessen the radicalization and international contacts aspects.
Lol that dax is so angry at investigators investigating :lol:
-
You're throwing the term "assualt rifle" around like that has any actualy meaning. It appears that you are referring to fully automatic weapons?
Yes. No need for them IMO
How many of these mass shootings have involved fully automatic high capacity weapons?
This is more what I am referring to. Semantics be damned KSU-W
but to answer the re-phrased question: 50%
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/high-capacity-magazines-mass-shootings
A 50% reduction in mass shootings would be amazing. Hell at this point I'd even take a 30% reduction since the argument is that "criminals gonna criminal"
-
Yes EDN Whack-A-Doodle, CLEARLY this was not an attempt to ban the sale of assault weaponsl
My gawd you are a dumbass.
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/awguide.pdf
Sorry you were caught lying again. Next time edit your posts and remove the factual errors.
You didn't even bother to read the law Whack-a-Doodle, nor do understand the amendments to the law.
Someone that can neither understand, nor comprehend the intent of the law on the books calling someone a liar is straight out of EDN Whack-a-Doodle land.
-
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/12/police-san-bernardino-killers-were-wearing-gopro-cameras-during-massacre/ (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/12/police-san-bernardino-killers-were-wearing-gopro-cameras-during-massacre/)
Jim Hoft wrong again.
-
And it has less to do with the # of incidents than it has to do with the # of dead bodies.
-
Well the workplace was the target, so saying it's unclear how big of a factor workplace grievances are at this time seems like a fairly rational statement. If he picked the target because of some grudge, that doesn't lessen the radicalization and international contacts aspects.
Lol that dax is so angry at investigators investigating :lol:
I wasn't talking about investigators. Why do you find this so hard CRPLJB?
-
Mods, can we have an edn stuff thread for all his little slap fights?
-
Yes EDN Whack-A-Doodle, CLEARLY this was not an attempt to ban the sale of assault weaponsl
My gawd you are a dumbass.
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/awguide.pdf
Sorry you were caught lying again. Next time edit your posts and remove the factual errors.
You didn't even bother to read the law Whack-a-Doodle, nor do understand the amendments to the law.
Someone that can neither understand, nor comprehend the intent of the law on the books calling someone a liar is straight out of EDN Whack-a-Doodle land.
Look I clearly understand and know the law better than you since I didn't post blatant lies. You said ARs were illegal in Cali and that is blatantly false. If you had posted Cali law makers attempted to make what they define as "assault weapons" illegal or hard to get that would have been correct. Your ignorance or lies prevented that post from being made. Going back on things now, and cluttering up this thread with your typical misdirection doesn't solve anything. You were caught, again, spreading false information. Take a lap, and get over it.
-
Mods, can we have an edn stuff thread for all his little slap fights?
Gawd you're such an insufferable bitch. At least Dax makes this fun at time.
-
You can be for gun control and also be anti-terrorism. I don't understand why dax thinks we can only talk about gun control when white people do this. Very weird stance by him.
So when the Planned Parenthood shooting occurred, the liberal narrative was all about how Dear was motivated by Christianity and the undercover PP videos (both claims dubious at best). When Muslims commit terrorism, the argument shifts to gun control. Interesting.
How rough ridin' reductive can you be? Do you honestly think that A) people are incapable of thinking about two separate "narratives" at once, and B) that no liberals were talking about gun control after the Planned Parenthood mass shooting? You're either intentionally obtuse and misleading or you're a rough ridin' moron.
-
I just wish those ARs malfunctioned like the "Made in China" remote controlled car pipe bomb.
-
Is dax just redirecting his anger from not being able to attend dumbstick schemepak?
Better wackadoodle and the pit takes the majority of it than his wife and kids :frown: sorry wackadoodle
-
Yes EDN Whack-A-Doodle, CLEARLY this was not an attempt to ban the sale of assault weaponsl
My gawd you are a dumbass.
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/awguide.pdf
Sorry you were caught lying again. Next time edit your posts and remove the factual errors.
You didn't even bother to read the law Whack-a-Doodle, nor do understand the amendments to the law.
Someone that can neither understand, nor comprehend the intent of the law on the books calling someone a liar is straight out of EDN Whack-a-Doodle land.
Look I clearly understand and know the law better than you since I didn't post blatant lies. You said ARs were illegal in Cali and that is blatantly false. If you had posted Cali law makers attempted to make what they define as "assault weapons" illegal or hard to get that would have been correct. Your ignorance or lies prevented that post from being made. Going back on things now, and cluttering up this thread with your typical misdirection doesn't solve anything. You were caught, again, spreading false information. Take a lap, and get over it.
Dax said:
Cali has closed the gun show loophole FYI and AR type weapons are banned for sale in Cali.
With limited exceptions, California prohibits anyone from possessing an assault weapon unless he or she possessed the firearm prior to the date it was defined as an assault weapon and registered the firearm with the California Department of Justice (“DOJ”) in the timeframe established by state law.1 Note that this timeframe has now ended, and DOJ is generally not accepting any new registrations of assault weapons.
California also prohibits any person from manufacturing, distributing, transporting, importing, keeping for sale, offering for sale, giving, or lending any assault weapon within the state.2 However, DOJ may, upon a finding of good cause, issue permits for the manufacture, sale, or possession of assault weapons to certain law enforcement agencies and officers and to approved individuals over the age of 18.3 DOJ must conduct a yearly inspection – or every five years if the person to be inspected has fewer than five permitted devices – of every person to whom a permit is issued, for security and safe storage practices, and to reconcile the inventory of assault weapons.4 Generally, no lawfully possessed assault weapon may be sold or transferred to anyone within California other than to a licensed gun dealer or to a police or sheriff’s department.5
http://smartgunlaws.org/assault-weapons-in-california/
-
(Happy to know K-S-U-Dubs is still proudly bearing the torch of known worst poster on this blog, though.)
-
Yet you can buy CA legal AR pretty easily. You just have to have a key (?) for the mag and like not a short stock or something. I dunno, Emo EMAW can probably tell you
-
Yes EDN Whack-A-Doodle, CLEARLY this was not an attempt to ban the sale of assault weaponsl
My gawd you are a dumbass.
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/awguide.pdf
Sorry you were caught lying again. Next time edit your posts and remove the factual errors.
You didn't even bother to read the law Whack-a-Doodle, nor do understand the amendments to the law.
Someone that can neither understand, nor comprehend the intent of the law on the books calling someone a liar is straight out of EDN Whack-a-Doodle land.
Look I clearly understand and know the law better than you since I didn't post blatant lies. You said ARs were illegal in Cali and that is blatantly false. If you had posted Cali law makers attempted to make what they define as "assault weapons" illegal or hard to get that would have been correct. Your ignorance or lies prevented that post from being made. Going back on things now, and cluttering up this thread with your typical misdirection doesn't solve anything. You were caught, again, spreading false information. Take a lap, and get over it.
Dax said:
Cali has closed the gun show loophole FYI and AR type weapons are banned for sale in Cali.
With limited exceptions, California prohibits anyone from possessing an assault weapon unless he or she possessed the firearm prior to the date it was defined as an assault weapon and registered the firearm with the California Department of Justice (“DOJ”) in the timeframe established by state law.1 Note that this timeframe has now ended, and DOJ is generally not accepting any new registrations of assault weapons.
California also prohibits any person from manufacturing, distributing, transporting, importing, keeping for sale, offering for sale, giving, or lending any assault weapon within the state.2 However, DOJ may, upon a finding of good cause, issue permits for the manufacture, sale, or possession of assault weapons to certain law enforcement agencies and officers and to approved individuals over the age of 18.3 DOJ must conduct a yearly inspection – or every five years if the person to be inspected has fewer than five permitted devices – of every person to whom a permit is issued, for security and safe storage practices, and to reconcile the inventory of assault weapons.4 Generally, no lawfully possessed assault weapon may be sold or transferred to anyone within California other than to a licensed gun dealer or to a police or sheriff’s department.5
http://smartgunlaws.org/assault-weapons-in-california/
sorry dax, you can misdirect all you want, but you're wrong. there are thousands upon thousands of Cali legal ARs legal for sale in Cali today. You don't know the facts and made a sweeping statement. If you want to discuss the absurdities of bullet buttons, fixed stocks, flash suppressors/hiders, and mag limits we can. But don't act like you know what you're talking about. Right now you are googling crap and posting it without any idea what it means. You look more ignorant now about guns to anyone who has any knowledge on the issue. Please stop.
-
Anyone that uses AR and "assault weapon" in this thread needs to educate themselves. ARs aren't outlawed in California unless they have certain features (pistol grip, 11+ round mags, suppressor, etc.).
I doubt these miscreants shot hundreds of rounds using 10 round mags. The ARs were illegal in California based on this assumption.
-
Anyone that uses AR and "assault weapon" in this thread needs to educate themselves. ARs aren't outlawed in California unless they have certain features (pistol grip, 11+ round mags, suppressor, etc.).
I doubt these miscreants shot hundreds of rounds using 10 round mags. The ARs were illegal in California based on this assumption.
without a doubt illegal mods, which are easily accessible online. even new mags are possible with "rebuild" kits. it's interesting to see the ignorance about guns pop up in these discussions and promulgate myths. also sad to see misinformation used when we don't know what really happened at this point other than the obvious.
-
Yes EDN Whack-A-Doodle, CLEARLY this was not an attempt to ban the sale of assault weaponsl
My gawd you are a dumbass.
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/awguide.pdf
Sorry you were caught lying again. Next time edit your posts and remove the factual errors.
You didn't even bother to read the law Whack-a-Doodle, nor do understand the amendments to the law.
Someone that can neither understand, nor comprehend the intent of the law on the books calling someone a liar is straight out of EDN Whack-a-Doodle land.
Look I clearly understand and know the law better than you since I didn't post blatant lies. You said ARs were illegal in Cali and that is blatantly false. If you had posted Cali law makers attempted to make what they define as "assault weapons" illegal or hard to get that would have been correct. Your ignorance or lies prevented that post from being made. Going back on things now, and cluttering up this thread with your typical misdirection doesn't solve anything. You were caught, again, spreading false information. Take a lap, and get over it.
Dax said:
Cali has closed the gun show loophole FYI and AR type weapons are banned for sale in Cali.
With limited exceptions, California prohibits anyone from possessing an assault weapon unless he or she possessed the firearm prior to the date it was defined as an assault weapon and registered the firearm with the California Department of Justice (“DOJ”) in the timeframe established by state law.1 Note that this timeframe has now ended, and DOJ is generally not accepting any new registrations of assault weapons.
California also prohibits any person from manufacturing, distributing, transporting, importing, keeping for sale, offering for sale, giving, or lending any assault weapon within the state.2 However, DOJ may, upon a finding of good cause, issue permits for the manufacture, sale, or possession of assault weapons to certain law enforcement agencies and officers and to approved individuals over the age of 18.3 DOJ must conduct a yearly inspection – or every five years if the person to be inspected has fewer than five permitted devices – of every person to whom a permit is issued, for security and safe storage practices, and to reconcile the inventory of assault weapons.4 Generally, no lawfully possessed assault weapon may be sold or transferred to anyone within California other than to a licensed gun dealer or to a police or sheriff’s department.5
http://smartgunlaws.org/assault-weapons-in-california/
sorry dax, you can misdirect all you want, but you're wrong. there are thousands upon thousands of Cali legal ARs legal for sale in Cali today. You don't know the facts and made a sweeping statement. If you want to discuss the absurdities of bullet buttons, fixed stocks, flash suppressors/hiders, and mag limits we can. But don't act like you know what you're talking about. Right now you are googling crap and posting it without any idea what it means. You look more ignorant now about guns to anyone who has any knowledge on the issue. Please stop.
Well first off, Google is, you know a great search engine. I mean, you are a complete nutcase so maybe you have thousands of bookmarks, but I don't. You, by implication said that California didn't ban assault weapons and they sale thereof . . . simply because manufacturers have found a loophole does not change the reality that California has banned the sale of assault weapons as the California Legislature has defined assault weapons and the legislation specifically names AR and AK weapons as being banned based on their original design and known modifications of the time. Their failure to step back up and close this loophole is immaterial to the general and clear intent of the legislation, and no way means I am a liar.
You're just a completely insufferable Whack-A-Doodle who is always wrong about everything. You can't be called a liar, because people who are complete dumbasses are incapable of being liars.
-
Yes EDN Whack-A-Doodle, CLEARLY this was not an attempt to ban the sale of assault weaponsl
My gawd you are a dumbass.
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/awguide.pdf
Sorry you were caught lying again. Next time edit your posts and remove the factual errors.
You didn't even bother to read the law Whack-a-Doodle, nor do understand the amendments to the law.
Someone that can neither understand, nor comprehend the intent of the law on the books calling someone a liar is straight out of EDN Whack-a-Doodle land.
Look I clearly understand and know the law better than you since I didn't post blatant lies. You said ARs were illegal in Cali and that is blatantly false. If you had posted Cali law makers attempted to make what they define as "assault weapons" illegal or hard to get that would have been correct. Your ignorance or lies prevented that post from being made. Going back on things now, and cluttering up this thread with your typical misdirection doesn't solve anything. You were caught, again, spreading false information. Take a lap, and get over it.
Dax said:
Cali has closed the gun show loophole FYI and AR type weapons are banned for sale in Cali.
With limited exceptions, California prohibits anyone from possessing an assault weapon unless he or she possessed the firearm prior to the date it was defined as an assault weapon and registered the firearm with the California Department of Justice (“DOJ”) in the timeframe established by state law.1 Note that this timeframe has now ended, and DOJ is generally not accepting any new registrations of assault weapons.
California also prohibits any person from manufacturing, distributing, transporting, importing, keeping for sale, offering for sale, giving, or lending any assault weapon within the state.2 However, DOJ may, upon a finding of good cause, issue permits for the manufacture, sale, or possession of assault weapons to certain law enforcement agencies and officers and to approved individuals over the age of 18.3 DOJ must conduct a yearly inspection – or every five years if the person to be inspected has fewer than five permitted devices – of every person to whom a permit is issued, for security and safe storage practices, and to reconcile the inventory of assault weapons.4 Generally, no lawfully possessed assault weapon may be sold or transferred to anyone within California other than to a licensed gun dealer or to a police or sheriff’s department.5
http://smartgunlaws.org/assault-weapons-in-california/
sorry dax, you can misdirect all you want, but you're wrong. there are thousands upon thousands of Cali legal ARs legal for sale in Cali today. You don't know the facts and made a sweeping statement. If you want to discuss the absurdities of bullet buttons, fixed stocks, flash suppressors/hiders, and mag limits we can. But don't act like you know what you're talking about. Right now you are googling crap and posting it without any idea what it means. You look more ignorant now about guns to anyone who has any knowledge on the issue. Please stop.
Well first off, Google is, you know a great search engine. I mean, you are a complete nutcase so maybe you have thousands of bookmarks, but I don't. You, by implication said that California didn't ban assault weapons and they sale thereof . . . simply because manufacturers have found a loophole does not change the reality that California has banned the sale of assault weapons as the California Legislature has defined assault weapons. Their failure to step back up and close this loophole is immaterial to the general and clear intent of the legislation, and no way means I am a liar.
You're just a completely insufferable Whack-A-Doodle who is always wrong about everything. You can't be called a liar, because people who are complete dumbasses are incapable of being liars.
Once again Dax lies and misdirections. I said you were lying about Cali banning ARs. The rest is you arguing with windmills buddy. Case closed.
-
I am on the capacity band wagon. Why does anyone need more than 5-6 bullets? For those that have argued in the past that a 7th bullet may be needed, etc, well you could say that a 17th bullet may be needed too, or a 22nd, or a 50th, etc. In reality, most home invasions and sitch's that require self protection don't include a band or army of assailants. If you need more than 6 bullets, you need better training or shouldn't have a gun.
-
I am on the capacity band wagon. Why does anyone need more than 5-6 bullets? For those that have argued in the past that a 7th bullet may be needed, etc, well you could say that a 17th bullet may be needed too, or a 22nd, or a 50th, etc. In reality, most home invasions and sitch's that require self protection don't include a band or army of assailants. If you need more than 6 bullets, you need better training or shouldn't have a gun.
there are actually pretty good stats on the number of rounds fired in defense situations and it's usually less than 10. I will say, mag size is an odd metric. It does and doesn't matter. A tried or experience shooter will have no trouble overcoming that limit, while that limit for an inexperienced shooter could provide a necessary moment of intervention, example the Portland mall shooting where a jam/reload situation allowed intervention.
-
Children - children...
Gun control will not stop this from happening. It will only make them more prevalent. The places shot-up are where gun restrictions are strongest: schools, churches, social service agencies.
We are at war with Radical Islam. The federal government cannot protect us from this enemy better than we can protect ourselves. If you see a Middle Eastern-descent neighbor with lots of Middle Eastern men coming and going with lots of boxes and deliveries, notify the local authorities. Eff fears of racial profiling! Marketing people have been profiling for ages and nobody stops them.
And Shep Smith is an ass-clown. He actually said when the armored vehicle was approaching the SUV with a long pole after they shot-up the perps that they were going to poke the bodies to see if they were dead. I'm sure they could have been taking a nap Shep! What a grandstanding buffoon!
-
Yes EDN Whack-A-Doodle, CLEARLY this was not an attempt to ban the sale of assault weaponsl
My gawd you are a dumbass.
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/awguide.pdf
Sorry you were caught lying again. Next time edit your posts and remove the factual errors.
You didn't even bother to read the law Whack-a-Doodle, nor do understand the amendments to the law.
Someone that can neither understand, nor comprehend the intent of the law on the books calling someone a liar is straight out of EDN Whack-a-Doodle land.
Look I clearly understand and know the law better than you since I didn't post blatant lies. You said ARs were illegal in Cali and that is blatantly false. If you had posted Cali law makers attempted to make what they define as "assault weapons" illegal or hard to get that would have been correct. Your ignorance or lies prevented that post from being made. Going back on things now, and cluttering up this thread with your typical misdirection doesn't solve anything. You were caught, again, spreading false information. Take a lap, and get over it.
Dax said:
Cali has closed the gun show loophole FYI and AR type weapons are banned for sale in Cali.
With limited exceptions, California prohibits anyone from possessing an assault weapon unless he or she possessed the firearm prior to the date it was defined as an assault weapon and registered the firearm with the California Department of Justice (“DOJ”) in the timeframe established by state law.1 Note that this timeframe has now ended, and DOJ is generally not accepting any new registrations of assault weapons.
California also prohibits any person from manufacturing, distributing, transporting, importing, keeping for sale, offering for sale, giving, or lending any assault weapon within the state.2 However, DOJ may, upon a finding of good cause, issue permits for the manufacture, sale, or possession of assault weapons to certain law enforcement agencies and officers and to approved individuals over the age of 18.3 DOJ must conduct a yearly inspection – or every five years if the person to be inspected has fewer than five permitted devices – of every person to whom a permit is issued, for security and safe storage practices, and to reconcile the inventory of assault weapons.4 Generally, no lawfully possessed assault weapon may be sold or transferred to anyone within California other than to a licensed gun dealer or to a police or sheriff’s department.5
http://smartgunlaws.org/assault-weapons-in-california/
sorry dax, you can misdirect all you want, but you're wrong. there are thousands upon thousands of Cali legal ARs legal for sale in Cali today. You don't know the facts and made a sweeping statement. If you want to discuss the absurdities of bullet buttons, fixed stocks, flash suppressors/hiders, and mag limits we can. But don't act like you know what you're talking about. Right now you are googling crap and posting it without any idea what it means. You look more ignorant now about guns to anyone who has any knowledge on the issue. Please stop.
Well first off, Google is, you know a great search engine. I mean, you are a complete nutcase so maybe you have thousands of bookmarks, but I don't. You, by implication said that California didn't ban assault weapons and they sale thereof . . . simply because manufacturers have found a loophole does not change the reality that California has banned the sale of assault weapons as the California Legislature has defined assault weapons. Their failure to step back up and close this loophole is immaterial to the general and clear intent of the legislation, and no way means I am a liar.
You're just a completely insufferable Whack-A-Doodle who is always wrong about everything. You can't be called a liar, because people who are complete dumbasses are incapable of being liars.
Once again Dax lies and misdirections. I said you were lying about Cali banning ARs. The rest is you arguing with windmills buddy. Case closed.
