zn wrote:

bnw wrote:

here is no “logic” in this rationale. But when people snap and go on these rampages, that’s generally not a part of the deal in the first place. It makes no sense to even think in those terms — that by killing 49 (or more) people in an American club, this would help Afghanistan in any way, shape or form. It won’t. It also makes the reference to ISIS all the stranger.

Especially since ISIS has nothing to do with Afghanistan.

Plus he told people before, in workplace conflicts, that he was associated with Hezbollah.

Which makes no sense for Afghanistan either.

AND ON TOP OF IT Hezbollah and ISIS are at war in Syria.

Plus Hezbollah is Shia and ISIS is Sunni.

In short…he does not seem to know what he’s talking about. And of course there’s no reason to take those references seriously. They make no sense.

…

Stop it. Even the witness said it was political. The US had bombed Afghanistan. He went with the enemy of my enemy is my friend when he pledged allegiance to ISIS. It was definitely terrorism.

wv wrote:

bnw wrote:

wv wrote:

bnw wrote:

zn wrote:

bnw wrote:

We already have the statistics from the FBI. Research isn’t needed.

They BANNED it.

The United States of America…BANNED research funding.

The FBI does some stuff? So what? That’s like shutting down every university and research facility in the world because quote unquote “we already have 1 that does that.”

If you can’t admit there’s an agenda behind this, it will knock your credibility into a permanent no-recovery zone.

This one is way past obvious.

That is attacking the poster. Stop it.

We have the statistics. The FBI generates all sorts of such statistics. Gun violence has decreased. What could the research possibly say other than no gun no gun violence. Duh. Only worth spending if you have an agenda. Duh.

================

If it were true that more scientific-research would simply back up what the FBI has
already proven, then….the Republicans would NOT be afraid of the research. They would NOT have banned science if they thought it would back up their agenda.

You know that.

w
v

No I don’t. How could you? You propose an impossible scenario.

“If it were true that more scientific-research would simply back up what the FBI has
already proven”

That reads as though you already know the what the research will say!

No research is needed. We have the statistics. Gun violence has decreased.

————-
smile…sigh

…btw, i heard on the radio that the murder rate is up 17 percent in the big cities. A researcher has dubbed it the “ferguson effect” or something like that. There were differing interpretatiosn of what the ‘ferguson effect’ was, etc.

I would like to see more science, more research on murder in America. The FBI stats are hardly the end of the story. They are the beginning.

And honestly i dont care what the science shows. Remember I have a gun. I’m from west by god virginia. We come out of the womb with muskets.
And i havent really taken a position on “assault weapons” one way or another.

I dont have an ‘agenda’ on that issue — I want more science on it. I am not afraid of what the science would show. The Reps are. Its the only explanation for Banning SCIENCE.

w
v

I’m from Tennessee the land of unlawful search and seizure. What? Just one gun? A musket?

Billy_T wrote:

That reads as though you already know the what the research will say!

No research is needed. We have the statistics. Gun violence has decreased.

Guns kill more than 33,000 Americans each year. Even if this total is a “decline”
from previous highs, it’s still a huge number. And the ease with which people can buy guns, especially high-capacity guns, is the biggest cause for those deaths. Hell, toddlers have already killed more people this year than died in Orlando. Toddlers!

It’s the guns. No other weapon makes it so easy to kill, which is why it’s the weapon of choice for rapists, thieves, killers, mass shooters. And when someone wants to kill a LOT of people, they choose semi-automatics/some form of assault weapon. And it’s the high capacity of those weapons which enables mass slaughter. Without that capacity, the killer simply can’t take out as many human beings.

Common sense and logic tells us that they shouldn’t be available, to anyone. There is simply no reason for a citizen to have a semi-automatic/assault style/military style weapon. None. Zero. Zilch. And they’re simply too dangerous to Americans.

No it is not the gun. It is people. Whether mental illness, rage, neglect, carelessness etc. the gun did not discharge on its own. Capacity BS. Anyone that wanted to give such heinous goal a thought can achieve more without a firearm. 2nd Amendment is a right and must not be infringed because a few people abuse it.

zn wrote:

bnw wrote:

We already have the statistics from the FBI. Research isn’t needed.

They BANNED it.

The United States of America…BANNED research funding.

The FBI does some stuff? So what? That’s like shutting down every university and research facility in the world because quote unquote “we already have 1 that does that.”

If you can’t admit there’s an agenda behind this, it will knock your credibility into a permanent no-recovery zone.

This one is way past obvious.