The legislation specifically named AR and AK assault weapons as they were known to exist in 2000/2001. You're simply trying to enter into ridiculous arguments over semantics as usual. The sale of those weapons as they are defined by the California Legislators is banned, it's just that simple.
Now, go back to being your usual dumbass whack-a-doodle self. The only person misdirecting is you.
-
I am on the capacity band wagon. Why does anyone need more than 5-6 bullets? For those that have argued in the past that a 7th bullet may be needed, etc, well you could say that a 17th bullet may be needed too, or a 22nd, or a 50th, etc. In reality, most home invasions and sitch's that require self protection don't include a band or army of assailants. If you need more than 6 bullets, you need better training or shouldn't have a gun.
Why should "need" justify the existence of anything? We are talking about a right here. Not a need.
-
Yes EDN Whack-A-Doodle, CLEARLY this was not an attempt to ban the sale of assault weaponsl
My gawd you are a dumbass.
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/awguide.pdf
Sorry you were caught lying again. Next time edit your posts and remove the factual errors.
You didn't even bother to read the law Whack-a-Doodle, nor do understand the amendments to the law.
Someone that can neither understand, nor comprehend the intent of the law on the books calling someone a liar is straight out of EDN Whack-a-Doodle land.
Look I clearly understand and know the law better than you since I didn't post blatant lies. You said ARs were illegal in Cali and that is blatantly false. If you had posted Cali law makers attempted to make what they define as "assault weapons" illegal or hard to get that would have been correct. Your ignorance or lies prevented that post from being made. Going back on things now, and cluttering up this thread with your typical misdirection doesn't solve anything. You were caught, again, spreading false information. Take a lap, and get over it.
Dax said:
Cali has closed the gun show loophole FYI and AR type weapons are banned for sale in Cali.
With limited exceptions, California prohibits anyone from possessing an assault weapon unless he or she possessed the firearm prior to the date it was defined as an assault weapon and registered the firearm with the California Department of Justice (“DOJ”) in the timeframe established by state law.1 Note that this timeframe has now ended, and DOJ is generally not accepting any new registrations of assault weapons.
California also prohibits any person from manufacturing, distributing, transporting, importing, keeping for sale, offering for sale, giving, or lending any assault weapon within the state.2 However, DOJ may, upon a finding of good cause, issue permits for the manufacture, sale, or possession of assault weapons to certain law enforcement agencies and officers and to approved individuals over the age of 18.3 DOJ must conduct a yearly inspection – or every five years if the person to be inspected has fewer than five permitted devices – of every person to whom a permit is issued, for security and safe storage practices, and to reconcile the inventory of assault weapons.4 Generally, no lawfully possessed assault weapon may be sold or transferred to anyone within California other than to a licensed gun dealer or to a police or sheriff’s department.5
http://smartgunlaws.org/assault-weapons-in-california/
sorry dax, you can misdirect all you want, but you're wrong. there are thousands upon thousands of Cali legal ARs legal for sale in Cali today. You don't know the facts and made a sweeping statement. If you want to discuss the absurdities of bullet buttons, fixed stocks, flash suppressors/hiders, and mag limits we can. But don't act like you know what you're talking about. Right now you are googling crap and posting it without any idea what it means. You look more ignorant now about guns to anyone who has any knowledge on the issue. Please stop.
Well first off, Google is, you know a great search engine. I mean, you are a complete nutcase so maybe you have thousands of bookmarks, but I don't. You, by implication said that California didn't ban assault weapons and they sale thereof . . . simply because manufacturers have found a loophole does not change the reality that California has banned the sale of assault weapons as the California Legislature has defined assault weapons. Their failure to step back up and close this loophole is immaterial to the general and clear intent of the legislation, and no way means I am a liar.
You're just a completely insufferable Whack-A-Doodle who is always wrong about everything. You can't be called a liar, because people who are complete dumbasses are incapable of being liars.
Once again Dax lies and misdirections. I said you were lying about Cali banning ARs. The rest is you arguing with windmills buddy. Case closed.
The legislation specifically named AR and AK assault weapons as they were known to exist in 2000/2001. You're simply trying to enter into ridiculous arguments over semantics as usual. The sale of those weapons as they are defined by the California Legislators is banned, it's just that simple.
Now, go back to being your usual dumbass whack-a-doodle self. The only person misdirecting is you.
Good grief Dax, quit flailing. Accept that you mumped up and move on. Or maybe you should call the CHP or whoever on all these sellers:
http://www.slickguns.com/california-guns
Just take the lump, consider yourself more educated and move on in less ignorance.
-
Children - children...
Gun control will not stop this from happening. It will only make them more prevalent. The places shot-up are where gun restrictions are strongest: schools, churches, social service agencies.
We are at war with Radical Islam. The federal government cannot protect us from this enemy better than we can protect ourselves. If you see a Middle Eastern-descent neighbor with lots of Middle Eastern men coming and going with lots of boxes and deliveries, notify the local authorities. Eff fears of racial profiling! Marketing people have been profiling for ages and nobody stops them.
And Shep Smith is an ass-clown. He actually said when the armored vehicle was approaching the SUV with a long pole after they shot-up the perps that they were going to poke the bodies to see if they were dead. I'm sure they could have been taking a nap Shep! What a grandstanding buffoon!
:lol:
-
I am on the capacity band wagon. Why does anyone need more than 5-6 bullets? For those that have argued in the past that a 7th bullet may be needed, etc, well you could say that a 17th bullet may be needed too, or a 22nd, or a 50th, etc. In reality, most home invasions and sitch's that require self protection don't include a band or army of assailants. If you need more than 6 bullets, you need better training or shouldn't have a gun.
Why should "need" justify the existence of anything? We are talking about a right here. Not a need.
Are bullets covered in 2a?
-
I am on the capacity band wagon. Why does anyone need more than 5-6 bullets? For those that have argued in the past that a 7th bullet may be needed, etc, well you could say that a 17th bullet may be needed too, or a 22nd, or a 50th, etc. In reality, most home invasions and sitch's that require self protection don't include a band or army of assailants. If you need more than 6 bullets, you need better training or shouldn't have a gun.
Why should "need" justify the existence of anything? We are talking about a right here. Not a need.
A right to be well regulated.
-
I am on the capacity band wagon. Why does anyone need more than 5-6 bullets? For those that have argued in the past that a 7th bullet may be needed, etc, well you could say that a 17th bullet may be needed too, or a 22nd, or a 50th, etc. In reality, most home invasions and sitch's that require self protection don't include a band or army of assailants. If you need more than 6 bullets, you need better training or shouldn't have a gun.
Why should "need" justify the existence of anything? We are talking about a right here. Not a need.
Are bullets covered in 2a?
Of course.
-
shall not be infringed
-
There's knockoffs, counterfeits, look-a-likes available in nearly every product under the sun.
I can buy a car in California, drive across state lines, take off one part, drive back into California and the car is now illegal in California. But I can find a way to skirt the law for years, if not forever. But I still have an illegal car by California Law, as they define what is or isn't a legal car.
-
I am on the capacity band wagon. Why does anyone need more than 5-6 bullets? For those that have argued in the past that a 7th bullet may be needed, etc, well you could say that a 17th bullet may be needed too, or a 22nd, or a 50th, etc. In reality, most home invasions and sitch's that require self protection don't include a band or army of assailants. If you need more than 6 bullets, you need better training or shouldn't have a gun.
Why should "need" justify the existence of anything? We are talking about a right here. Not a need.
Ownership is the right. No specifics about type, quantity, etc.
-
I am on the capacity band wagon. Why does anyone need more than 5-6 bullets? For those that have argued in the past that a 7th bullet may be needed, etc, well you could say that a 17th bullet may be needed too, or a 22nd, or a 50th, etc. In reality, most home invasions and sitch's that require self protection don't include a band or army of assailants. If you need more than 6 bullets, you need better training or shouldn't have a gun.
Why should "need" justify the existence of anything? We are talking about a right here. Not a need.
A right to be well regulated.
They are already over-regulated. It's difficult to obtain military grade weapons such that a militia should have.
-
I am on the capacity band wagon. Why does anyone need more than 5-6 bullets? For those that have argued in the past that a 7th bullet may be needed, etc, well you could say that a 17th bullet may be needed too, or a 22nd, or a 50th, etc. In reality, most home invasions and sitch's that require self protection don't include a band or army of assailants. If you need more than 6 bullets, you need better training or shouldn't have a gun.
Why should "need" justify the existence of anything? We are talking about a right here. Not a need.
Ownership is the right. No specifics about type, quantity, etc.
I don't think the founding fathers intended the "militia" to be fighting with pitchforks and broom handles.
-
I am on the capacity band wagon. Why does anyone need more than 5-6 bullets? For those that have argued in the past that a 7th bullet may be needed, etc, well you could say that a 17th bullet may be needed too, or a 22nd, or a 50th, etc. In reality, most home invasions and sitch's that require self protection don't include a band or army of assailants. If you need more than 6 bullets, you need better training or shouldn't have a gun.
Why should "need" justify the existence of anything? We are talking about a right here. Not a need.
Are bullets covered in 2a?
YES! My favorite gun control idea is regulating ammunition and not guns.
-
There's knockoffs, counterfeits, look-a-likes available in nearly every product under the sun.
I can buy a car in California, drive across state lines, take off one part, drive back into California and the car is now illegal in California. But I can find a way to skirt the law for years, if not forever. But I still have an illegal car by California Law, as they define what is or isn't a legal car.
look at these "knockoff, counterfeit, look a like bushmaster bushmasters.
good grief......
https://www.impactguns.com/bushmaster-patrolman-ar15-a3-223556-ca-legas-16in-wa3-carry-handle-bullet-button-10-round-fixed-ca.aspx
-
How often would mass shootings occur if we had no gun regulations (none)?
-
I am on the capacity band wagon. Why does anyone need more than 5-6 bullets? For those that have argued in the past that a 7th bullet may be needed, etc, well you could say that a 17th bullet may be needed too, or a 22nd, or a 50th, etc. In reality, most home invasions and sitch's that require self protection don't include a band or army of assailants. If you need more than 6 bullets, you need better training or shouldn't have a gun.
Why should "need" justify the existence of anything? We are talking about a right here. Not a need.
A right to be well regulated.
That's the Old Testament of 2a
-
There's knockoffs, counterfeits, look-a-likes available in nearly every product under the sun.
I can buy a car in California, drive across state lines, take off one part, drive back into California and the car is now illegal in California. But I can find a way to skirt the law for years, if not forever. But I still have an illegal car by California Law, as they define what is or isn't a legal car.
look at these "knockoff, counterfeit, look a like bushmaster bushmasters.
good grief......
https://www.impactguns.com/bushmaster-patrolman-ar15-a3-223556-ca-legas-16in-wa3-carry-handle-bullet-button-10-round-fixed-ca.aspx
What you're too stupid to get, is that you implied that there were no laws banning AR and AK weapons sales in California . . . there clearly is, marketing names and slogans that manufacturers have given to things are only material to the discussion as it pertains to the need to expand laws that you claimed didn't exist.
-
I am on the capacity band wagon. Why does anyone need more than 5-6 bullets? For those that have argued in the past that a 7th bullet may be needed, etc, well you could say that a 17th bullet may be needed too, or a 22nd, or a 50th, etc. In reality, most home invasions and sitch's that require self protection don't include a band or army of assailants. If you need more than 6 bullets, you need better training or shouldn't have a gun.
Why should "need" justify the existence of anything? We are talking about a right here. Not a need.
A right to be well regulated.
That's the Old Testament of 2a
lol
-
How often would mass shootings occur if we had no gun regulations (none)?
Laffer Curve type situation here.
-
CNN:
Syed Rizwan Farook -- one-half of the couple behind the San Bernardino shooting massacre -- was apparently radicalized and in touch with people being investigated by the FBI for international terrorism, law enforcement officials said Thursday.
Farook's apparent radicalization contributed to his role in the mass shooting, with his wife Tashfeen Malik, of 14 people Wednesday during a holiday party for the San Bernardino County health department, where Farook worked, sources said.
-
There's knockoffs, counterfeits, look-a-likes available in nearly every product under the sun.
I can buy a car in California, drive across state lines, take off one part, drive back into California and the car is now illegal in California. But I can find a way to skirt the law for years, if not forever. But I still have an illegal car by California Law, as they define what is or isn't a legal car.
look at these "knockoff, counterfeit, look a like bushmaster bushmasters.
good grief......
https://www.impactguns.com/bushmaster-patrolman-ar15-a3-223556-ca-legas-16in-wa3-carry-handle-bullet-button-10-round-fixed-ca.aspx
What you're too stupid to get, is that you implied that there were no laws banning AR and AK weapons sales in California . . . there clearly is, marketing names and slogans that manufacturers have given to things are only material to the discussion as it pertains to the need to expand laws that you claimed didn't exist.
Dax the problem is that you posted something that was false and you wont admit it. You said all AR types were illegal. You were wrong, got called on it, and are now doubling, no, septupling down because you're too pig headed to say I'm wrong and move on, or at least let this die. I never would have been so ignorant to make the claims you are now deflecting with. Those are windmills of your own invention, sorry. I'm not responsible for your delusional ramblings.
-
CNN:
Syed Rizwan Farook -- one-half of the couple behind the San Bernardino shooting massacre -- was apparently radicalized and in touch with people being investigated by the FBI for international terrorism, law enforcement officials said Thursday.
Farook's apparent radicalization contributed to his role in the mass shooting, with his wife Tashfeen Malik, of 14 people Wednesday during a holiday party for the San Bernardino County health department, where Farook worked, sources said.
Uh oh, CNS....
-
Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, fired between 65 and 75 rifle rounds during the shooting at a county health department holiday party, then unloaded about that number in a later confrontation with police.
That is a lot of fast reloading of the old 6 shooter. There are a lot of things that could have changed if they had to reload 11-13 times.
-
CNN:
Syed Rizwan Farook -- one-half of the couple behind the San Bernardino shooting massacre -- was apparently radicalized and in touch with people being investigated by the FBI for international terrorism, law enforcement officials said Thursday.
Farook's apparent radicalization contributed to his role in the mass shooting, with his wife Tashfeen Malik, of 14 people Wednesday during a holiday party for the San Bernardino County health department, where Farook worked, sources said.
Uh oh, CNS....
Not exactly what I was talking about, unless more comes out.
-
CNN:
Syed Rizwan Farook -- one-half of the couple behind the San Bernardino shooting massacre -- was apparently radicalized and in touch with people being investigated by the FBI for international terrorism, law enforcement officials said Thursday.
Farook's apparent radicalization contributed to his role in the mass shooting, with his wife Tashfeen Malik, of 14 people Wednesday during a holiday party for the San Bernardino County health department, where Farook worked, sources said.
Yeesh. Not good. The alternative (lone wolf) wasn't good either, I guess.
-
Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, fired between 65 and 75 rifle rounds during the shooting at a county health department holiday party, then unloaded about that number in a later confrontation with police.
That is a lot of fast reloading of the old 6 shooter. There are a lot of things that could have changed if they had to reload 11-13 times.
True but if they were in the California militia fighting oppression by the King, you'd be damn thankful.
-
There's knockoffs, counterfeits, look-a-likes available in nearly every product under the sun.
I can buy a car in California, drive across state lines, take off one part, drive back into California and the car is now illegal in California. But I can find a way to skirt the law for years, if not forever. But I still have an illegal car by California Law, as they define what is or isn't a legal car.
look at these "knockoff, counterfeit, look a like bushmaster bushmasters.
good grief......
https://www.impactguns.com/bushmaster-patrolman-ar15-a3-223556-ca-legas-16in-wa3-carry-handle-bullet-button-10-round-fixed-ca.aspx
What you're too stupid to get, is that you implied that there were no laws banning AR and AK weapons sales in California . . . there clearly is, marketing names and slogans that manufacturers have given to things are only material to the discussion as it pertains to the need to expand laws that you claimed didn't exist.
Dax the problem is that you posted something that was false and you wont admit it. You said all AR types were illegal. You were wrong, got called on it, and are now doubling, no, septupling down because you're too pig headed to say I'm wrong and move on, or at least let this die. I never would have been so ignorant to make the claims you are now deflecting with. Those are windmills of your own invention, sorry. I'm not responsible for your delusional ramblings.
AR and AK assault weapons as defined by the California Legislature are illegal in California. As of now, the California Legislature does not define these loophole weapons as assault weapons, AR and AK weapons as originally designed were assault weapons and are illegal in California. We can only go by the laws that exist on the books. I can make a watch that looks like a Tag Heuer, put a Tag Heuer logo on it, but that doesn't make it a Tag Heuer watch.
-
CNN:
Syed Rizwan Farook -- one-half of the couple behind the San Bernardino shooting massacre -- was apparently radicalized and in touch with people being investigated by the FBI for international terrorism, law enforcement officials said Thursday.
Farook's apparent radicalization contributed to his role in the mass shooting, with his wife Tashfeen Malik, of 14 people Wednesday during a holiday party for the San Bernardino County health department, where Farook worked, sources said.
Uh oh, CNS....
Not exactly what I was talking about, unless more comes out.
Dax will probably start yelling soon because you posted the most important part of the article :frown:
-
CNN:
Syed Rizwan Farook -- one-half of the couple behind the San Bernardino shooting massacre -- was apparently radicalized and in touch with people being investigated by the FBI for international terrorism, law enforcement officials said Thursday.
Farook's apparent radicalization contributed to his role in the mass shooting, with his wife Tashfeen Malik, of 14 people Wednesday during a holiday party for the San Bernardino County health department, where Farook worked, sources said.
Uh oh, CNS....
Not exactly what I was talking about, unless more comes out.
Dax will probably start yelling soon because you posted the most important part of the article :frown:
You're a strange dude.
-
CNN:
Syed Rizwan Farook -- one-half of the couple behind the San Bernardino shooting massacre -- was apparently radicalized and in touch with people being investigated by the FBI for international terrorism, law enforcement officials said Thursday.
Farook's apparent radicalization contributed to his role in the mass shooting, with his wife Tashfeen Malik, of 14 people Wednesday during a holiday party for the San Bernardino County health department, where Farook worked, sources said.
Uh oh, CNS....
Not exactly what I was talking about, unless more comes out.
Dax will probably start yelling soon because you posted the most important part of the article :frown:
Has that been a thing? My scroll wheel....
-
The gun control issue really does a good job of separating intelligent people from the gun nuts.
-
edn, dax, FWIW the manufacturers of these guns, both California legal and not, don't even call them assault rifles. They are "modern sporting rifles." An assault rifle is carbine length or shorter, shooting a rifle cartridge (tapered, necked down), and capable of fully automatic and/or burst fire.
-
I am on the capacity band wagon. Why does anyone need more than 5-6 bullets? For those that have argued in the past that a 7th bullet may be needed, etc, well you could say that a 17th bullet may be needed too, or a 22nd, or a 50th, etc. In reality, most home invasions and sitch's that require self protection don't include a band or army of assailants. If you need more than 6 bullets, you need better training or shouldn't have a gun.
Why should "need" justify the existence of anything? We are talking about a right here. Not a need.
Ownership is the right. No specifics about type, quantity, etc.
I don't think the founding fathers intended the "militia" to be fighting with pitchforks and broom handles.
They intended 55 round mags with parabellums?
-
The gun control issue really does a good job of separating intelligent people from the gun nuts.
In my case, I support the ban on assault weapons and closing the loopholes. But the simple facts are, California has banned assault weapons and it was taken all the way to the Supreme Court. The weapons that the state of California has deemed as assault weapons are illegal to sell. At this time, loophole or knockoffs are not legally defined as assault weapons in California.
I got it Emo . . .
-
I am on the capacity band wagon. Why does anyone need more than 5-6 bullets? For those that have argued in the past that a 7th bullet may be needed, etc, well you could say that a 17th bullet may be needed too, or a 22nd, or a 50th, etc. In reality, most home invasions and sitch's that require self protection don't include a band or army of assailants. If you need more than 6 bullets, you need better training or shouldn't have a gun.
Why should "need" justify the existence of anything? We are talking about a right here. Not a need.
Ownership is the right. No specifics about type, quantity, etc.
I don't think the founding fathers intended the "militia" to be fighting with pitchforks and broom handles.
They intended 55 round mags with parabellums?
What is a parabellum?
-
The gun control issue really does a good job of separating intelligent people from the gun nuts.
Guy on the radio this morning was trying to argue why "liberals" are dumb for wanting to restrict people on terrorist watch lists from buying guns
-
I am on the capacity band wagon. Why does anyone need more than 5-6 bullets? For those that have argued in the past that a 7th bullet may be needed, etc, well you could say that a 17th bullet may be needed too, or a 22nd, or a 50th, etc. In reality, most home invasions and sitch's that require self protection don't include a band or army of assailants. If you need more than 6 bullets, you need better training or shouldn't have a gun.
Why should "need" justify the existence of anything? We are talking about a right here. Not a need.
Ownership is the right. No specifics about type, quantity, etc.
I don't think the founding fathers intended the "militia" to be fighting with pitchforks and broom handles.
They intended 55 round mags with parabellums?
What is a parabellum?
www.google.com
-
The gun control issue really does a good job of separating intelligent people from the gun nuts.
Guy on the radio this morning was trying to argue why "liberals" are dumb for wanting to restrict people on terrorist watch lists from buying guns
Did he mention that air travel is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution?
-
edn, dax, FWIW the manufacturers of these guns, both California legal and not, don't even call them assault rifles. They are "modern sporting rifles." An assault rifle is carbine length or shorter, shooting a rifle cartridge (tapered, necked down), and capable of fully automatic and/or burst fire.
Agreed which is why I wanted to seed Dax with some terms some pages ago to google to learn about these differences.
Assault Rifles has a meaning, assault weapons does not. You need to educate yourself on the meanings of these words/phrases.
Because generic terms used to ban things, versus classes of guns, versus common usage vary greatly and have real world impacts. When people talk about these weapons being "illegal" it matters a lot because it could have been a legal weapon, a legal weapon modified with legal "characteristics", a straw sale, an illegal weapon imported, or the most unlikely a legal weapon grandfathered in.
-
Let's do the math (no mocat). 70 rounds in the building, 35 deaths and injuries. With that kind of shooting maybe they were using 10 round mags, hell idk.
-
The gun control issue really does a good job of separating intelligent people from the gun nuts.
Guy on the radio this morning was trying to argue why "liberals" are dumb for wanting to restrict people on terrorist watch lists from buying guns
Did he mention that air travel is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution?
No, that would have exposed him as a fool.
-
Why did these muslims choose a Christmas party to do their deed? Obama, I thought you said we should not be afraid of Muslim women entering the United States.
-
edn, dax, FWIW the manufacturers of these guns, both California legal and not, don't even call them assault rifles. They are "modern sporting rifles." An assault rifle is carbine length or shorter, shooting a rifle cartridge (tapered, necked down), and capable of fully automatic and/or burst fire.
Agreed which is why I wanted to seed Dax with some terms some pages ago to google to learn about these differences.
Assault Rifles has a meaning, assault weapons does not. You need to educate yourself on the meanings of these words/phrases.
Because generic terms used to ban things, versus classes of guns, versus common usage vary greatly and have real world impacts. When people talk about these weapons being "illegal" it matters a lot because it could have been a legal weapon, a legal weapon modified with legal "characteristics", a straw sale, an illegal weapon imported, or the most unlikely a legal weapon grandfathered in.
I don't need to know the differences, I know all about the differences. None of the loophole weapons are classified as Assault Weapons by the State of California. AR and AK weapons as they were defined in the original legislation and then redefined in subsequent amendments are banned for Sale in California.
-
I am on the capacity band wagon. Why does anyone need more than 5-6 bullets? For those that have argued in the past that a 7th bullet may be needed, etc, well you could say that a 17th bullet may be needed too, or a 22nd, or a 50th, etc. In reality, most home invasions and sitch's that require self protection don't include a band or army of assailants. If you need more than 6 bullets, you need better training or shouldn't have a gun.
Why should "need" justify the existence of anything? We are talking about a right here. Not a need.
Ownership is the right. No specifics about type, quantity, etc.
I don't think the founding fathers intended the "militia" to be fighting with pitchforks and broom handles.
They intended 55 round mags with parabellums?
Honestly, given the tech available back then, I can understand them intending militias to have the same hardware available to the govt. However, I do think there is a whole lot to be said about the "well regulated" part, and I don't think that "militia" means just any d00d who wants some cool crap for his collection and for inducing high fives with his friends.
-
Why did these muslims choose a Christmas party to do their deed? Obama, I thought you said we should not be afraid of Muslim women entering the United States.
Pretty obvs that this is just the escalation of the war on Christmas.
-
Further proof we need to rewrite the constitution so gun nuts can stop hiding behind poor wording.
-
I am on the capacity band wagon. Why does anyone need more than 5-6 bullets? For those that have argued in the past that a 7th bullet may be needed, etc, well you could say that a 17th bullet may be needed too, or a 22nd, or a 50th, etc. In reality, most home invasions and sitch's that require self protection don't include a band or army of assailants. If you need more than 6 bullets, you need better training or shouldn't have a gun.
Why should "need" justify the existence of anything? We are talking about a right here. Not a need.
Ownership is the right. No specifics about type, quantity, etc.
I don't think the founding fathers intended the "militia" to be fighting with pitchforks and broom handles.
They intended 55 round mags with parabellums?
Honestly, given the tech available back then, I can understand them intending militias to have the same hardware available to the govt. However, I do think there is a whole lot to be said about the "well regulated" part, and I don't think that "militia" means just any d00d who wants some cool crap for his collection and for inducing high fives with his friends.
History of intention and history of practice speak to this. Because that is one of the central issue with the failure of the militia system in the US, too many dude who wanted guns and look cool (rank in local regiment) but never did anything to protect the country.
-
The murder rate has been range bound since 1900. No evidence to suggest weapons technology contributed to or detracted from the murder rate.
-
Why did these muslims choose a Christmas party to do their deed? Obama, I thought you said we should not be afraid of Muslim women entering the United States.
Who said it was a Christmas party?
-
Why did these muslims choose a Christmas party to do their deed? Obama, I thought you said we should not be afraid of Muslim women entering the United States.
Who said it was a Christmas party?
Yeah I thought Cali liberals banned Christmas in their 2014 War on Christmas Putsch
-
Why did these muslims choose a Christmas party to do their deed? Obama, I thought you said we should not be afraid of Muslim women entering the United States.
Who said it was a Christmas party?
NPR reporter said it was a Christmas party this morning.
-
Why did these muslims choose a Christmas party to do their deed? Obama, I thought you said we should not be afraid of Muslim women entering the United States.
Who said it was a Christmas party?
Holiday party.
-
Further proof we need to rewrite the constitution so gun nuts can stop hiding behind poor wording.
They're called amendments and wording isn't the issue as much as interpretation which will always change faster than the pace at which we can update the Constitution.
-
Why did these muslims choose a Christmas party to do their deed? Obama, I thought you said we should not be afraid of Muslim women entering the United States.
Who said it was a Christmas party?
Holiday party.
She specifically said "Christmas." I remember thinking that was notable. She could have been mistaken, though.
-
Not so fast my friend!
https://twitter.com/Rockprincess818/status/672433211604013057
obama should never have legalized guns.
-
Why did these muslims choose a Christmas party to do their deed? Obama, I thought you said we should not be afraid of Muslim women entering the United States.
Who said it was a Christmas party?
Holiday party.
She specifically said "Christmas." I remember thinking that was notable. She could have been mistaken, though.
CNN:
mass shooting of 14 people Wednesday during a holiday party for the San Bernardino County health department, where Farook worked, sources said.
That said, ppl call parties what they are used to associating with them. If you tell me we are having a holiday party, I will undoubtedly refer to it as a xmas party, not out of rebellion or anything, but habit of having december holiday parties called christmas parties for my three and a half decades. we call things what we are used to thinking of them as.
-
You're throwing the term "assualt rifle" around like that has any actualy meaning. It appears that you are referring to fully automatic weapons?
Yes. No need for them IMO
How many of these mass shootings have involved fully automatic high capacity weapons?
This is more what I am referring to. Semantics be damned KSU-W
but to answer the re-phrased question: 50%
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/high-capacity-magazines-mass-shootings
A 50% reduction in mass shootings would be amazing. Hell at this point I'd even take a 30% reduction since the argument is that "criminals gonna criminal"
I'm not usually one to quibble over semantics - you specifically mentioned not needing guns that can fire 700 rounds a minute, so I naturally took you to mean banning automatic rifles. That's an important point, becuase I can't actually think of a mass shooting that involved an automatic rifle. I have seen a lot of people who seem to assume that an "AR-15" means "automatic" and can spray bullets everywhere.
So anyway, if you want to talk about magazines, it is true that at least some mass shootings involved magazines that held over 10 bullets. But are you really going to tell me that those shootings wouldn't have occurred if we had a law that limited magazines to 10 bullets or less? Or that fewer people would have been shot? That's rank speculation at best. It's not hard to swap a magazine, and if you're really set on killing a bunch of people to the point where you would bring a "high capacity" magazine, I would think you could just as easily practice swapping the damned thing out. So in summary, it just seems like a rather pointless gun control measure.
I'm not interested in getting into an Edna-level slap fight over it, though.
-
4th amendment doesn't have a huge lobby that could lose a lot of money if it's changed/ignored.
this is stupid and lazy. the nra isn't a moneyed interest. they have money because gun ownership is something that is important to a relatively large number of people in this country. the money is following the opinion, not the other way around.
-
4th amendment doesn't have a huge lobby that could lose a lot of money if it's changed/ignored.
this is stupid and lazy. the nra isn't a moneyed interest. they have money because gun ownership is something that is important to a relatively large number of people in this country. the money is following the opinion, not the other way around.
the NRA receives significant funding from the firearm industry
-
Well gun manufacturers are pretty moneyed and they love the hell out of fear mongering
-
That said, ppl call parties what they are used to associating with them. If you tell me we are having a holiday party, I will undoubtedly refer to it as a xmas party, not out of rebellion or anything, but habit of having december holiday parties called christmas parties for my three and a half decades. we call things what we are used to thinking of them as.
I would add that I'm not sure you can necessarily rely upon how a journalist characterizes the party. Journalists change words all the time. Christmas becomes holiday, "illegal" immigrant becomes "undocumented," etc.
It wouldn't surprise me if at least some people in the department were calling it a Christmas Party. I suppose that might have been enough to become the target of their Jihad. But the primary motivation appears to be the Jihad itself.
-
Why did these muslims choose a Christmas party to do their deed? Obama, I thought you said we should not be afraid of Muslim women entering the United States.
Who said it was a Christmas party?
Holiday party.
That's not a Christmas party.
-
4th amendment doesn't have a huge lobby that could lose a lot of money if it's changed/ignored.
this is stupid and lazy. the nra isn't a moneyed interest. they have money because gun ownership is something that is important to a relatively large number of people in this country. the money is following the opinion, not the other way around.
the NRA receives significant funding from the firearm industry
Wonder where the firearm industry gets that money? :confused:
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html
They do their best to avoid saying it (as usual), but they were radicalized Islamic Terrorists. They'll fall all over themselves to blame it on the workplace, but they clearly had this all planned out and were just waiting for their moment.
whoever (john doug?) said yesterday that this incident was odd was right. publicity hungry lunatic murderers plan things out more than this seems to have been, disgruntled worker lunatic murderers don't go get their wife to help with the killing when they snap, islamist terrorists don't target some random building in podunkville suburbia just because it happens to have been where they were employed.
-
4th amendment doesn't have a huge lobby that could lose a lot of money if it's changed/ignored.
this is stupid and lazy. the nra isn't a moneyed interest. they have money because gun ownership is something that is important to a relatively large number of people in this country. the money is following the opinion, not the other way around.
the NRA receives significant funding from the firearm industry
Wonder where the firearm industry gets that money? :confused:
Fleecing dumbo gun nuts
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html
They do their best to avoid saying it (as usual), but they were radicalized Islamic Terrorists. They'll fall all over themselves to blame it on the workplace, but they clearly had this all planned out and were just waiting for their moment.
whoever (john doug?) said yesterday that this incident was odd was right. publicity hungry lunatic murderers plan things out more than this seems to have been, disgruntled worker lunatic murderers don't go get their wife to help with the killing when they snap, islamist terrorists don't target some random building in podunkville suburbia just because it happens to have been where they were employed.
And doing basically nothing to try and escape. Really odd all around
-
the NRA receives significant funding from the firearm industry
(https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-5fb87888cdf7f960a61eea5d55c7276f?convert_to_webp=true)
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html
They do their best to avoid saying it (as usual), but they were radicalized Islamic Terrorists. They'll fall all over themselves to blame it on the workplace, but they clearly had this all planned out and were just waiting for their moment.
whoever (john doug?) said yesterday that this incident was odd was right. publicity hungry lunatic murderers plan things out more than this seems to have been, disgruntled worker lunatic murderers don't go get their wife to help with the killing when they snap, islamist terrorists don't target some random building in podunkville suburbia just because it happens to have been where they were employed.
It would kind of make sense that this is what happened if: 1. shooter was part of an isolated cell. I have heard radio interviews where Homeland ppl say that these type of cells aren't connected to larger plans, just trained and sent out to cause an incindent to incite fear. and 2. I have also heard interviews by govt ppl saying that ISIS seems to want to plan attacks that are somewhat random seeming. They want to maximize the feeling of insecurity, and evidently feel like attacking what seems like random targets, rather than just a bunch of military/govt related stuff, would do that.
-
the NRA receives significant funding from the firearm industry
(https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-5fb87888cdf7f960a61eea5d55c7276f?convert_to_webp=true)
I assume that Smith and Wesson, etc are "members" of the NRA.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html
They do their best to avoid saying it (as usual), but they were radicalized Islamic Terrorists. They'll fall all over themselves to blame it on the workplace, but they clearly had this all planned out and were just waiting for their moment.
whoever (john doug?) said yesterday that this incident was odd was right. publicity hungry lunatic murderers plan things out more than this seems to have been, disgruntled worker lunatic murderers don't go get their wife to help with the killing when they snap, islamist terrorists don't target some random building in podunkville suburbia just because it happens to have been where they were employed.
And doing basically nothing to try and escape. Really odd all around
Why is it so odd to think that this was a combination of radical Islam-induced terrorist attack with a workplace grievance? Is that really so hard to believe?
-
Maybe I'm being hard on religion
I mean you only have the entire history of the world as evidence of the brutality of religion.
-
YES! My favorite gun control idea is regulating ammunition and not guns.
still one of the most Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) things a generally smart poster has ever posted.
-
My dad def paid more than 35 a year, he quit because it was like 500 or something
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html
They do their best to avoid saying it (as usual), but they were radicalized Islamic Terrorists. They'll fall all over themselves to blame it on the workplace, but they clearly had this all planned out and were just waiting for their moment.
whoever (john doug?) said yesterday that this incident was odd was right. publicity hungry lunatic murderers plan things out more than this seems to have been, disgruntled worker lunatic murderers don't go get their wife to help with the killing when they snap, islamist terrorists don't target some random building in podunkville suburbia just because it happens to have been where they were employed.
And doing basically nothing to try and escape. Really odd all around
Why is it so odd to think that this was a combination of radical Islam-induced terrorist attack with a workplace grievance? Is that really so hard to believe?
I believe it was totally this. Like, I am pretty 100% sure
-
can someone explain to me why the distinction between "holiday party" and "christmas party" really matters?
@sys
it appears i was mistaken -- the business insider article i read seems to have overstated the amount contributed by the firearm industry. the article from which you got your chart (quora?) estimates that roughly 13% comes from the gun industry, which isn't "nothing," but is much less than i assumed.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html
They do their best to avoid saying it (as usual), but they were radicalized Islamic Terrorists. They'll fall all over themselves to blame it on the workplace, but they clearly had this all planned out and were just waiting for their moment.
whoever (john doug?) said yesterday that this incident was odd was right. publicity hungry lunatic murderers plan things out more than this seems to have been, disgruntled worker lunatic murderers don't go get their wife to help with the killing when they snap, islamist terrorists don't target some random building in podunkville suburbia just because it happens to have been where they were employed.
And doing basically nothing to try and escape. Really odd all around
Why is it so odd to think that this was a combination of radical Islam-induced terrorist attack with a workplace grievance? Is that really so hard to believe?
I believe it was totally this. Like, I am pretty 100% sure
Well, yeah. I mean, if your plan is to shoot up a bunch of ppl to incite fear, and you find yourself working in a huge building with a bunch of ppl you hate doing a job you grew to hate, it seems like a pretty obvious solution.
-
YES! My favorite gun control idea is regulating ammunition and not guns.
still one of the most Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) things a generally smart poster has ever posted.
it's a wacky idea! guns don't kill people, bullets kill people.
-
the NRA receives significant funding from the firearm industry
(https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-5fb87888cdf7f960a61eea5d55c7276f?convert_to_webp=true)
I assume that Smith and Wesson, etc are "members" of the NRA.
The NRA has 5 million members. Membership dues are ~$35/year. I'm not mocat but the math seems to check out.
-
I assume that Smith and Wesson, etc are "members" of the NRA.
they are organizational donors.
-
can someone explain to me why the distinction between "holiday party" and "christmas party" really matters?
@sys
it appears i was mistaken -- the business insider article i read seems to have overstated the amount contributed by the firearm industry. the article from which you got your chart (quora?) estimates that roughly 13% comes from the gun industry, which isn't "nothing," but is much less than i assumed.
Holy crap! Is there a better investment return for donation dollars in any other industry? That seems about as no-brainer as it gets for manufactures.
-
My dad def paid more than 35 a year, he quit because it was like 500 or something
You can get a lifetime for $500 I bet. As long as I've been a member it's always $35/year, but they do run 2 year specials sometimes. Like 2 years for $50.
-
Why is it so odd to think that this was a combination of radical Islam-induced terrorist attack with a workplace grievance? Is that really so hard to believe?
it's not hard to believe, since it apparently just happened. it's just unusual.
-
can someone explain to me why the distinction between "holiday party" and "christmas party" really matters?
@sys
it appears i was mistaken -- the business insider article i read seems to have overstated the amount contributed by the firearm industry. the article from which you got your chart (quora?) estimates that roughly 13% comes from the gun industry, which isn't "nothing," but is much less than i assumed.
Holy crap! Is there a better investment return for donation dollars in any other industry? That seems about as no-brainer as it gets for manufactures.
You should investigate the calculated ROI on Pittman Robertson Act:
"One study showed an extremely high Return on Investment for firearm manufacturers; 823% to 1588% depending on the year.[8]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_Restoration_Act
-
5 million people holding up civilized progress. That's America tho I guess
-
It would kind of make sense that this is what happened if: 1. shooter was part of an isolated cell. I have heard radio interviews where Homeland ppl say that these type of cells aren't connected to larger plans, just trained and sent out to cause an incindent to incite fear. and 2. I have also heard interviews by govt ppl saying that ISIS seems to want to plan attacks that are somewhat random seeming. They want to maximize the feeling of insecurity, and evidently feel like attacking what seems like random targets, rather than just a bunch of military/govt related stuff, would do that.
nope, doesn't make sense. driving into la and shooting people somewhere where lots of people congregate makes sense. shooting coworkers in a conference room in some random health center in san bernadino doesn't terrify anyone out of traveling, using mass transit, taking a vacation to an urban center, going to restaurants, sports events, concerts, etc.
-
5 million people holding up civilized progress. That's America tho I guess
i admire them so much.
-
can someone explain to me why the distinction between "holiday party" and "christmas party" really matters?
@sys
it appears i was mistaken -- the business insider article i read seems to have overstated the amount contributed by the firearm industry. the article from which you got your chart (quora?) estimates that roughly 13% comes from the gun industry, which isn't "nothing," but is much less than i assumed.
because it can add to the narrative that Christians are under attack or a target in America
-
It would kind of make sense that this is what happened if: 1. shooter was part of an isolated cell. I have heard radio interviews where Homeland ppl say that these type of cells aren't connected to larger plans, just trained and sent out to cause an incindent to incite fear. and 2. I have also heard interviews by govt ppl saying that ISIS seems to want to plan attacks that are somewhat random seeming. They want to maximize the feeling of insecurity, and evidently feel like attacking what seems like random targets, rather than just a bunch of military/govt related stuff, would do that.
nope, doesn't make sense. driving into la and shooting people somewhere where lots of people congregate makes sense. shooting coworkers in a conference room in some random health center in san bernadino doesn't terrify anyone out of traveling, using mass transit, taking a vacation to an urban center, going to restaurants, sports events, concerts, etc.