That is attacking the poster. Stop it.

We have the statistics. The FBI generates all sorts of such statistics. Gun violence has decreased. What could the research possibly say other than no gun no gun violence. Duh. Only worth spending if you have an agenda. Duh.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 5 months ago by bnw.

nittany ram wrote:

bnw wrote:

wv wrote:

I’m not sure anything quite typifies what the Republicans have become,
more than the law they created barring scientific research.

I mean….just pause…and think about that.

Does anything say “Republican” more than that?

And i own a gun.

w
v

Why fund research with a known political agenda? We already have enough of that nonsense occurring with global warming “research”.

Preventing research because the republicans and NRA might not like the results is their political agenda.

The NRA is afraid of research into gun violence because they know what it will reveal. And they know what the solution is. It’s the solution that Australia, Canada and other countries have already figured out.

We already have the statistics from the FBI. Research isn’t needed. Gun violence has DECREASED. Would be great to see research into violence to self and others caused by SSRI antidepressant users.

Eternal Ramnation wrote:

bnw wrote:

Eternal Ramnation wrote:

bnw wrote:

bnw wrote:

Eternal Ramnation wrote:

BNW that is not at all an accurate definition. The M1 was an assault rifle , it didn’t get selective fire until 1944. At the time the 2nd amendment was written assault rifles were muskets. Semi-autos are not at all better for hunting. Bolt action hunting rifles are superior in accuracy and safety. An idiot with a semi-auto 30.06 is the reason I retired from rifle hunting. If I can take deer with one arrow you damn sure don’t need a 40 round clip on your AK or AR. My own thoughts on the problem in general are to concentrate on getting and keeping firearms out of the hands of crazy people. The current “background check” is a joke. It’s more of a customer service survey on the honor system than a legitimate background check.

It is absolutely the ACCURATE description. The M1 to which you refer is the carbine. Granted according to the moronic rules of the ’90s it indeed possessed the attributes the Clinton Administration created to confuse the public and profit its campaign donors. The government and the press called the legislation the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 whereas the the actual name of the legislation was the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act. For those unaware of the moronic rules of that legislation for an assault rifle-

Under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 the definition of “semiautomatic assault weapon” included specific semi-automatic firearm models by name, and other semi-automatic firearms that possessed two or more from a set certain features:[11]

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher mount

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Detachable magazine.

That law confused people who do not know firearms. It also made political supporters of Clinton a lot of money by importing weapons such as the M1 Carbine which met the ridiculous criteria but in no way was ever considered an assault rifle. I asked this very question of an ATF agent at that time who agreed with me and further stated the agency is not at all concerned with that rifle. The imported M1 carbines brought increasingly higher prices by the restriction on imports. Pure profit to the importers. Increased prices for all pre-ban variants of other firearms too. It was never about safety. It was always about money.

Cosmetic features[edit]
Gun control advocates and gun rights advocates have referred to at least some of the features outlined in the federal Assault Weapon Ban of 1994 as cosmetic. The NRA Institute for Legislative Action and the Violence Policy Center both used the term in publications they released in September 2004 when the ban expired.[13][14] In May 2012, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence said, “the inclusion in the list of features that were purely cosmetic in nature created a loophole that allowed manufacturers to successfully circumvent the law by making minor modifications to the weapons they already produced.”[15] The term was repeated in several stories after the 2012 Aurora shooting and Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.[16][17]

ER,

Had to leave earlier so couldn’t fully address your comment on the M1 Carbine until now. The carbine was not intended for front line fighting. It was for support troops that might find themselves in a fight. It replaced the side arm issued to these troops since it had far greater accuracy at much greater range. Since it weighed much less than the M1 Garand and the Thompson submachine gun many troops went out of their way to acquire one in the field. The M1A1 was a carbine with a folding stock only which was reserved for paratroops. The M2 Carbine was the full auto version. Since minor mods were required to enable the M1 Carbine to fire full auto many were later converted as well.

You blew past quite a few points there, automatic weapons are exactly that automatic weapons The were illegal long before the assault weapons ban. Spears swords and axes were all assault weapons too. When that ban was put in place an AR 15 was a M16 minus the automatic sear which can still be bought online starting at about 25 bucks.The bans purpose was to stop psychopaths from “playing army” and going to war with the public. I think a little honest research would net some telling numbers on just how much good that ban did.Take a look at mass shootings data while the ban was in place and then compare it to the last 12 years.