It made me question the dude I've seen in the parking lot praying in the rain.
-
Splitting hairs, sys
-
Splitting hairs, sys
not at all. the reason paris got 20x more attention than san bernadino is not the body count. it's paris v san bernadino.
-
It would kind of make sense that this is what happened if: 1. shooter was part of an isolated cell. I have heard radio interviews where Homeland ppl say that these type of cells aren't connected to larger plans, just trained and sent out to cause an incindent to incite fear. and 2. I have also heard interviews by govt ppl saying that ISIS seems to want to plan attacks that are somewhat random seeming. They want to maximize the feeling of insecurity, and evidently feel like attacking what seems like random targets, rather than just a bunch of military/govt related stuff, would do that.
nope, doesn't make sense. driving into la and shooting people somewhere where lots of people congregate makes sense. shooting coworkers in a conference room in some random health center in san bernadino doesn't terrify anyone out of traveling, using mass transit, taking a vacation to an urban center, going to restaurants, sports events, concerts, etc.
But human nature kicks in. This guy was some broke dik weirdo who couldn't help himself and when he decided it was time to go out, he wanted to crack at Chris in HR who wouldn't give him time off to go snow boarding with his buddies even though it didn't exert max public terror.
-
It would kind of make sense that this is what happened if: 1. shooter was part of an isolated cell. I have heard radio interviews where Homeland ppl say that these type of cells aren't connected to larger plans, just trained and sent out to cause an incindent to incite fear. and 2. I have also heard interviews by govt ppl saying that ISIS seems to want to plan attacks that are somewhat random seeming. They want to maximize the feeling of insecurity, and evidently feel like attacking what seems like random targets, rather than just a bunch of military/govt related stuff, would do that.
nope, doesn't make sense. driving into la and shooting people somewhere where lots of people congregate makes sense. shooting coworkers in a conference room in some random health center in san bernadino doesn't terrify anyone out of traveling, using mass transit, taking a vacation to an urban center, going to restaurants, sports events, concerts, etc.
It sends a message that you're not safe anywhere - even "boring" places. That seems like a pretty good terrorist objective (plus, you get to kill a buncha coworkers you probably don't like in your shitty low-paying government job).
-
Two birds, one crazy stone
-
The thing that's so extra mumped up about this shooting is these people deliberately orphaning their own child. How mumped up is that? I mean, if you've got kids, shouldn't you at least flip a coin to decide which parent stays behind for the kids? Or if you really want to Jihad with your loved one, don't you at least wait until the kids are off to college?
-
I think mental illness may have been a factor in addition to everything already mentioned.
-
It sends a message that you're not safe anywhere - even "boring" places. That seems like a pretty good terrorist objective (plus, you get to kill a buncha coworkers you probably don't like in your shitty low-paying government job).
i'm at work right now. not even the slightest bit terrified.
i'll be in paris in a couple months. i don't know for sure, but i expect that i'll be a little more on edge than i would have been otherwise. i'm also almost sure that enhanced security will negatively impact my enjoyment of my time there.
-
I think mental illness may have been a factor in addition to everything already mentioned.
Only applies to whites
-
The thing that's so extra mumped up about this shooting is these people deliberately orphaning their own child. How mumped up is that? I mean, if you've got kids, shouldn't you at least flip a coin to decide which parent stays behind for the kids? Or if you really want to Jihad with your loved one, don't you at least wait until the kids are off to college?
I bet these people were the ones I learned about in the Kids thread that thought they were great parents. Or they didnt' want to have kids and ended up hating it. Something like that. So really three birds.
-
It sends a message that you're not safe anywhere - even "boring" places. That seems like a pretty good terrorist objective (plus, you get to kill a buncha coworkers you probably don't like in your shitty low-paying government job).
i'm at work right now. not even the slightest bit terrified.
i'll be in paris in a couple months. i don't know for sure, but i expect that i'll be a little more on edge than i would have been otherwise. i'm also almost sure that enhanced security will negatively impact my enjoyment of my time there.
That's how you fanning brag your trip to Paris folks.
-
can someone explain to me why the distinction between "holiday party" and "christmas party" really matters?
@sys
it appears i was mistaken -- the business insider article i read seems to have overstated the amount contributed by the firearm industry. the article from which you got your chart (quora?) estimates that roughly 13% comes from the gun industry, which isn't "nothing," but is much less than i assumed.
because it can add to the narrative that Christians are under attack or a target in America
maybe i'm not a "holiday party" expert, but i always assumed that among the "holidays" being celebrated were judeo christian holidays, in addition to more secular ones.
-
i'm at work right now. not even the slightest bit terrified.
i'll be in paris in a couple months. i don't know for sure, but i expect that i'll be a little more on edge than i would have been otherwise. i'm also almost sure that enhanced security will negatively impact my enjoyment of my time there.
That's how you fanning brag your trip to Paris folks.
:blush:
-
can someone explain to me why the distinction between "holiday party" and "christmas party" really matters?
@sys
it appears i was mistaken -- the business insider article i read seems to have overstated the amount contributed by the firearm industry. the article from which you got your chart (quora?) estimates that roughly 13% comes from the gun industry, which isn't "nothing," but is much less than i assumed.
because it can add to the narrative that Christians are under attack or a target in America
maybe i'm not a "holiday party" expert, but i always assumed that among the "holidays" being celebrated were judeo christian holidays, in addition to more secular ones.
Not quite what I mean. We all agree that Holiday et al usually includes Christmas. But look at the "war on Christians" narrative, even what we see here, and the fear/desire is that Christians are being persecuted because of their faith or that in general america is turning anti-Christian. Starbucks cups, nativity displays at town hall, Christmas tress, etc etc. Hell you see an outcropping of this theory when people complain about the number of Christians coming in from Syrian refugees being disproportionately low, ergo an example of discrimination against Christians. For the narrative to "work" these Christians have to be under threat from the state and external forces, whether Starbucks or retailers, having terrorists target something specifically Christmas....oh man that would make their day.
-
4th amendment doesn't have a huge lobby that could lose a lot of money if it's changed/ignored.
this is stupid and lazy. the nra isn't a moneyed interest. they have money because gun ownership is something that is important to a relatively large number of people in this country. the money is following the opinion, not the other way around.
You are absolutely right that gun owners' opinions are very important (and the driving force), but it's extremely naive to think the NRA is not influenced by manufacturers interested in protecting sales.
Regardless, the reason people aren't as passionate about the 4th amendment as they are the 2nd is because of a shiny toy being sold.
-
Only the lower half of the low-mediums think there is a war on Christmas
-
4th amendment doesn't have a huge lobby that could lose a lot of money if it's changed/ignored.
this is stupid and lazy. the nra isn't a moneyed interest. they have money because gun ownership is something that is important to a relatively large number of people in this country. the money is following the opinion, not the other way around.
You are absolutely right that gun owners' opinions are very important (and the driving force), but it's extremely naive to think the NRA is not influenced by manufacturers interested in protecting sales.
Regardless, the reason people aren't as passionate about the 4th amendment as they are the 2nd is because of a shiny toy being sold.
plus people really don't give a crap about the 4th amendment (but it's one of my favorites!).
-
4th amendment doesn't have a huge lobby that could lose a lot of money if it's changed/ignored.
this is stupid and lazy. the nra isn't a moneyed interest. they have money because gun ownership is something that is important to a relatively large number of people in this country. the money is following the opinion, not the other way around.
You are absolutely right that gun owners' opinions are very important (and the driving force), but it's extremely naive to think the NRA is not influenced by manufacturers interested in protecting sales.
Regardless, the reason people aren't as passionate about the 4th amendment as they are the 2nd is because of a shiny toy being sold.
Sales of guns to NRA members who very much want those guns and that's why they are buying them. No matter where the money is coming from (and it's the gun owner, to be clear), the NRA is ultimately protecting the interests of the gun owners.
-
4th amendment doesn't have a huge lobby that could lose a lot of money if it's changed/ignored.
this is stupid and lazy. the nra isn't a moneyed interest. they have money because gun ownership is something that is important to a relatively large number of people in this country. the money is following the opinion, not the other way around.
You are absolutely right that gun owners' opinions are very important (and the driving force), but it's extremely naive to think the NRA is not influenced by manufacturers interested in protecting sales.
Regardless, the reason people aren't as passionate about the 4th amendment as they are the 2nd is because of a shiny toy being sold.
Sales of guns to NRA members who very much want those guns and that's why they are buying them. No matter where the money is coming from (and it's the gun owner, to be clear), the NRA is ultimately protecting the interests of the gun owners.
yeah no crap
-
Well, what gun owners think is their best interests (they are wrong)
-
Well, what gun owners think is their best interests (they are wrong)
do you know what's in their best interest?
-
Well, what gun owners think is their best interests (they are wrong)
do you know what's in their best interest?
Liberals love to tell others, and force unto them, what they believe is in their best interests.
-
The NRA does not speak for me or my interests. The national NRA is working against the long term safety of gun rights in this country.
-
I'm thinking about buying a gun. What's the best gun for home protection?
-
The NRA does not speak for me or my interests. The national NRA is working against the long term safety of gun rights in this country.
how, exactly? i'm guessing that this is because you think mass shootings are going to become more frequent or more bloody or both, and that the policies the NRA supports will make these possible, and because of that, there will eventually be enough public/congressional backlash against guns that a relatively stricter gun law will eventually get passed rather than if the NRA just compromises right now?
that's possible, but it's also supposing quite a bit.
-
yeah no crap
in your original statement, i read the implication that the money was either manipulating the opinion of the gun-owning masses or manipulating the actions of the elected representatives of those masses in a way that is not aligned with the opinion of the masses. otherwise why bring up "money"?
i do not think either of those things is true, btw.
-
Well, what gun owners think is their best interests (they are wrong)
gmafb.
-
I'm thinking about buying a gun. What's the best gun for home protection?
I had some punk ass kids knocking on my windows in the middle of the night and scaring me 3/4 to death. I looked into guns for house protection and you definitely need to consider the S&W 500. You can shoot this bad boy through the wall, no need to go outside or open a window, and easily patch up the holes later. Be sure to drag any bodies into the house tho.
-
The NRA does not speak for me or my interests. The national NRA is working against the long term safety of gun rights in this country.
how, exactly? i'm guessing that this is because you think mass shootings are going to become more frequent or more bloody or both, and that the policies the NRA supports will make these possible, and because of that, there will eventually be enough public/congressional backlash against guns that a relatively stricter gun law will eventually get passed rather than if the NRA just compromises right now?
that's supposing quite a bit.
Not quite. The second half is kinda right. It won't be so much backlash from congress as middle America. There are already enough people ignorant about things like "assault weapons" that allowed them to get banned. I think that the current extremism will alienate enough moderates (and to some degree people like me) and allow for extreme gun regulators to take office. It won't take more mass shootings, but more lack of empathy, reasonable regulation (mental health, collaboration with terror watch lists) that will push moderates away from 2A's most ardent supporters. The issue isn't about "compromise" as framed, but a partnership in reasonable solutions. I mean the NRA works against the NIH even studying gun violence one of the most reasonable steps to finding a solution (scientific study).
-
I think mental illness may have been a factor in addition to everything already mentioned.
Only applies to whites
I think true mental illness can be crossed off since it was 2+ people. Mental illness doesn't really rub off on your spouse/others.
-
yeah no crap
in your original statement, i read the implication that the money was either manipulating the opinion of the gun-owning masses or manipulating the actions of the elected representatives of those masses in a way that is not aligned with the opinion of the masses. otherwise why bring up "money"?
i do not think either of those things is true, btw.
You read more into my original statement than was there. All I implied was there are people that have a financial interest in protecting the 2nd amendment, but not really with a financial interest in protecting the 4th. Do you disagree with that?
Anything else, you filled in.
-
You read more into my original statement than was there. All I implied was there are people that have a financial interest in protecting the 2nd amendment, but not really with a financial interest in protecting the 4th. Do you disagree with that?
i disagree with the notion that the fact that there are entities with a financial interest is meaningful. the larger number of individuals that place great importance on exercising their second amendment rights compared to the number of individuals that highly value their fourth amendment rights is what matters.
-
You read more into my original statement than was there. All I implied was there are people that have a financial interest in protecting the 2nd amendment, but not really with a financial interest in protecting the 4th. Do you disagree with that?
i disagree with the notion that the fact that there are entities with a financial interest is meaningful.
Agree to disagree
-
the money is minuscule in comparison to the number of votes.
-
the money is minuscule in comparison to the number of votes.
I think the NRA does a good job of using money to round up votes by scaring people into thinking Obummer is taking away their guns.
-
the money is minuscule in comparison to the number of votes.
Right. And voters have never been influenced by advertising and propoganda. It's not an either-or situation.
-
i'm sure it's a virtuous cycle, but i think membership interests drive the nra much more than the nra drives the interest of members.
-
the money is minuscule in comparison to the number of votes.
I think the NRA does a good job of using money to round up votes by scaring people into thinking Obummer is taking away their guns.
It's a bit of a feedback loop.
-
At some poing, who knows how long from now, the support for gun control will be too great and refusing to budge an inch while mass shootings happen daily will cost them a lot more than compromise will.
-
Well, what gun owners think is their best interests (they are wrong)
do you know what's in their best interest?
There's a huge difference between best interests and and desires. I personally don't think nra member's desires are in the country's (and by proxy the members) best interests
-
the interests of an individual are almost always quite divergent from the interests of a country.
-
What SOME people don't get is that ASSAULT WEAPONS are defined by legislators.
Thus "ASSAULT WEAPONS" as defined by California legislators are banned for sale in California.
What SOME people don't seem to get is that these so called loophole weapons aren't much different than a typical traditional semi-auto rifle.
-
Will OP change the thread title to 2, or nah?
-
I'm thinking about buying a gun. What's the best gun for home protection?
I had some punk ass kids knocking on my windows in the middle of the night and scaring me 3/4 to death. I looked into guns for house protection and you definitely need to consider the S&W 500. You can shoot this bad boy through the wall, no need to go outside or open a window, and easily patch up the holes later. Be sure to drag any bodies into the house tho.
I'd prefer to scare or injure someone instead of actually killing someone. Do they make a shotgun pistol?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Will OP change the thread title to 2, or nah?
Let's make it 2 Muslim shooters. Or maybe just merge this into the Sensible Muslims thread. The whole exercise has been pretty instructive.
-
ksuw gets so happy when muslims kill people.
sleeper cell? :dunno:
-
was ksuw one of the thousands trump saw in jersey celebrating? :dunno:
-
I'm thinking about buying a gun. What's the best gun for home protection?
I had some punk ass kids knocking on my windows in the middle of the night and scaring me 3/4 to death. I looked into guns for house protection and you definitely need to consider the S&W 500. You can shoot this bad boy through the wall, no need to go outside or open a window, and easily patch up the holes later. Be sure to drag any bodies into the house tho.
I'd prefer to scare or injure someone instead of actually killing someone. Do they make a shotgun pistol?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Judge
-
Would ya look at CPLJB protecten and deflectin
-
is CPLJB me?
-
Maybe
-
The gun control people are incredibly naive and stupid.
-
Maybe
just seen you throw it around a lot lately, but have no idea what you're trying to say :shakesfist:
-
Good lord!
OK...let's put this in more comprehensive terms.
Gun control as a solution to a problem...
Problem: I want to stop another human from breathing. He wants to breathe. I close his mouth with my hand and stop him from taking in air.
What does he do?
He finds a way - ANY WAY - to get air into his lungs.
He will resist your grip, spin away, become aggressive himself to the point of risking his very life...each with greater and more aggressive force until he achieves his goal of breathing again.
You will not stop the right we all have to keep and bear arms.
Solve the problem at the source...the enemy.
-
So kill gun manufacturers?
-
Love the drama about keeping rights from the pubs that all think it great that all our calls and emails can be intercepted without warrants.
-
Love the drama about keeping rights from the pubs that all think it great that all our calls and emails can be intercepted without warrants.
Gotta stop the terrorists!
-
Love the drama about keeping rights from the pubs that all think it great that all our calls and emails can be intercepted without warrants.
I don't think you can say shitting on the fourth amendment is a partisan thing at this point.
-
Can we update the title of this thread?!
-
Love the drama about keeping rights from the pubs that all think it great that all our calls and emails can be intercepted without warrants.
I don't think you can say shitting on the fourth amendment is a partisan thing at this point.
True dat.
-
Not sure if this has already been mentioned, but for all the talk about the need for more "gun control" (as yet unspecified except for limiting magazine capacity, which seems pretty stupid, as confiscating guns, which will never happen), gun crimes are actually down significantly.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/?tid=sm_tw (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/?tid=sm_tw)
The only gun crimes that seem to be up are these mass-shooting events. Again, I have yet to hear any gun control measures proposed that would actually reduce this from happening (short of confiscating all guns, which will never happen). It sounds like we'd be better off finding ways to enhance our crazy control and terrorist control.
-
Did anyone talk about how the guns were illegal? 96.5 the buzz was pretty great this morning, because unlike lib^7, they were able to own up to their dumbassery.
-
Love the drama about keeping rights from the pubs that all think it great that all our calls and emails can be intercepted without warrants.
Also incongruent with the leftist global warming agenda, as every lost life reduces our country's carbon footprint
-
I don't want to shoot anyone but I've always wanted to pistol whip the crap out of someone.
-
this thread got stupid quick.
-
Did anyone talk about how the guns were illegal? 96.5 the buzz was pretty great this morning, because unlike lib^7, they were able to own up to their dumbassery.
In what way were they illegal?
-
Not sure if this has already been mentioned, but for all the talk about the need for more "gun control" (as yet unspecified except for limiting magazine capacity, which seems pretty stupid, as confiscating guns, which will never happen), gun crimes are actually down significantly.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/?tid=sm_tw (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/?tid=sm_tw)
The only gun crimes that seem to be up are these mass-shooting events. Again, I have yet to hear any gun control measures proposed that would actually reduce this from happening (short of confiscating all guns, which will never happen). It sounds like we'd be better off finding ways to enhance our crazy control and terrorist control.
Did you miss the graphic I posted where the murder rate in the US is literally less than half of what it was in both the early 80's and 90's? Not sure exactly, but I would guess the gun murders trend similarly. Here it is again:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.deathpenaltyinfo.org%2Fimages%2Fmurderrate.png&hash=eaa632ee02847322872c8bc29fb33b238b83b288)
-
Did anyone talk about how the guns were illegal? 96.5 the buzz was pretty great this morning, because unlike lib^7, they were able to own up to their dumbassery.
In what way were they illegal?
I read last night they were all obtained legally. Maybe they made illegal modifications?
-
Not sure if this has already been mentioned, but for all the talk about the need for more "gun control" (as yet unspecified except for limiting magazine capacity, which seems pretty stupid, as confiscating guns, which will never happen), gun crimes are actually down significantly.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/?tid=sm_tw (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/?tid=sm_tw)
The only gun crimes that seem to be up are these mass-shooting events. Again, I have yet to hear any gun control measures proposed that would actually reduce this from happening (short of confiscating all guns, which will never happen). It sounds like we'd be better off finding ways to enhance our crazy control and terrorist control.
Did you miss the graphic I posted where the murder rate in the US is literally less than half of what it was in both the early 80's and 90's? Not sure exactly, but I would guess the gun murders trend similarly. Here it is again:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.deathpenaltyinfo.org%2Fimages%2Fmurderrate.png&hash=eaa632ee02847322872c8bc29fb33b238b83b288)
largest period of decline.....AWB :sdeek: :sdeek: :sdeek: :sdeek: :sdeek: :sdeek: :sdeek:
-
Average White Band?
-
Not sure if this has already been mentioned, but for all the talk about the need for more "gun control" (as yet unspecified except for limiting magazine capacity, which seems pretty stupid, as confiscating guns, which will never happen), gun crimes are actually down significantly.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/?tid=sm_tw (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/?tid=sm_tw)
The only gun crimes that seem to be up are these mass-shooting events. Again, I have yet to hear any gun control measures proposed that would actually reduce this from happening (short of confiscating all guns, which will never happen). It sounds like we'd be better off finding ways to enhance our crazy control and terrorist control.
Did you miss the graphic I posted where the murder rate in the US is literally less than half of what it was in both the early 80's and 90's? Not sure exactly, but I would guess the gun murders trend similarly. Here it is again:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.deathpenaltyinfo.org%2Fimages%2Fmurderrate.png&hash=eaa632ee02847322872c8bc29fb33b238b83b288)
Struggling to find the relevance
-
Struggling to find the relevance
My point is that I think we are not doing nearly as bad in reducing violence as we are being made to feel like. I also don't believe that gun control laws are going to meaningfully reduce instances of planned terrorist or crazy person mass violence, so I think we should direct our attention towards reducing terrorists and crazy people trying to shoot (or blow) places up.
-
too bad we can't do both
-
Struggling to find the relevance
My point is that I think we are not doing nearly as bad in reducing violence as we are being made to feel like. I also don't believe that gun control laws are going to meaningfully reduce instances of planned terrorist or crazy person mass violence, so I think we should direct our attention towards reducing terrorists and crazy people trying to shoot (or blow) places up.
I think the murder rate has gone down because the crack wars of the inner cities have subsided. I still think there can be more done to restrict the ability of a psycho to unload 80 rounds on a gathering of unarmed people.
-
Struggling to find the relevance
My point is that I think we are not doing nearly as bad in reducing violence as we are being made to feel like. I also don't believe that gun control laws are going to meaningfully reduce instances of planned terrorist or crazy person mass violence, so I think we should direct our attention towards reducing terrorists and crazy people trying to shoot (or blow) places up.
Also, gun ownership continues to increase. More guns, and yet less gun crimes. Whether that is causation or correlation doesn't really matter - but it does call into question the demands for "more gun control."
Buy all the revolvers you want. Literally. they should and will always to continue to be legal.
-
Struggling to find the relevance
My point is that I think we are not doing nearly as bad in reducing violence as we are being made to feel like. I also don't believe that gun control laws are going to meaningfully reduce instances of planned terrorist or crazy person mass violence, so I think we should direct our attention towards reducing terrorists and crazy people trying to shoot (or blow) places up.
I think the murder rate has gone down because the crack wars of the inner cities have subsided. I still think there can be more done to restrict the ability of a psycho to unload 80 rounds on a gathering of unarmed people.
ATF Form 4473 already asks if purchaser is addicted to drugs, is mentally defective, etc.
-
Buy all the revolvers you want. Literally. they should and will always to continue to be legal.
So six bullets in a revolver is Ok, but 12 in a magazine isn't?
-
mocat back me up, but i believe that's literally twice as many :dunno:
-
Struggling to find the relevance
My point is that I think we are not doing nearly as bad in reducing violence as we are being made to feel like. I also don't believe that gun control laws are going to meaningfully reduce instances of planned terrorist or crazy person mass violence, so I think we should direct our attention towards reducing terrorists and crazy people trying to shoot (or blow) places up.
Also, gun ownership continues to increase. More guns, and yet less gun crimes. Whether that is causation or correlation doesn't really matter - but it does call into question the demands for "more gun control."
Buy all the revolvers you want. Literally. they should and will always to continue to be legal.
Handguns account for like 99% of shootings in the country, so this seems like an odd stance.
-
mocat back me up, but i believe that's literally twice as many :dunno:
I guess it takes longer to reload a revolver than swapping out a magazine. I'll grant you that.
-
Love the drama about keeping rights from the pubs that all think it great that all our calls and emails can be intercepted without warrants.
I don't think you can say shitting on the fourth amendment is a partisan thing at this point.
I'm not. I am saying it's silly that we get some life or death breathing story dramatized to relate to the gun debate, but nothing of the sort on privacy.
-
Love the drama about keeping rights from the pubs that all think it great that all our calls and emails can be intercepted without warrants.
I don't think you can say shitting on the fourth amendment is a partisan thing at this point.
I'm not. I am saying it's silly that we get some life or death breathing story dramatized to relate to the gun debate, but nothing of the sort on privacy.
I still don't really see your point. Is the left not passionate about certain rights? Are they not hypocritical when they "dramatize" the issue they're passionate about when they're relatively silent on 4th Amendment issues?
-
Struggling to find the relevance
My point is that I think we are not doing nearly as bad in reducing violence as we are being made to feel like. I also don't believe that gun control laws are going to meaningfully reduce instances of planned terrorist or crazy person mass violence, so I think we should direct our attention towards reducing terrorists and crazy people trying to shoot (or blow) places up.
This is a great post, he's still not going to find relevance tho. :frown:
-
Love the drama about keeping rights from the pubs that all think it great that all our calls and emails can be intercepted without warrants.
I don't think you can say shitting on the fourth amendment is a partisan thing at this point.
I'm not. I am saying it's silly that we get some life or death breathing story dramatized to relate to the gun debate, but nothing of the sort on privacy.
I still don't really see your point. Is the left not passionate about certain rights? Are they not hypocritical when they "dramatize" the issue they're passionate about when they're relatively silent on 4th Amendment issues?
I just find their passion about guns silly when the very reason they say they want to have them is to protect their rights, yet, rights are being stripped away and it just is what it is to them. I am not condoning violence, but it seems like those who want the ability to prevent the loss of rights, through gun related means, would maybe care about that. If they don't why is it so important to have the guns?
Also, yes. Hypocrites are hypocrites regardless of the issue. Again, it's just silly to me that someone wants the means to protect their rights yet here we are.
-
Fair enough. That makes sense. Although I don't think every person advocating for gun rights does so in anticipation of needing a gun to fight the government.
-
Struggling to find the relevance
My point is that I think we are not doing nearly as bad in reducing violence as we are being made to feel like. I also don't believe that gun control laws are going to meaningfully reduce instances of planned terrorist or crazy person mass violence, so I think we should direct our attention towards reducing terrorists and crazy people trying to shoot (or blow) places up.
Also, gun ownership continues to increase. More guns, and yet less gun crimes. Whether that is causation or correlation doesn't really matter - but it does call into question the demands for "more gun control."
Buy all the revolvers you want. Literally. they should and will always to continue to be legal.
Handguns account for like 99% of shootings in the country, so this seems like an odd stance.
Usually between people who know each other. I doubt those can be prevented short of "don't hang out with people who have lots of handguns or your odds of being shot with a handgun go up"
It is a stance based on compromise. You should get totally used to it, or you will get a musket.
-
Fair enough. That makes sense. Although I don't think every person advocating for gun rights does so in anticipation of needing a gun to fight the government.
Don't tell them that. they are totally ready to take on uncle sam.
-
Fair enough. That makes sense. Although I don't think every person advocating for gun rights does so in anticipation of needing a gun to fight the government.
If that isn't the right they are invoking the 2nd amendment for, then they are arguing their point dishonestly. Nowhere is the right to be a sport hunter or target practice aficionado protected.
-
Fair enough. That makes sense. Although I don't think every person advocating for gun rights does so in anticipation of needing a gun to fight the government.
If that isn't the right they are invoking the 2nd amendment for, then they are arguing their point dishonestly. Nowhere is the right to be a sport hunter or target practice aficionado protected.
Not at the federal level, but some states have guaranteed the right to hunt.
Anyway I see your argument as deflecting. If you want to talk 4th Amendment start a new thread.
-
Fair enough. That makes sense. Although I don't think every person advocating for gun rights does so in anticipation of needing a gun to fight the government.
If that isn't the right they are invoking the 2nd amendment for, then they are arguing their point dishonestly. Nowhere is the right to be a sport hunter or target practice aficionado protected.
Not at the federal level, but some states have guaranteed the right to hunt.
Anyway I see your argument as deflecting. If you want to talk 4th Amendment start a new thread.
If what I did was deflecting, something like 2/3rds of this thread needs mod attention.
-
I would probably be okay with repealing all gun laws if we also repealed the patriot act and any other 4th amendment restrictions.
-
Fair enough. That makes sense. Although I don't think every person advocating for gun rights does so in anticipation of needing a gun to fight the government.
If that isn't the right they are invoking the 2nd amendment for, then they are arguing their point dishonestly. Nowhere is the right to be a sport hunter or target practice aficionado protected.
Not at the federal level, but some states have guaranteed the right to hunt.
Anyway I see your argument as deflecting. If you want to talk 4th Amendment start a new thread.
he's talking about the bill of rights, which is relevant even if you can't grasp it's relevance.
-
Welp.
NYT saying the "woman who helped carry out the shooting....had pledged allegiance to the Islamic state in a facebook posting..."
-
Fair enough. That makes sense. Although I don't think every person advocating for gun rights does so in anticipation of needing a gun to fight the government.
If that isn't the right they are invoking the 2nd amendment for, then they are arguing their point dishonestly. Nowhere is the right to be a sport hunter or target practice aficionado protected.
Not at the federal level, but some states have guaranteed the right to hunt.
Anyway I see your argument as deflecting. If you want to talk 4th Amendment start a new thread.
he's talking about the bill of rights, which is relevant even if you can't grasp it's relevance.
He said "no where." I corrected him. The 10th Amendment protects the rights of the states to do what they see fit. So it is relevant.
-
Well, as long as we are protecting the 10th amendment, I am fine with bastardizing the second amendment. Trap shoot away.
-
Fair enough. That makes sense. Although I don't think every person advocating for gun rights does so in anticipation of needing a gun to fight the government.
If that isn't the right they are invoking the 2nd amendment for, then they are arguing their point dishonestly. Nowhere is the right to be a sport hunter or target practice aficionado protected.
Not at the federal level, but some states have guaranteed the right to hunt.
Anyway I see your argument as deflecting. If you want to talk 4th Amendment start a new thread.
he's talking about the bill of rights, which is relevant even if you can't grasp it's relevance.
He said "no where." I corrected him. The 10th Amendment protects the rights of the states to do what they see fit. So it is relevant.
Thank God for the commerce clause!!!
-
Not sure CNS knows how the 10th Amendment works. :dubious:
-
Not sure CNS knows how the 10th Amendment works. :dubious:
If you pay attention to how it works, 10th amendment is pretty weak. Even originalists would argue that is how it is in practice today, they just want to change that.
-
Not sure CNS knows how the 10th Amendment works. :dubious:
No, I get it, but it doesn't change the fact that arguing for a 2nd amendment(right to hold arms as means of defending your liberty against the government ever trying to take it away) is stupid if you aren't arguing for the 2nd amendment(I really want to hunt, you guys!) and are in fact arguing for the states rights to let hunters hunt with guns.
If a person's position is the latter, then that person should probably shut the eff up about the second amendment and argue that the 10th gives the state they reside in the right to let them have hunting gear.
-
Welp! (not sure if luked)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/us/tashfeen-malik-islamic-state.html?_r=1
-
But the Pres was still playing the 50/50 card this morning. What a putz
-
this "support all the amendments or none or you're a hypocrite" argument is mindblowingly Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). good lord.
-
Holy crap! http://www.cbsnews.com/live/
-
https://twitter.com/KWCHJenn/status/672832046201331713
-
Not sure CNS knows how the 10th Amendment works. :dubious:
No, I get it, but it doesn't change the fact that arguing for a 2nd amendment(right to hold arms as means of defending your liberty against the government ever trying to take it away) is stupid if you aren't arguing for the 2nd amendment(I really want to hunt, you guys!) and are in fact arguing for the states rights to let hunters hunt with guns.
If a person's position is the latter, then that person should probably shut the eff up about the second amendment and argue that the 10th gives the state they reside in the right to let them have hunting gear.
well, the second amendment allows people to own guns. your notion that the second amendment provides the right to bear arms only for one specific purpose (defending against governmental tyranny) is inconsistent with the supreme court's interpretation of the second amendment. (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf); https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller) )
so it makes perfect sense that people wanting to use guns for other lawful purposes (self defense, hunting, etc.) would champion the right that allows them to own a gun.
-
USSC is always right
-
USSC is always right
i'm not saying they're always right, but i'm saying that right now, that's the law re. the second amendment, and so right now, it's not even slightly odd that people wanting to hunt value the second amendment
-
Welp.
NYT saying the "woman who helped carry out the shooting....had pledged allegiance to the Islamic state in a facebook posting..."
could you please link me
-
https://twitter.com/KWCHJenn/status/672832046201331713
what did I miss
-
Welp.
NYT saying the "woman who helped carry out the shooting....had pledged allegiance to the Islamic state in a facebook posting..."
could you please link me
www.dhs.gov
Probably won't find it at libragforlibtards.com, so you'll here to broaden your horizons.
-
Welp.
NYT saying the "woman who helped carry out the shooting....had pledged allegiance to the Islamic state in a facebook posting..."
could you please link me
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html)
-
https://twitter.com/KWCHJenn/status/672832046201331713
what did I miss
Just msnbc live airing unredacted copies of the DL and SS card of the shooter's mom.
-
https://twitter.com/KWCHJenn/status/672832046201331713
what did I miss
Just msnbc live airing unredacted copies of the DL and SS card of the shooter's mom.
Why would CBS show MSNBC? Either way, what the eff? When did American media become so gross?
-
http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2015/12/a-41-year-old-magazine-cover-resonant-today/418725/
-
https://twitter.com/KWCHJenn/status/672832046201331713
what did I miss
Just msnbc live airing unredacted copies of the DL and SS card of the shooter's mom.
Why would CBS show MSNBC? Either way, what the eff? When did American media become so gross?
I'm sure media matters will be all over it
-
Disgusting
-
http://mashable.com/2015/12/04/san-bernardino-shooters-apartment-journalists/#tUns.BWCNgqH
Ugh, get mumped, all of you
-
Not sure CNS knows how the 10th Amendment works. :dubious:
No, I get it, but it doesn't change the fact that arguing for a 2nd amendment(right to hold arms as means of defending your liberty against the government ever trying to take it away) is stupid if you aren't arguing for the 2nd amendment(I really want to hunt, you guys!) and are in fact arguing for the states rights to let hunters hunt with guns.
If a person's position is the latter, then that person should probably shut the eff up about the second amendment and argue that the 10th gives the state they reside in the right to let them have hunting gear.
It's not stupid. It's efficient and effective.
You know what's stupid? Making this a gun control issue when this is clearly a radical muslim issue.
-
Not sure CNS knows how the 10th Amendment works. :dubious:
No, I get it, but it doesn't change the fact that arguing for a 2nd amendment(right to hold arms as means of defending your liberty against the government ever trying to take it away) is stupid if you aren't arguing for the 2nd amendment(I really want to hunt, you guys!) and are in fact arguing for the states rights to let hunters hunt with guns.
If a person's position is the latter, then that person should probably shut the eff up about the second amendment and argue that the 10th gives the state they reside in the right to let them have hunting gear.
It's not stupid. It's efficient and effective.
You know what's stupid? Making this a gun control issue when this is clearly a radical muslim issue.
How many of the nation's mass shootings this year we're done by radical muslims? There was one in georgia like an hour before the one in California, was that a radical muslim issue?
-
Not sure CNS knows how the 10th Amendment works. :dubious:
No, I get it, but it doesn't change the fact that arguing for a 2nd amendment(right to hold arms as means of defending your liberty against the government ever trying to take it away) is stupid if you aren't arguing for the 2nd amendment(I really want to hunt, you guys!) and are in fact arguing for the states rights to let hunters hunt with guns.
If a person's position is the latter, then that person should probably shut the eff up about the second amendment and argue that the 10th gives the state they reside in the right to let them have hunting gear.
It's not stupid. It's efficient and effective.
You know what's stupid? Making this a gun control issue when this is clearly a radical muslim issue.
How many of the nation's mass shootings this year we're done by radical muslims? There was one in georgia like an hour before the one in California, was that a radical muslim issue?
Hadn't heard of that one. There have been so many since Obama has taken office.
-
LOL, yeah I guess all of his crippling gun control legislation we're always hearing so much about isn't working. OBUMMERMONKEY'S TAKIN OUR GUNS AND FAT MOOCHELLE IS TAKING OUR SODE POP.
-
Dude, you have serious issues. You should chill out.
-
I think CNS has some really good points if you ignore 225 years worth of jurisprudence. Just what did the founders intend??? This question continues to plague legal scholars today.
-
Not sure CNS knows how the 10th Amendment works. :dubious:
No, I get it, but it doesn't change the fact that arguing for a 2nd amendment(right to hold arms as means of defending your liberty against the government ever trying to take it away) is stupid if you aren't arguing for the 2nd amendment(I really want to hunt, you guys!) and are in fact arguing for the states rights to let hunters hunt with guns.
If a person's position is the latter, then that person should probably shut the eff up about the second amendment and argue that the 10th gives the state they reside in the right to let them have hunting gear.
It's not stupid. It's efficient and effective.
You know what's stupid? Making this a gun control issue when this is clearly a radical muslim issue.
Was Roof a radical Muslim, What about Dear? Most mass shooting aren't done by radical Muslims.
-
Not sure CNS knows how the 10th Amendment works. :dubious:
No, I get it, but it doesn't change the fact that arguing for a 2nd amendment(right to hold arms as means of defending your liberty against the government ever trying to take it away) is stupid if you aren't arguing for the 2nd amendment(I really want to hunt, you guys!) and are in fact arguing for the states rights to let hunters hunt with guns.
If a person's position is the latter, then that person should probably shut the eff up about the second amendment and argue that the 10th gives the state they reside in the right to let them have hunting gear.
It's not stupid. It's efficient and effective.
You know what's stupid? Making this a gun control issue when this is clearly a radical muslim issue.
Was Roof a radical Muslim, What about Dear? Most mass shooting aren't don't by radical Muslims.
Well this one was, and that's what we are talking about in this thread. Shots fired, oh I hope it's just a crazy person and not a radical muslim. Oh crap multiple shooters? eff. Could be muslims, but let's please wait and see. People dead, shootout, oh man Sayed Farook, oh crap they might be muslim. Yes the are muslim. People please withhold judgement!!!! THIS COULD STILL BE A WORKPLACE VIOLENCE ISSUE!! She pledged her allegiance to ISIS. Yup, Muslim. eff. BUT GUN VIOLENCE!!
-
Not sure CNS knows how the 10th Amendment works. :dubious:
No, I get it, but it doesn't change the fact that arguing for a 2nd amendment(right to hold arms as means of defending your liberty against the government ever trying to take it away) is stupid if you aren't arguing for the 2nd amendment(I really want to hunt, you guys!) and are in fact arguing for the states rights to let hunters hunt with guns.
If a person's position is the latter, then that person should probably shut the eff up about the second amendment and argue that the 10th gives the state they reside in the right to let them have hunting gear.
It's not stupid. It's efficient and effective.
You know what's stupid? Making this a gun control issue when this is clearly a radical muslim issue.
Was Roof a radical Muslim, What about Dear? Most mass shooting aren't don't by radical Muslims.
Well this one was, and that's what we are talking about in this thread. Shots fired, oh I hope it's just a crazy person and not a radical muslim. Oh crap multiple shooters? eff. Could be muslims, but let's please wait and see. People dead, shootout, oh man Sayed Farook, oh crap they might be muslim. Yes the are muslim. People please withhold judgement!!!! THIS COULD STILL BE A WORKPLACE VIOLENCE ISSUE!! She pledged her allegiance to ISIS. Yup, Muslim. eff. BUT GUN VIOLENCE!!
I'm not arguing that we dont have a radical Islam problem. But I dont think having an Radical Islam problem and a gun problem are mutually exclusive. This instance was a radical Islam problem for sure, but last Friday's wasn't.
-
Not sure CNS knows how the 10th Amendment works. :dubious:
No, I get it, but it doesn't change the fact that arguing for a 2nd amendment(right to hold arms as means of defending your liberty against the government ever trying to take it away) is stupid if you aren't arguing for the 2nd amendment(I really want to hunt, you guys!) and are in fact arguing for the states rights to let hunters hunt with guns.
If a person's position is the latter, then that person should probably shut the eff up about the second amendment and argue that the 10th gives the state they reside in the right to let them have hunting gear.
It's not stupid. It's efficient and effective.
You know what's stupid? Making this a gun control issue when this is clearly a radical muslim issue.
Was Roof a radical Muslim, What about Dear? Most mass shooting aren't don't by radical Muslims.
Well this one was, and that's what we are talking about in this thread. Shots fired, oh I hope it's just a crazy person and not a radical muslim. Oh crap multiple shooters? eff. Could be muslims, but let's please wait and see. People dead, shootout, oh man Sayed Farook, oh crap they might be muslim. Yes the are muslim. People please withhold judgement!!!! THIS COULD STILL BE A WORKPLACE VIOLENCE ISSUE!! She pledged her allegiance to ISIS. Yup, Muslim. eff. BUT GUN VIOLENCE!!
I'm not arguing that we dont have a radical Islam problem. But I dont think having an Radical Islam problem and a gun problem are mutually exclusive. This instance was a radical Islam problem for sure, but last Friday's wasn't.
I could get on board with adding verbiage to the 2nd Amendment that says it doesn't apply to radical muslims.
-
Not sure CNS knows how the 10th Amendment works. :dubious:
No, I get it, but it doesn't change the fact that arguing for a 2nd amendment(right to hold arms as means of defending your liberty against the government ever trying to take it away) is stupid if you aren't arguing for the 2nd amendment(I really want to hunt, you guys!) and are in fact arguing for the states rights to let hunters hunt with guns.
If a person's position is the latter, then that person should probably shut the eff up about the second amendment and argue that the 10th gives the state they reside in the right to let them have hunting gear.
It's not stupid. It's efficient and effective.
You know what's stupid? Making this a gun control issue when this is clearly a radical muslim issue.
I don't disagree that there is more than one thing going on here and that it all needs to be addressed.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.abclocal.go.com%2Fcontent%2Fkabc%2Fimages%2Fcms%2F1110259_630x354.jpg&hash=c76e51d4b4bd5cb51e117375bada7ae18867d242)
Hopper
-
DNR any of this thread but saw hatin' hater stunz was posting
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblacksportsonline.com%2Fhome%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F05%2Fangel-rodriguez-transfers-miami.jpg&hash=29de3e832134503b47bbae70c9225dcae28ba55b)
-
I think CNS has some really good points if you ignore 225 years worth of jurisprudence. Just what did the founders intend??? This question continues to plague legal scholars today.
It definitely involves a well regulated militia.
-
If, in the 1770s, they had written "a gay militia", would people today argue that only homosexuals can have guns? Is that what they meant way back then? Or did they mean a happy militia?
-
I'm half surprised being gay wasn't banned in the constitution because the founding fathers were extremely ignorant/dumb compared to today.
-
Just a big shout out to the administration for making this about guns and not radical Islamic terrorists.
Stopping Islamic terrorists....with gun laws!!
Works .... Never
-
dax how many people in the United States were killed by terrorists in 2014?
-
I'm not saying there shouldn't be gun law reforms.
But WTF does a gun law have to do with stopping terrorists? You think they really give an eff about gun laws?
Not even in ProgLib utopia fantasyland was a gun law going to stop those two, or the guys in Paris, and France has gun laws out the ass.
But advancing a political agenda thru crisis, the PLJB way.
-
I'm half surprised being gay wasn't banned in the constitution because the founding fathers were extremely ignorant/dumb compared to today.
They left that up to the states.
-
Just checking back. Haven't read the last few pages. So are people saying terrorism is basically the same as mental illness? They seem different to me.
-
What is different?
-
The vast majority of persons that are staunchly for 'gun control' have no salient ideas as to what that means. That's basically because they just want to ban guns. Oh except for blahblahblah hunting, blahblahblah. Just complete lack of rational thought.
-
The desire to provide cover and to go to great lengths to afford the benefit of the doubt to the muslim terrorists is one of the most tortured, bizarre and anti-social behaviors I've ever witnessed.
-
The desire to provide cover and to go to great lengths to afford the benefit of the doubt to the muslim terrorists is one of the most tortured, bizarre and anti-social behaviors I've ever witnessed.
Link?
-
What is different?
I don't think terrorists are generally crazy. They're usually motivated by fundamentalist adherence to Islam.
The reason I ask is Im hearing this recent excuse that most mass shootings are committed by crazy white people - not terrorists, and my reaction is, so? They're both problems, but they're different problems with potentially different solutions. This was a terrorist attack.
-
The desire to provide cover and to go to great lengths to afford the benefit of the doubt to the muslim terrorists is one of the most tortured, bizarre and anti-social behaviors I've ever witnessed.
Like, who is doing this?
-
SMART guns: guns that will not fire when aimed at humans.
Gonna win 'em all!
-
SMART guns: guns that will not fire when aimed at humans.
Gonna win 'em all!
What about the bubba who dreams of wasting someone who looks shady?
-
SMART guns: guns that will not fire when aimed at humans.
Gonna win 'em all!
What about the bubba who dreams of wasting someone who looks shady?
a dial on the gun can be adjusted for shady looking people.
Gonna win 'em all!
-
What is different?
I don't think terrorists are generally crazy. They're usually motivated by fundamentalist adherence to Islam.
The reason I ask is Im hearing this recent excuse that most mass shootings are committed by crazy white people - not terrorists, and my reaction is, so? They're both problems, but they're different problems with potentially different solutions. This was a terrorist attack.
terrorist don't seem like mentally stable people to me.
-
http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/06/shooters-father-farook-told-me-he-supported-isis-al-baghdadi/ (http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/06/shooters-father-farook-told-me-he-supported-isis-al-baghdadi/)
Syed Farook, father of San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook, said Sunday that his son had previously admitted he was an ISIS supporter.
According to The Times Of Israel, Farook told Italy’s “La Stampa Mondo” that his “son said that he shared Al Baghdadi’s ideology and supported the creation of the Islamic State.” (RELATED: Female Calif. Shooter Pledged Allegiance To ISIS)
Additionally, the father claims Farook was “obsessed with Israel.”
“I told him he had to stay calm and be patient because in two years Israel will not exist any more. Geopolitics is changing: Russia, China and America don’t want Jews there any more,” Farook explained, “but he did not listen to me, he was obsessed.”
Yes, we should import tens of thousands more people like this into America. Because I'm sure they'll assimilate and not radicalize. The vast majority of whom hate Israel and America's alliance there with.
It seems increasingly clear that the pro mass Muslim immigration crowd are motivated by blind adherence to an opinion that makes them feel virtuous, facts be damned.
-
http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/06/shooters-father-farook-told-me-he-supported-isis-al-baghdadi/ (http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/06/shooters-father-farook-told-me-he-supported-isis-al-baghdadi/)
Syed Farook, father of San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook, said Sunday that his son had previously admitted he was an ISIS supporter.
According to The Times Of Israel, Farook told Italy’s “La Stampa Mondo” that his “son said that he shared Al Baghdadi’s ideology and supported the creation of the Islamic State.” (RELATED: Female Calif. Shooter Pledged Allegiance To ISIS)
Additionally, the father claims Farook was “obsessed with Israel.”
“I told him he had to stay calm and be patient because in two years Israel will not exist any more. Geopolitics is changing: Russia, China and America don’t want Jews there any more,” Farook explained, “but he did not listen to me, he was obsessed.”
Yes, we should import tens of thousands more people like this into America. Because I'm sure they'll assimilate and not radicalize. The vast majority of whom hate Israel and America's alliance there with.
It seems increasingly clear that the pro mass Muslim immigration crowd are motivated by blind adherence to an opinion that makes them feel virtuous, facts be damned.
they might start caring when someone they care about gets shot by a pro isis syrian refugee
-
that's like extremely unlikely
-
Additionally, the father claims Farook was “obsessed with Israel.”
“I told him he had to stay calm and be patient because in two years Israel will not exist any more. Geopolitics is changing: Russia, China and America don’t want Jews there any more,” Farook explained, “but he did not listen to me, he was obsessed.”
I don't want to eliminate the jewish state but maybe i am in the minority.
-
So if they say batshit crazy stuff but are brown, they need to GTFO.
When they say batshit crazy stuff and are white, they run for president or post in the gE pit
-
Additionally, the father claims Farook was “obsessed with Israel.”
“I told him he had to stay calm and be patient because in two years Israel will not exist any more. Geopolitics is changing: Russia, China and America don’t want Jews there any more,” Farook explained, “but he did not listen to me, he was obsessed.”
I don't want to eliminate the jewish state but maybe i am in the minority.
I mean I certainly don't want to eliminate the Jewish state, but it sure seems like creating it where we did was a pretty bad idea
-
I mean I certainly don't want to eliminate the Jewish state, but it sure seems like creating it where we did was a pretty bad idea
well, "we" didn't. and in the whole, i think the fact the a few hundred k jews managed to survive the holocaust in palestine was a pretty great idea. would that there had been more such ideas.
-
We should have just told all the Jews they were welcome in the US but lol nope
-
Most of the batshit crazy diabolically lives in PLJB Nation.
-
The desire to provide cover and to go to great lengths to afford the benefit of the doubt to the muslim terrorists is one of the most tortured, bizarre and anti-social behaviors I've ever witnessed.
Like, who is doing this?
Like, tons of people, brah
-
We should have just told all the Jews they were welcome in the US but lol nope
what a stupid comparison. Last time I heard Jewish people weren't trying to kill the people in the name of Jadaism. good grief wtf is wrong with you
-
Looks like Syed didn't fall far from his father's tree. I wonder how many "peaceful" Muslims living in the US think that Israel shouldn't exist?
-
We should have just told all the Jews they were welcome in the US but lol nope
what a stupid comparison. Last time I heard Jewish people weren't trying to kill the people in the name of Jadaism. good grief wtf is wrong with you
It wasn't a comparison to anything, it was a comment on what we should have done from WWI onward.
-
What's wrong with the Jews having their own place?
-
What's wrong with the Jews having their own place?
other people were living there
-
What's wrong with the Jews having their own place?
other people were living there
So what? People have displaced other people for all eternity.
-
What's wrong with the Jews having their own place?
other people were living there
So what? People have displaced other people for all eternity.
oh. alright. i guess it's ok then.
-
What's wrong with the Jews having their own place?
other people were living there
So what? People have displaced other people for all eternity.
oh. alright. i guess it's ok then.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.adcouncil.org%2Fvar%2Fezflow_site%2Fstorage%2Fimages%2Fadcouncil%2Four-campaigns%2Fthe-classics%2Fpollution-keep-america-beautiful-iron-eyes-cody%2F14524-8-eng-US%2FPollution-Keep-America-Beautiful-Iron-Eyes-Cody.jpg&hash=0fe2b236786445c335a015619d8a221ea5a75515)
-
Now, this "thorough vetting process" for the Syrian refugees - will that process be as thorough as the vetting process that granted this terrorist bride from hell a K-1 visa?
-
What's wrong with the Jews having their own place?
other people were living there
So what? People have displaced other people for all eternity.
oh. alright. i guess it's ok then.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.adcouncil.org%2Fvar%2Fezflow_site%2Fstorage%2Fimages%2Fadcouncil%2Four-campaigns%2Fthe-classics%2Fpollution-keep-america-beautiful-iron-eyes-cody%2F14524-8-eng-US%2FPollution-Keep-America-Beautiful-Iron-Eyes-Cody.jpg&hash=0fe2b236786445c335a015619d8a221ea5a75515)
Bad example. I mean, near genocide and all. We definitely displaced them, but only after we killed the large majority of them. Genocide is obvsly the easiest way to do it, though.
-
Not all tribes were like that. Some tribes were displaced by us and ended up displacing others, though. But they had also been displacing each other for thousands of years.
Look at Europe even, what a mess. Greeks, Romans, barbarians, Mongols, Moors, etc.
-
Not all tribes were like that. Some tribes were displaced by us and ended up displacing others, though. But they had also been displacing each other for thousands of years.
Look at Europe even, what a mess. Greeks, Romans, barbarians, Mongols, Moors, etc.
are you under the impression that if something has happened many times then it is always justified under any circumstance?
-
The desire to provide cover and to go to great lengths to afford the benefit of the doubt to the muslim terrorists is one of the most tortured, bizarre and anti-social behaviors I've ever witnessed.
Like, who is doing this?
Like, tons of people, brah
dork
-
Not all tribes were like that. Some tribes were displaced by us and ended up displacing others, though. But they had also been displacing each other for thousands of years.
Look at Europe even, what a mess. Greeks, Romans, barbarians, Mongols, Moors, etc.
are you under the impression that if something has happened many times then it is always justified under any circumstance?
No, I very rarely believe in absolutes.
-
the population of palestine at the time of the zionist movement, including both all jewish immigrants and everyone already living there, was many multiples smaller than the present day population of israel or the present day population the areas governed by the palestinian authority.
there was plenty of room for everyone.
-
I think the problem is fairy tales more than space
-
the population of palestine at the time of the zionist movement, including both all jewish immigrants and everyone already living there, was many multiples smaller than the present day population of israel or the present day population the areas governed by the palestinian authority.
there was plenty of room for everyone.
still kind of a strange thing though.
-
Not all tribes were like that. Some tribes were displaced by us and ended up displacing others, though. But they had also been displacing each other for thousands of years.
Look at Europe even, what a mess. Greeks, Romans, barbarians, Mongols, Moors, etc.
We really displaced the hell out of them.
-
the population of palestine at the time of the zionist movement, including both all jewish immigrants and everyone already living there, was many multiples smaller than the present day population of israel or the present day population the areas governed by the palestinian authority.
there was plenty of room for everyone.
still kind of a strange thing though.
Why? Jews have been living in the area now known as Israel for thousands of years. It is their ancestral homeland. They were there long before Islam (or Christianity) even existed. It's obviously an area of a great deal of geopolitical turmoil, conquered and conquered and conquered again. The British were the latest conquerors, and it made sense to help settle displaced Jews in a region that they controlled and happened to be their ancestral homeland. That doesn't seem strange.
-
the population of palestine at the time of the zionist movement, including both all jewish immigrants and everyone already living there, was many multiples smaller than the present day population of israel or the present day population the areas governed by the palestinian authority.
there was plenty of room for everyone.
Also, before 1948, there were already 630k Jews living Palestine (32% of the population).
-
Also, before 1948, there were already 630k Jews living Palestine (32% of the population).
yeah. those are the people i was talking about.
-
the population of palestine at the time of the zionist movement, including both all jewish immigrants and everyone already living there, was many multiples smaller than the present day population of israel or the present day population the areas governed by the palestinian authority.
there was plenty of room for everyone.
there weren't really enough jobs for everyone. A lot of Palestinian laborers were displaced. Not really maliciously, but it was a definite hardship on them.
-
Also, before 1948, there were already 630k Jews living Palestine (32% of the population).
yeah. those are the people i was talking about.
There were 83k Jews in Palestine in 1922. The jewish population in Palestine octupled in about 25 years. That's nuts.
-
there weren't really enough jobs for everyone. A lot of Palestinian laborers were displaced. Not really maliciously, but it was a definite hardship on them.
the jewish immigrants were a huge boost to the economy. it's hard to find anything with google that isn't obviously written from an pro-israel or pro-palestinian perspective, but the data are clear that economic growth during this period was fantastic - especially so since the period included the depression years.
In the period from 1922 to 1947 real net domestic product (NDP) of the Jewish sector grew at an average rate of 13.2 percent, and in 1947 accounted for 54 percent of the NDP of the Jewish and Arab economies together. NDP per capita in the Jewish sector grew at a rate of 4.8 percent; by the end of the period it was 8.5 times larger in than in 1922, and 2.5 times larger than in the Arab sector (Metzer, 1998).
-
There were 83k Jews in Palestine in 1922. The jewish population in Palestine octupled in about 25 years. That's nuts.
it's not that hard to octuple when you start from a low base.
-
There were 83k Jews in Palestine in 1922. The jewish population in Palestine octupled in about 25 years. That's nuts.
it's not that hard to octuple when you start from a low base.
Disirregardlessly
-
There were 83k Jews in Palestine in 1922. The jewish population in Palestine octupled in about 25 years. That's nuts.
it's not that hard to octuple when you start from a low base.
Disirregardlessly
i continue to regard it. the base is basically irrelevant. the meaningful number is the % of new immigrants/existing population.
-
there weren't really enough jobs for everyone. A lot of Palestinian laborers were displaced. Not really maliciously, but it was a definite hardship on them.
the jewish immigrants were a huge boost to the economy. it's hard to find anything with google that isn't obviously written from an pro-israel or pro-palestinian perspective, but the data are clear that economic growth during this period was fantastic - especially so since the period included the depression years.
In the period from 1922 to 1947 real net domestic product (NDP) of the Jewish sector grew at an average rate of 13.2 percent, and in 1947 accounted for 54 percent of the NDP of the Jewish and Arab economies together. NDP per capita in the Jewish sector grew at a rate of 4.8 percent; by the end of the period it was 8.5 times larger in than in 1922, and 2.5 times larger than in the Arab sector (Metzer, 1998).
yes, maybe there were enough jobs. I just know that when landowners sold to jewish immigrants, the jews often farmed the land themselves and let most of the Palestinian labor go. I may have read about that on one of the super over-the-top biased sites though. I'm always on the lookout for balanced perspectives in books on the subject, so if anyone here knows of some, let me know! Thanks.
-
yes, maybe there were enough jobs. I just know that when landowners sold to jewish immigrants, the jews often farmed the land themselves and let most of the Palestinian labor go. I may have read about that on one of the super over-the-top biased sites though. I'm always on the lookout for balanced perspectives in books on the subject, so if anyone here knows of some, let me know! Thanks.
i think that's accurate. i'd only footnote it with the caveat that feudalism was probably not long for the 20th century, with or without the arrival of jewish immigrants.
-
The jews gave back gaza, and the people who settled that place have a fabulous job of turning it into a third world, murderous crap hole. As long as the jews are keeping the place up to code, they can keep israel.
-
The jews gave back gaza, and the people who settled that place have a fabulous job of turning it into a third world, murderous crap hole. As long as the jews are keeping the place up to code, they can keep israel.
I think the excuse for Gaza is that the "palestinians" had to trash it because they hate the Jews. They really didn't have a choice.
-
Let us also not forget, the day or day after the Jews declared independence a coalition of Arab armies invaded and attacked, and summarily got their asses handed to them in 9 months. I think in a case like this once you invade then trying to retroactively make political change is near impossible. If the Arabs should be pissed at anyone it probably should be the Brits.
-
The jews gave back gaza, and the people who settled that place have a fabulous job of turning it into a third world, murderous crap hole. As long as the jews are keeping the place up to code, they can keep israel.
I think the excuse for Gaza is that the "palestinians" had to trash it because they hate the Jews. They really didn't have a choice.
Sounds reasonable.
-
Liberals: against Jewish refugees, who just survived a rough ridin' holocaust, from moving to find a better life. Sympathetic with the Palestinian populace for not wanting them. But for allowing Syrian refugees into their own country to do the same thing. Don't care to consider the opinions of their own countrymen. Weird.
-
Liberals: against Jewish refugees, who just survived a rough ridin' holocaust, from moving to find a better life. Sympathetic with the Palestinian populace for not wanting them. But for allowing Syrian refugees into their own country to do the same thing. Don't care to consider the opinions of their own countrymen. Weird.
Yep. Allowing syrian refugees into the US is exactly the "same thing" as the creation of the state of israel. Spitting image.
-
Let us also not forget, the day or day after the Jews declared independence a coalition of Arab armies invaded and attacked, and summarily got their asses handed to them in 9 months. I think in a case like this once you invade then trying to retroactively make political change is near impossible. If the Arabs should be pissed at anyone it probably should be the Brits.
I'm sure there's plenty of Arabs pissed at Brits. People can be pissed at more than one thing at once.
-
Liberals: against Jewish refugees, who just survived a rough ridin' holocaust, from moving to find a better life. Sympathetic with the Palestinian populace for not wanting them. But for allowing Syrian refugees into their own country to do the same thing. Don't care to consider the opinions of their own countrymen. Weird.
Yep. Allowing syrian refugees into the US is exactly the "same thing" as the creation of the state of israel. Spitting image.
Also lets be sure to leave out that the modern Israeli state under Bibi is about equal to South Africa's apartheid state.
-
Sorry guys I was trolling with that last one. You deserve better.
-
I'm sure there's plenty of Arabs pissed at Brits. People can be pissed at more than one thing at once.
Especially Muslims.
-
Liberals: against Jewish refugees, who just survived a rough ridin' holocaust, from moving to find a better life. Sympathetic with the Palestinian populace for not wanting them. But for allowing Syrian refugees into their own country to do the same thing. Don't care to consider the opinions of their own countrymen. Weird.
Yep. Allowing syrian refugees into the US is exactly the "same thing" as the creation of the state of israel. Spitting image.
Also lets be sure to leave out that the modern Israeli state under Bibi is about equal to South Africa's apartheid state.
Except for Arabs serving in the Knesset. Otherwise just like apartheid. :lol:
-
So it sounds like they had been planning this since 2012... What a couple of unbelievably inept people. 3 years and that is the best they could do? My goodness...
-
Well Syed at least, he didn't meet his wife until 2013. He radicalized her, it looks like. Unless maybe they met at some singles terror boot camp.
-
that's really bad. if i were isis i would disassociate myself from them.
-
Can you imagine those tweets? :sdeek:
-
Liberals: against Jewish refugees, who just survived a rough ridin' holocaust, from moving to find a better life. Sympathetic with the Palestinian populace for not wanting them. But for allowing Syrian refugees into their own country to do the same thing. Don't care to consider the opinions of their own countrymen. Weird.
Yep. Allowing syrian refugees into the US is exactly the "same thing" as the creation of the state of israel. Spitting image.
Also lets be sure to leave out that the modern Israeli state under Bibi is about equal to South Africa's apartheid state.
Except for Arabs serving in the Knesset. Otherwise just like apartheid. :lol:
Except for dual citizenship with second class rights
Except for less land rights
Except for no due process of law
Except for the state bulldozing your house to make room for more Israeli settlers white people who wanted another's land
Except for checkpoints to control the movement of people based solely on race
Except for legitimate "no go zones" for Palestinians Bantu into Israeli white lands
Except for pass books being used in both places......
yeah totally different
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.wp.com%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Fed-assets%2F2015%2F12%2FObama-Background-checks.jpg&hash=d46f1170216c857280666a2a121ac9f92a4763e8)
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi0.wp.com%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Fed-assets%2F2015%2F12%2FThey-were-Clocks-copy.jpg&hash=c9416aeef494c475b4dfb319bafce762d918863a)
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.wp.com%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Fed-assets%2F2015%2F12%2FPeters-v-Obama.jpg&hash=d7bdfef38b8bddf3def3f8202d4fb1ff34bfb503)
-
Shut up pussy :lol:
-
Shut up pussy :lol:
That's a reference to Ralph Peters being suspended for calling Obama a pussy live on air. Not very professional, but :lol:
-
I'm thinking about buying a gun. What's the best gun for home protection?
Desert Eagle
-
How many rocket launchers can your closet hold?
-
I like to gauge my personal happiness level by my interest in keeping up with threads such as these and posting/arguing in them.
-
Desert eagle is very 2002
-
why would you buy something else when the Judge is available?
-
I've also been partial to the baby Desert Eagle and I know not why. I just like the way it looks. I'm not a gun guy by any means and have no other argument on its' behalf.
-
I'm thinking about buying a gun. What's the best gun for home protection?
Desert Eagle
Yeah, breathe in, breathe out
If ya iced up, pull ya sleeves out
Push a big truck, pull ya keys out
Girls go wild and pull ya D's out
Breathe in, breathe out
Let them hoes fight, pull her weave out
If a nigga act up, pull a Desert E's out
When I pull the piece out niggas like "Peace out!"
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpaladinarmory.com%2FPhotos%2520for%2520PA%2520website%2FStoeger1.JPG&hash=e57e07e715419353d0be4de99bd94c110cbeed47)
:comehere: Can't miss home defense.
-
I'm thinking about buying a gun. What's the best gun for home protection?
Desert Eagle
Yeah, breathe in, breathe out
If ya iced up, pull ya sleeves out
Push a big truck, pull ya keys out
Girls go wild and pull ya D's out
Breathe in, breathe out
Let them hoes fight, pull her weave out
If a nigga act up, pull a Desert E's out
When I pull the piece out niggas like "Peace out!"
And a desert eagle thats one great big old pistol
I mean fifty caliber made by bad-ass Hebrews
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpaladinarmory.com%2FPhotos%2520for%2520PA%2520website%2FStoeger1.JPG&hash=e57e07e715419353d0be4de99bd94c110cbeed47)
:comehere: Can't miss home defense.
Gramps they made a newer version that shoots .45's and 410 shells... It's called The Judge
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpaladinarmory.com%2FPhotos%2520for%2520PA%2520website%2FStoeger1.JPG&hash=e57e07e715419353d0be4de99bd94c110cbeed47)
:comehere: Can't miss home defense.
Gramps they made a newer version that shoots .45's and 410 shells... It's called The Judge
Gramps?????????
Not a gun nut myself, no real need for home defense either, hence little knowledge of firearms. I don't live around crime. :kstategrad:
-
Come to think of it, I like "Gramps", or better yet "Giblet Gravy". Can the powers that be execute the change?
-
Anyone else super stoked for Obama's impending executive order on gun control? I'm really excited for the conservative response where they just froth at the mouth and then stroke out on the floor while shouting random buzzwords. But mostly I'm excited about the prospect of a few less schools and offices getting shot up.
-
It won't stop any shootings, sadly.
-
Gun manufacturers are stoked, I can tell you that. I bet guns are selling like mad this week, and if an exec action is taken, they will sell even more afterward. I mean, it may take a longer while to actually obtain thegun, or maybe limit the type of gun, but whatever is available afterward will sell like we are about to be invaded.
-
If I was a gun manufacturer, or even the NRA, I would be funding democrats with all my money.
-
All of the republican candidates falling in line and bowing to their daddy, the nra, is embarrassing. The coming executive order is unbelievably tame and toothless yet they are falling all over themselves to make sure they ramp up the rhetoric and keep daddies money flowing. What a joke, all the way around BTW.
-
Kinda hard to blame them considering how many seats the D's lost in the House/Senate the last time this crap rolled around.
-
It's amazing how little the average person cares to observe an issue from multiple view points. I wonder how many fewer shootings we'll have after we limit the number of guns sold at gun shows, by a single digit percentage at best. The support of wasted time, is nothing more.
-
It's amazing how little the average person cares to observe an issue from multiple view points. I wonder how many fewer shootings we'll have after we limit the number of guns sold at gun shows, by a single digit percentage at best. The support of wasted time, is nothing more.
A single digit percentage would be several people, right?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
It's amazing how little the average person cares to observe an issue from multiple view points. I wonder how many fewer shootings we'll have after we limit the number of guns sold at gun shows, by a single digit percentage at best. The support of wasted time, is nothing more.
It has no effect on anyone who lawfully wants to acquire a firearm. Gun people always spout the stupid crap about the good guys having guns but don't want to do a damn thing about ensuring exactly that happens. Without research I can think of two mass shootings committed by mentally handicapped citizens with guns purchased at gun shows, if you don't think the law is worth it to even save one life then we need to have a different conversation.
-
It's amazing how little the average person cares to observe an issue from multiple view points. I wonder how many fewer shootings we'll have after we limit the number of guns sold at gun shows, by a single digit percentage at best. The support of wasted time, is nothing more.
It has no effect on anyone who lawfully wants to acquire a firearm. Gun people always spout the stupid crap about the good guys having guns but don't want to do a damn thing about ensuring exactly that happens. Without research I can think of two mass shootings committed by mentally handicapped citizens with guns purchased at gun shows, if you don't think the law is worth it to even save one life then we need to have a different conversation.
Are you suggesting those two people couldn't have also purchased them from a Cabela's?
-
It's amazing how little the average person cares to observe an issue from multiple view points. I wonder how many fewer shootings we'll have after we limit the number of guns sold at gun shows, by a single digit percentage at best. The support of wasted time, is nothing more.
It has no effect on anyone who lawfully wants to acquire a firearm. Gun people always spout the stupid crap about the good guys having guns but don't want to do a damn thing about ensuring exactly that happens. Without research I can think of two mass shootings committed by mentally handicapped citizens with guns purchased at gun shows, if you don't think the law is worth it to even save one life then we need to have a different conversation.
Are you suggesting those two people couldn't have also purchased them from a Cabela's?
Do you not know what the gun show loophole is?
-
It's amazing how little the average person cares to observe an issue from multiple view points. I wonder how many fewer shootings we'll have after we limit the number of guns sold at gun shows, by a single digit percentage at best. The support of wasted time, is nothing more.
It has no effect on anyone who lawfully wants to acquire a firearm. Gun people always spout the stupid crap about the good guys having guns but don't want to do a damn thing about ensuring exactly that happens. Without research I can think of two mass shootings committed by mentally handicapped citizens with guns purchased at gun shows, if you don't think the law is worth it to even save one life then we need to have a different conversation.
Are you suggesting those two people couldn't have also purchased them from a Cabela's?
Do you not know what the gun show loophole is?
I absolutely know what it is. Answer the question.
-
God I hate Ted Cruz so much. Either he isn't nearly as smart as the pubs say he is or he's intentionally playing to a large segment of morons by lying which would be at odds with his supposed evangelical background. He called the executive order an abuse of his executive power. Wut? The powers granted to a president that allows for an executive order is in rough ridin' article 2 of the constitution. Every republican candidate that whines about executive orders should be asked by the media if they will pledge to not use an executive order.
He also said that the order infringes on the second amendment rights of Americans :facepalm: what a pandering dope, and general piece of crap. He's got the political game down, he's like every bad parody of a republican presidential candidate. Do he had Hillary have the same advisors?
-
It's amazing how little the average person cares to observe an issue from multiple view points. I wonder how many fewer shootings we'll have after we limit the number of guns sold at gun shows, by a single digit percentage at best. The support of wasted time, is nothing more.
It has no effect on anyone who lawfully wants to acquire a firearm. Gun people always spout the stupid crap about the good guys having guns but don't want to do a damn thing about ensuring exactly that happens. Without research I can think of two mass shootings committed by mentally handicapped citizens with guns purchased at gun shows, if you don't think the law is worth it to even save one life then we need to have a different conversation.
Are you suggesting those two people couldn't have also purchased them from a Cabela's?
Do you not know what the gun show loophole is?
I absolutely know what it is. Answer the question.
I don't know how either of us could know that. I'm not sure why you're arguing this point with me though, on this very page I caked the executive order unbelievably tame and toothless.
-
It's amazing how little the average person cares to observe an issue from multiple view points. I wonder how many fewer shootings we'll have after we limit the number of guns sold at gun shows, by a single digit percentage at best. The support of wasted time, is nothing more.
It has no effect on anyone who lawfully wants to acquire a firearm. Gun people always spout the stupid crap about the good guys having guns but don't want to do a damn thing about ensuring exactly that happens. Without research I can think of two mass shootings committed by mentally handicapped citizens with guns purchased at gun shows, if you don't think the law is worth it to even save one life then we need to have a different conversation.
Are you suggesting those two people couldn't have also purchased them from a Cabela's?
Do you not know what the gun show loophole is?
I absolutely know what it is. Answer the question.
I don't know how either of us could know that. I'm not sure why you're arguing this point with me though, on this very page I caked the executive order unbelievably tame and toothless.
earliest tapout I've ever seen from MIR :D
-
It's amazing how little the average person cares to observe an issue from multiple view points. I wonder how many fewer shootings we'll have after we limit the number of guns sold at gun shows, by a single digit percentage at best. The support of wasted time, is nothing more.
It has no effect on anyone who lawfully wants to acquire a firearm. Gun people always spout the stupid crap about the good guys having guns but don't want to do a damn thing about ensuring exactly that happens. Without research I can think of two mass shootings committed by mentally handicapped citizens with guns purchased at gun shows, if you don't think the law is worth it to even save one life then we need to have a different conversation.
Are you suggesting those two people couldn't have also purchased them from a Cabela's?
Do you not know what the gun show loophole is?
I absolutely know what it is. Answer the question.
I don't know how either of us could know that. I'm not sure why you're arguing this point with me though, on this very page I caked the executive order unbelievably tame and toothless.
earliest tapout I've ever seen from MIR :D
Virginia Tech is the point here.
-
It's amazing how little the average person cares to observe an issue from multiple view points. I wonder how many fewer shootings we'll have after we limit the number of guns sold at gun shows, by a single digit percentage at best. The support of wasted time, is nothing more.
It has no effect on anyone who lawfully wants to acquire a firearm. Gun people always spout the stupid crap about the good guys having guns but don't want to do a damn thing about ensuring exactly that happens. Without research I can think of two mass shootings committed by mentally handicapped citizens with guns purchased at gun shows, if you don't think the law is worth it to even save one life then we need to have a different conversation.
Are you suggesting those two people couldn't have also purchased them from a Cabela's?
Do you not know what the gun show loophole is?
I absolutely know what it is. Answer the question.
I don't know how either of us could know that. I'm not sure why you're arguing this point with me though, on this very page I caked the executive order unbelievably tame and toothless.
earliest tapout I've ever seen from MIR :D
How the eff is that a tapout, you really think that is a yes/no answer? Is it possible that someone in the middle of a bipolar episode could walk into a retailer and immediately walk out with a gun, sure it's possible, no crap. That's obvious, what's your angle here? It seems to me that you don't think this order is worth much either so what are we talking about here?
-
It's amazing how little the average person cares to observe an issue from multiple view points. I wonder how many fewer shootings we'll have after we limit the number of guns sold at gun shows, by a single digit percentage at best. The support of wasted time, is nothing more.
It has no effect on anyone who lawfully wants to acquire a firearm. Gun people always spout the stupid crap about the good guys having guns but don't want to do a damn thing about ensuring exactly that happens. Without research I can think of two mass shootings committed by mentally handicapped citizens with guns purchased at gun shows, if you don't think the law is worth it to even save one life then we need to have a different conversation.
Are you suggesting those two people couldn't have also purchased them from a Cabela's?
Do you not know what the gun show loophole is?
I absolutely know what it is. Answer the question.
I don't know how either of us could know that. I'm not sure why you're arguing this point with me though, on this very page I caked the executive order unbelievably tame and toothless.
earliest tapout I've ever seen from MIR :D
How the eff is that a tapout, you really think that is a yes/no answer? Is it possible that someone in the middle of a bipolar episode could walk into a retailer and immediately walk out with a gun, sure it's possible, no crap. That's obvious, what's your angle here? It seems to me that you don't think this order is worth much either so what are we talking about here?
My point is that this executive action is stupid, a waste of time, a subversion of the process, and will probably have a net negative impact (if not zero).
-
I agree that it doesn't go far enough :cheers: I'd love to hear more about it subverting the process and it having a net negative impact.
-
:dubious:
-
Speaking of tapouts, wow, just an emoticon huh?
-
You made a strawman argument. To me it's obvious you don't want to discuss this. You'd rather put words in peoples' mouths.
-
What I enjoy is the lemming parrot ProgLibs who spew forth little bullet points of semi factoids all the time and somehow think that matches reality.
This is just meaningless feel goodism to save a legacy of an overall awful presidency.
-
You made a strawman argument. To me it's obvious you don't want to discuss this. You'd rather put words in peoples' mouths.
WTF? I put words in your mouth by asking you to clarify your positions? Yeah, we're definitely done here.
-
What I enjoy is the lemming parrot ProgLibs who spew forth little bullet points of semi factoids all the time and somehow think that matches reality.
This is just meaningless feel goodism to save a legacy of an overall awful presidency.
2 terms. Re-elected in a near landslide. :gocho: :gocho: <---one for each presidential election won
-
Apparently these aren't even executive orders. Interesting legal discussion on the issue:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/05/new-atf-guidance-on-gun-sales-is-legally-meaningless-or-else-it-would-be-unlawful/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/05/new-atf-guidance-on-gun-sales-is-legally-meaningless-or-else-it-would-be-unlawful/)
-
That really doesn't mean anything. Richard Nixon won the '72 election in one of the biggest electoral landslides in history.
-
All I've garnered from this discussion is that our president still doesn't understand how laws are made and enforced in this country. How is this news?
-
You made a strawman argument. To me it's obvious you don't want to discuss this. You'd rather put words in peoples' mouths.
WTF? I put words in your mouth by asking you to clarify your positions? Yeah, we're definitely done here.
Idiot.
-
It's amazing how little the average person cares to observe an issue from multiple view points. I wonder how many fewer shootings we'll have after we limit the number of guns sold at gun shows, by a single digit percentage at best. The support of wasted time, is nothing more.
It has no effect on anyone who lawfully wants to acquire a firearm. Gun people always spout the stupid crap about the good guys having guns but don't want to do a damn thing about ensuring exactly that happens. Without research I can think of two mass shootings committed by mentally handicapped citizens with guns purchased at gun shows, if you don't think the law is worth it to even save one life then we need to have a different conversation.
What conversation would you like to have my petulant friend? Since there is no "law" to speak of I really have no clue what you're talking about. Nonetheless, the tree of liberty must continue to grow.
The bigger impact of the executive order was on the finalization of ATF 41F. Which strangely can be seen as a win for the pro-constitution citizens. Out of all this noise, the President pushed forward something that makes it easier to secure an NFA item. Never saw that coming.
-
Love when a post contains "the tree of liberty" and "pro-constitution" :love:
-
It's amazing how little the average person cares to observe an issue from multiple view points. I wonder how many fewer shootings we'll have after we limit the number of guns sold at gun shows, by a single digit percentage at best. The support of wasted time, is nothing more.
It has no effect on anyone who lawfully wants to acquire a firearm. Gun people always spout the stupid crap about the good guys having guns but don't want to do a damn thing about ensuring exactly that happens. Without research I can think of two mass shootings committed by mentally handicapped citizens with guns purchased at gun shows, if you don't think the law is worth it to even save one life then we need to have a different conversation.
What conversation would you like to have my petulant friend? Since there is no "law" to speak of I really have no clue what you're talking about. Nonetheless, the tree of liberty must continue to grow.
The bigger impact of the executive order was on the finalization of ATF 41F. Which strangely can be seen as a win for the pro-constitution citizens. Out of all this noise, the President pushed forward something that makes it easier to secure an NFA item. Never saw that coming.
Man, I have no clue as to what you're talking about here, my subscription to gun loon weekly expired in 2012. I can't find anything referencing "ATF 41F" outside of gun blogs and message boards, the most prominent one being something called pafoa or the Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association. Can you talk about something that has actually been cited by a reputable news source? Also trying to find out what ATF 41F is led me down quite a rabbit hole, can someone tell me why gun enthusiasts who post on the internet speak in so many acronyms, is it fear of the government coming to take their guns?
-
How will it affect my well regulated militia?
-
It's amazing how little the average person cares to observe an issue from multiple view points. I wonder how many fewer shootings we'll have after we limit the number of guns sold at gun shows, by a single digit percentage at best. The support of wasted time, is nothing more.
It has no effect on anyone who lawfully wants to acquire a firearm. Gun people always spout the stupid crap about the good guys having guns but don't want to do a damn thing about ensuring exactly that happens. Without research I can think of two mass shootings committed by mentally handicapped citizens with guns purchased at gun shows, if you don't think the law is worth it to even save one life then we need to have a different conversation.
What conversation would you like to have my petulant friend? Since there is no "law" to speak of I really have no clue what you're talking about. Nonetheless, the tree of liberty must continue to grow.
The bigger impact of the executive order was on the finalization of ATF 41F. Which strangely can be seen as a win for the pro-constitution citizens. Out of all this noise, the President pushed forward something that makes it easier to secure an NFA item. Never saw that coming.
Man, I have no clue as to what you're talking about here, my subscription to gun loon weekly expired in 2012. I can't find anything referencing "ATF 41F" outside of gun blogs and message boards, the most prominent one being something called pafoa or the Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association. Can you talk about something that has actually been cited by a reputable news source? Also trying to find out what ATF 41F is led me down quite a rabbit hole, can someone tell me why gun enthusiasts who post on the internet speak in so many acronyms, is it fear of the government coming to take their guns?
It kind of reminds me of one of Stunner's alpha male websites that also hated Jews and had some sort of code for them in comments
-
guns are awesome, I have two of them. I'm happy I live in a country I can protect my family. You know just trying to save a life
-
You made a strawman argument. To me it's obvious you don't want to discuss this. You'd rather put words in peoples' mouths.
WTF? I put words in your mouth by asking you to clarify your positions? Yeah, we're definitely done here.
Idiot.
I want to play a game, let's see how many more ways emo emaw can avoid expanding on this "this executive action is...subversion of the process, and will probably have a net negative impact."
So far he's misused the term strawman, accused me of not wanting to discuss the issue even though I asked for clarification, and called me an idiot. So were at three. I don't think he'll actually clarify, so we are left with does he have the discipline to just let it go or keep acting like we can't read. I'm guessing he'll post at least two more times without clarifying before this topic loses steam.
-
guns are awesome, I have two of them. I'm happy I live in a country I can protect my family. You know just trying to save a life
I hope one of your kids doesn't shoot themselves or another child with your guns. Which is like a million times more likely when someone keeps guns in the house :frown:
-
guns are awesome, I have two of them. I'm happy I live in a country I can protect my family. You know just trying to save a life
I don't own one, my wife :curse: but shooting them is kinda cool
-
It's amazing how little the average person cares to observe an issue from multiple view points. I wonder how many fewer shootings we'll have after we limit the number of guns sold at gun shows, by a single digit percentage at best. The support of wasted time, is nothing more.
It has no effect on anyone who lawfully wants to acquire a firearm. Gun people always spout the stupid crap about the good guys having guns but don't want to do a damn thing about ensuring exactly that happens. Without research I can think of two mass shootings committed by mentally handicapped citizens with guns purchased at gun shows, if you don't think the law is worth it to even save one life then we need to have a different conversation.
What conversation would you like to have my petulant friend? Since there is no "law" to speak of I really have no clue what you're talking about. Nonetheless, the tree of liberty must continue to grow.
The bigger impact of the executive order was on the finalization of ATF 41F. Which strangely can be seen as a win for the pro-constitution citizens. Out of all this noise, the President pushed forward something that makes it easier to secure an NFA item. Never saw that coming.
Man, I have no clue as to what you're talking about here, my subscription to gun loon weekly expired in 2012. I can't find anything referencing "ATF 41F" outside of gun blogs and message boards, the most prominent one being something called pafoa or the Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association. Can you talk about something that has actually been cited by a reputable news source? Also trying to find out what ATF 41F is led me down quite a rabbit hole, can someone tell me why gun enthusiasts who post on the internet speak in so many acronyms, is it fear of the government coming to take their guns?
It's the most significant change from the executive order, which you are "discussing". If you are unaware of the significance of the order, why discuss it? "I'm ignorant" seems like an odd response.
-
guns are awesome, I have two of them. I'm happy I live in a country I can protect my family. You know just trying to save a life
I hope one of your kids doesn't shoot themselves or another child with your guns. Which is like a million times more likely when someone keeps guns in the house :frown:
I can't argue that there is a risk. I keep mine in a safe which at the ages of 8 and 5, I'm confident my kids can't hack into. They are aware of the guns however as I think it is important they know about guns and specifically the dangers.
-
guns are awesome, I have two of them. I'm happy I live in a country I can protect my family. You know just trying to save a life
I don't own one, my wife :curse: but shooting them is kinda cool
Honestly my wife was the same way, until the Wichita murders happened. We both knew a couple of the victims and with her being from Wichita it hit her very hard. We felt (and at that time we did not have kids, although that hasn't changed our position) that the risk of having a gun in the house was worth it. One thing we do is disclose this information to our kids friends when they come over as we always ask if there is a gun in the house when our kids go over for play dates. Knowledge about guns whether you are pro or con is so important.
-
I keep scorpions in the house, because it's important to understand their dangers.
-
It's amazing how little the average person cares to observe an issue from multiple view points. I wonder how many fewer shootings we'll have after we limit the number of guns sold at gun shows, by a single digit percentage at best. The support of wasted time, is nothing more.
It has no effect on anyone who lawfully wants to acquire a firearm. Gun people always spout the stupid crap about the good guys having guns but don't want to do a damn thing about ensuring exactly that happens. Without research I can think of two mass shootings committed by mentally handicapped citizens with guns purchased at gun shows, if you don't think the law is worth it to even save one life then we need to have a different conversation.
What conversation would you like to have my petulant friend? Since there is no "law" to speak of I really have no clue what you're talking about. Nonetheless, the tree of liberty must continue to grow.
The bigger impact of the executive order was on the finalization of ATF 41F. Which strangely can be seen as a win for the pro-constitution citizens. Out of all this noise, the President pushed forward something that makes it easier to secure an NFA item. Never saw that coming.
Man, I have no clue as to what you're talking about here, my subscription to gun loon weekly expired in 2012. I can't find anything referencing "ATF 41F" outside of gun blogs and message boards, the most prominent one being something called pafoa or the Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association. Can you talk about something that has actually been cited by a reputable news source? Also trying to find out what ATF 41F is led me down quite a rabbit hole, can someone tell me why gun enthusiasts who post on the internet speak in so many acronyms, is it fear of the government coming to take their guns?
It's the most significant change from the executive order, which you are "discussing". If you are unaware of the significance of the order, why discuss it? "I'm ignorant" seems like an odd response.
I have no choice but to be ignorant and take your word for it since there is no citeable material over ATF 41F that I can read, unless google is a lying vast left wing conspiracy that is intentionally hiding all of the results.
-
I keep scorpions in the house, because it's important to understand their dangers.
That's great, I hope if your house ever gets broken into they protect your family. I know my family will be fine in a home invasion, although I'm worried about yours :frown:
-
scorpions are rough ridin' mean
-
Kinda hard to protect against murderers when they are locked in a safe.
Maybe the home invaders will let you take a time out to go collect your weapons
-
Are they attack scorpions? Did you train them? I mean if they are then I think you're on to something as a substitute for guns.
-
Kinda hard to protect against murderers when they are locked in a safe.
nope
-
For those actually interested, I'm never quite sure who just wishes to argue and who might find information interesting...
An NFA (National Firearms Act) or Class III item (there are many names and words used) is an Item described within the NFA as prohibited unless you go through a lengthy process to get a stamp or license for the item (from short barreled weapons, to automatic weapons made before 19-something, to silencers, etc.). In many states, NFA items are prohibited, in Red states, they are typically allowed. The process involves a $200 fee, fingerprinting at a local Law Enforcement office, sign off by your local high-ranking Law Enforcement Official, and 6 to 18 months of waiting while the Bureau of ATF (and really big fires) processes the paperwork and does a stringent background check.
In many areas that an NFA item is otherwise legal, the local high-ranking Law Enforcement Official may simply refuse to sign your paperwork, meaning you may not apply for the item. To subvert this, creating a Trust or Gun Trust has become very popular. As the Trust is not a person, the process was made simpler by eliminating finger printing and the local Law Enforcement sign off.
For obvious reasons the ATF did not like this, so they have been considering changes (ATF 41F). That change was finalized with this Executive order. The general change is, the complete elimination of the Law Enforcement sign off for individual applicants, and that the Trust creator and anyone in the Trust intending to use the NFA item must submit fingerprints, photo ID, etc. so that a background check can be implemented. Thus making NFA items accessible in many more areas (without a trust), while not restricting them in any new areas. Thusly it can be viewed as a win for Pro-Gun persons.
This is all a general summation, please research further if you would like precise details.
https://www.atf.gov/qa-category/national-firearms-act-nfa (https://www.atf.gov/qa-category/national-firearms-act-nfa)
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/11/26/setting-nfa-gun-trust/ (http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/11/26/setting-nfa-gun-trust/)
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/01/foghorn/breaking-atf-issues-final-ruling-on-nfa-trusts-requires-fingerprints-but-eliminates-cleo-sign-off/ (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/01/foghorn/breaking-atf-issues-final-ruling-on-nfa-trusts-requires-fingerprints-but-eliminates-cleo-sign-off/)
Edit: the most common items are silencers, and short barreled rifles, there is active legislation that will most likely not pass, but would eliminate silencers from the NFA
-
You made a strawman argument. To me it's obvious you don't want to discuss this. You'd rather put words in peoples' mouths.
WTF? I put words in your mouth by asking you to clarify your positions? Yeah, we're definitely done here.
Idiot.
I want to play a game, let's see how many more ways emo emaw can avoid expanding on this "this executive action is...subversion of the process, and will probably have a net negative impact."
So far he's misused the term strawman, accused me of not wanting to discuss the issue even though I asked for clarification, and called me an idiot. So were at three. I don't think he'll actually clarify, so we are left with does he have the discipline to just let it go or keep acting like we can't read. I'm guessing he'll post at least two more times without clarifying before this topic loses steam.
I'm going to try a different approach.
-
I agree that it doesn't go far enough :cheers: I'd love to hear more about it subverting the process and it having a net negative impact.
With whom are you agreeing with here?
-
For those actually interested, I'm never quite sure who just wishes to argue and who might find information interesting...
An NFA (National Firearms Act) or Class III item (there are many names and words used) is an Item described within the NFA as prohibited unless you go through a lengthy process to get a stamp or license for the item (from short barreled weapons, to automatic weapons made before 19-something, to silencers, etc.). In many states, NFA items are prohibited, in Red states, they are typically allowed. The process involves a $200 fee, fingerprinting at a local Law Enforcement office, sign off by your local high-ranking Law Enforcement Official, and 6 to 18 months of waiting while the Bureau of ATF (and really big fires) processes the paperwork and does a stringent background check.
In many areas that an NFA item is otherwise legal, the local high-ranking Law Enforcement Official may simply refuse to sign your paperwork, meaning you may not apply for the item. To subvert this, creating a Trust or Gun Trust has become very popular. As the Trust is not a person, the process was made simpler by eliminating finger printing and the local Law Enforcement sign off.
For obvious reasons the ATF did not like this, so they have been considering changes (ATF 41F). That change was finalized with this Executive order. The general change is, the complete elimination of the Law Enforcement sign off for individual applicants, and that the Trust creator and anyone in the Trust intending to use the NFA item must submit fingerprints, photo ID, etc. so that a background check can be implemented. Thus making NFA items accessible in many more areas (without a trust), while not restricting them in any new areas. Thusly it can be viewed as a win for Pro-Gun persons.
This is all a general summation, please research further if you would like precise details.
https://www.atf.gov/qa-category/national-firearms-act-nfa (https://www.atf.gov/qa-category/national-firearms-act-nfa)
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/11/26/setting-nfa-gun-trust/ (http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/11/26/setting-nfa-gun-trust/)
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/01/foghorn/breaking-atf-issues-final-ruling-on-nfa-trusts-requires-fingerprints-but-eliminates-cleo-sign-off/ (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/01/foghorn/breaking-atf-issues-final-ruling-on-nfa-trusts-requires-fingerprints-but-eliminates-cleo-sign-off/)
Edit: the most common items are silencers, and short barreled rifles, there is active legislation that will most likely not pass, but would eliminate silencers from the NFA
Thank you for that. No offense but I'm not reading those pro gun sites. A few comments and questions.
1. You mentioned that the ban on these class III items are local in nature, so I'm confused on the effect of the executive order.
2. The sign off is complete horse crap and ripe for abuses. If you think for instance me living in a highly rural area with a percentage of african american citizens at roughly one percent is as likely to get signed off on as let's say the sheriff's cousin with a minor criminal history of drug or alcohol offenses then you are just not being honest. (you being the generic reader not you personally, pendergast, I don't want to get hung up on that)
3. Since the sign off system can be manipulated isn't it better to just have these people's prints on record anyway? I mean who in the eff needs a silencer?
4. The gun trust thing is odd and confusing and I have no idea how it's legal.
-
I agree that it doesn't go far enough :cheers: I'd love to hear more about it subverting the process and it having a net negative impact.
With whom are you agreeing with here?
With the poster who so eloquently said "executive action is stupid." It was obviously tongue in cheek as I have expressed some issue with the executive order as well but for the complete opposite reason. Now that we have dealt with that particular distraction with something super obvious, can we move on to the main event which is "it subverting the process and it having a net negative impact?"
-
I agree that it doesn't go far enough :cheers: I'd love to hear more about it subverting the process and it having a net negative impact.
With whom are you agreeing with here?
With the poster who so eloquently said "executive action is stupid." It was obviously tongue in cheek as I have expressed some issue with the executive order as well but for the complete opposite reason. Now that we have dealt with that particular distraction with something super obvious, can we move on to the main event which is "it subverting the process and it having a net negative impact?"
Who was that?
-
:lol:
-
Thank you for that. No offense but I'm not reading those pro gun sites. A few comments and questions.
1. You mentioned that the ban on these class III items are local in nature, so I'm confused on the effect of the executive order.
2. The sign off is complete horse crap and ripe for abuses. If you think for instance me living in a highly rural area with a percentage of african american citizens at roughly one percent is as likely to get signed off on as let's say the sheriff's cousin with a minor criminal history of drug or alcohol offenses then you are just not being honest. (you being the generic reader not you personally, pendergast, I don't want to get hung up on that)
3. Since the sign off system can be manipulated isn't it better to just have these people's prints on record anyway? I mean who in the eff needs a silencer?
4. The gun trust thing is odd and confusing and I have no idea how it's legal.
1. The order effectively lifts any impromptu bans by Law Enforcement officials who refuse to sign the application for an NFA item
2. Agreed
3. I'm not sure personally, I don't have a huge problem with it, the gun trust phenomenon is only recent in nature, regarding silencers, I'll just say I disagree, they make target shooting much more fun, and protect your ears, most gun enthusiasts develop hearing issues
4. It was ingenious actually, Trusts allow you to do many things to protect yourself and your wealth, you should look into one
-
affluenza kid should've looked into a driver's license trust
-
I agree that it doesn't go far enough :cheers: I'd love to hear more about it subverting the process and it having a net negative impact.
With whom are you agreeing with here?
With the poster who so eloquently said "executive action is stupid." It was obviously tongue in cheek as I have expressed some issue with the executive order as well but for the complete opposite reason. Now that we have dealt with that particular distraction with something super obvious, can we move on to the main event which is "it subverting the process and it having a net negative impact?"
Who was that?
Distraction attempt #4, I knew you wouldn't let me down, you wanna keep going?
-
For those actually interested, I'm never quite sure who just wishes to argue and who might find information interesting...
An NFA (National Firearms Act) or Class III item (there are many names and words used) is an Item described within the NFA as prohibited unless you go through a lengthy process to get a stamp or license for the item (from short barreled weapons, to automatic weapons made before 19-something, to silencers, etc.). In many states, NFA items are prohibited, in Red states, they are typically allowed. The process involves a $200 fee, fingerprinting at a local Law Enforcement office, sign off by your local high-ranking Law Enforcement Official, and 6 to 18 months of waiting while the Bureau of ATF (and really big fires) processes the paperwork and does a stringent background check.
In many areas that an NFA item is otherwise legal, the local high-ranking Law Enforcement Official may simply refuse to sign your paperwork, meaning you may not apply for the item. To subvert this, creating a Trust or Gun Trust has become very popular. As the Trust is not a person, the process was made simpler by eliminating finger printing and the local Law Enforcement sign off.
For obvious reasons the ATF did not like this, so they have been considering changes (ATF 41F). That change was finalized with this Executive order. The general change is, the complete elimination of the Law Enforcement sign off for individual applicants, and that the Trust creator and anyone in the Trust intending to use the NFA item must submit fingerprints, photo ID, etc. so that a background check can be implemented. Thus making NFA items accessible in many more areas (without a trust), while not restricting them in any new areas. Thusly it can be viewed as a win for Pro-Gun persons.
This is all a general summation, please research further if you would like precise details.
https://www.atf.gov/qa-category/national-firearms-act-nfa (https://www.atf.gov/qa-category/national-firearms-act-nfa)
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/11/26/setting-nfa-gun-trust/ (http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/11/26/setting-nfa-gun-trust/)
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/01/foghorn/breaking-atf-issues-final-ruling-on-nfa-trusts-requires-fingerprints-but-eliminates-cleo-sign-off/ (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/01/foghorn/breaking-atf-issues-final-ruling-on-nfa-trusts-requires-fingerprints-but-eliminates-cleo-sign-off/)
Edit: the most common items are silencers, and short barreled rifles, there is active legislation that will most likely not pass, but would eliminate silencers from the NFA
Holy crap lots of misdirection in this post. At least you got NFA items right.
-
Misdirection?
-
No one should own anything I fear.
-
Misdirection?
"a wrong or incorrect direction, guidance, or instruction."
Many
Lengthy
Prohibited
many areas -->simply refuse
-
Your definition does not fit your accusation. And for eff's sake I gave a general description for anyone unaware of the change for discussion purposes. You're tilting at windmills.
-
Your definition does not fit your accusation. And for eff's sake I gave a general description for anyone unaware of the change for discussion purposes. You're tilting at windmills.
No you're making it seem like NFA items are banned in many states and it is an lengthy arduous process to get them. That is unequivocally false, save a handful of states. The biggest issue with NFA delays was the massive surge in processing requests because *the Obamas* and has been a nonissue for about a year now. About 7 states really ban NFA items and the shall issue is being challenged. The hyperbole in your "informative" post is laden with agenda instead of facts. I'm tilting at windmills you've created.
-
like, chill out edn.
-
Maybe outright banned in 7 states; however, not all NFA items are treated the same in every state. Many states restrict varying amounts of the items if they do not ban all NFA items. Hence, you need to look up the definition of "false" and "unequivocal" in order to use them properly.
Further, if waiting 6 to 18 months to obtain an item, that is already made, and usually displayed to you before purchase, is not lengthy, then Webster needs to be alerted. And while 18 months is based on personal experience, here's a graph showing it's within a year nearly all of the time for impartiality sake:
http://www.nfatracker.com/TrendGraphAll.aspx (http://www.nfatracker.com/TrendGraphAll.aspx)
You will note, that E-filing has helped tremendously, that changes nothing; however, regarding your tripe.
Let's say you get lucky, it takes 30 to 60 days to receive an item that was ready to go when you bought it (good rough ridin' luck). It's still "lengthy". The longest wait for a firearm in the country is 10 days, so minimum 300% times that is by definition, "lengthy". That word is terrible, I must stop using it.
Therefore, the windmills, or lies, however you want to characterize them, are your own.
-
Maybe outright banned in 7 states; however, not all NFA items are treated the same in every state. Many states restrict varying amounts of the items if they do not ban all NFA items. Hence, you need to look up the definition of "false" and "unequivocal" in order to use them properly.
Further, if waiting 6 to 18 months to obtain an item, that is already made, and usually displayed to you before purchase, is not lengthy, then Webster needs to be alerted. And while 18 months is based on personal experience, here's a graph showing it's within a year nearly all of the time for impartiality sake:
http://www.nfatracker.com/TrendGraphAll.aspx (http://www.nfatracker.com/TrendGraphAll.aspx)
You will note, that E-filing has helped tremendously, that changes nothing; however, regarding your tripe.
Let's say you get lucky, it takes 30 to 60 days to receive an item that was ready to go when you bought it (good rough ridin' luck). It's still "lengthy". The longest wait for a firearm in the country is 10 days, so minimum 300% times that is by definition, "lengthy". That word is terrible, I must stop using it.
Therefore, the windmills, or lies, however you want to characterize them, are your own.
You keep acting like a form 4 is a lengthy process when it's clearly not. The length of process is a direct result of fear mongering by the NRA and is directly caused by fear mongering from Sandy Hook. You can't expect a system that has functioned very well for decades to adapt to a politically driven "bank run." So I don't have any sympathy for you, especially when it's mostly resolved now. But yet you're still using it in a supposedly informational post to drive your agenda. Yeah it bother me when people misrepresent the truth in order to further their agenda. Just the same way it bothers me when a gun grabber talks about banning features as a meaningful component of gun control. It's a bullshit tactic that has no place in a reasonable discussion. If you wanted to be fair in your post you should have laid out the entire truth instead of the components that fit what you want to say is all.
And by the way, your graph clearly shows its no where near a year for any process, for impartiality sake.
-
Edn is quite literally the worst. At one time, I think bubbles said he would push p1k3 over on his barstool if he saw him in Aggieville. I think I'd do the same to ednksu
-
Pike is fantastic to pak with tho
-
Edn is quite literally the worst. At one time, I think bubbles said he would push p1k3 over on his barstool if he saw him in Aggieville. I think I'd do the same to ednksu
Jeez. What a douche
-
I'm not reading any of this crap if it doesn't make the repository, so take that into consideration and post hard.
-
Edn is quite literally the worst. At one time, I think bubbles said he would push p1k3 over on his barstool if he saw him in Aggieville. I think I'd do the same to ednksu
Jeez. What a douche
So, who's your sock?
-
Edn is quite literally the worst. At one time, I think bubbles said he would push p1k3 over on his barstool if he saw him in Aggieville. I think I'd do the same to ednksu
Jeez. What a douche
So, who's your sock?
Lots of anger issues. Please seek counseling.
-
Edn is quite literally the worst. At one time, I think bubbles said he would push p1k3 over on his barstool if he saw him in Aggieville. I think I'd do the same to ednksu
Jeez. What a douche
So, who's your sock?
Is pike Tubesock? :surprised:
-
eff no! :horrorsurprise:
-
That's a relief
-
hmm...
This reminds me of the time Bubbles said he was going to push....MR BREAD off a barstool!
... :pray:
-
take it to the who I would push off of a barstool if I saw them in the 'ville thread