No you don’t understand. Why do you think full automatic weapons are illegal? Even the Firearms Act of 1934 didn’t make full auto weapons illegal. Full auto weapons are Class 3. I’ve mentioned this before a few times. Fill out the paperwork and pay your $200 Class 3 fee and you can buy your machine gun, silencer, grenade launcher etc. Most people I know who have Class 3 bought for an investment since most people can’t afford to feed it the ammo. Silencers are the most useful but their price is still very high.

BTW the AR-15s made DURING the ban still were functionally the same semi-auto rifle. The pistol grip was modified and smaller capacity mags were the norm for civilian sales, though pre ban high capacity mags would still fit those rifles made during the ban. However all pre ban AR-15s were still legal to buy and sell.

Class 3 weapons require an extensive background check and the local authority usually a sheriff must sign off on it. This is not a matter of simple paperwork, and why do it when you can make your AR 15 an automatic for 25 bucks ? Again you are looking at the ban and say it does nothing but when you look up stats it was a massive success. Believe me I know gun nuts generally good people but I also know just plain nuts that shouldn’t be in the same state as a firearm .Seriously I have heard “I wish I would’ve had my gun” and worse from someone applying for a concealed carry permit. That is not a “good guy with a gun” That is a guy that should not even be driving.

You do it if you’re a law abiding citizen.

Mackeyser wrote:

And I have no idea what the crack meant about “with the way that culture is heading.” As in, I literally have no idea what that means.

It means Sharia Law being practiced with the consent of the government and beheading in the streets.

zn wrote:

bnw wrote:

I’m amazed at the hyperbole used regarding Trump.

I’m amazed you think it’s hyperbole.

Internment camps is hyperbole. Feel free to disprove it.

wv wrote:

PA Ram wrote:

And yet Trump will benefit by convincing frightened people that this is just another part of the holy war and that the answer lies in building giant walls around our country.

And it won’t solve this problem.

—————-
Well if the majority of American citizen-voters thinks ‘like that’
and want Donald Trump to be President of the United States — what does that say about America, and how did those voters get ‘that way’ ?

w
v

Provide proof that Trump has said he wants to put US citizens in internment camps! The real question is what does that say about those who won’t vote for Trump that they would fear monger such an outcome?

zn wrote:

QUOTE

Aw Bill wants to make more money with another ban. So predictable.

zn wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

Sigh.

Well, who can argue with “sigh”? Congrats, bnw. You won the Internet today.

;>)

Some of us have already transgressed a bit. So let’s stay inbounds now to make up for it.

What a banner day. Billy admits defeat and you complimented my mod skills. Rest assured I remain bnw, the source of reason and harmony in this Public House.

;-}

zn wrote:

bnw wrote:

What I think doesn’t matter. Our government believes it.

But that is and only is what you think.

I mean that’s all you gave us there. Your belief.

Then explain why troops are being trained to confiscate weapons from US citizens? Why would various federal agencies OUTSIDE the DoD be buying so many firearms and millions of rounds of ammo?

Billy_T wrote:

Also: It’s not just the fact that semi-automatic guns allow for so many victims. The knowledge going in empowers the shooter to act. Knowing the capacity he holds in his hand empowers him to go forward with the plan of mass slaughter. The tool itself does that. The tool itself radically increases the sense of power for the holder.

Not the tool. The venue is. He chose a venue in which firearms are not allowed. Common theme in these shootings.

Eternal Ramnation wrote:

bnw wrote:

bnw wrote:

Eternal Ramnation wrote:

BNW that is not at all an accurate definition. The M1 was an assault rifle , it didn’t get selective fire until 1944. At the time the 2nd amendment was written assault rifles were muskets. Semi-autos are not at all better for hunting. Bolt action hunting rifles are superior in accuracy and safety. An idiot with a semi-auto 30.06 is the reason I retired from rifle hunting. If I can take deer with one arrow you damn sure don’t need a 40 round clip on your AK or AR. My own thoughts on the problem in general are to concentrate on getting and keeping firearms out of the hands of crazy people. The current “background check” is a joke. It’s more of a customer service survey on the honor system than a legitimate background check.

It is absolutely the ACCURATE description. The M1 to which you refer is the carbine. Granted according to the moronic rules of the ’90s it indeed possessed the attributes the Clinton Administration created to confuse the public and profit its campaign donors. The government and the press called the legislation the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 whereas the the actual name of the legislation was the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act. For those unaware of the moronic rules of that legislation for an assault rifle-

Under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 the definition of “semiautomatic assault weapon” included specific semi-automatic firearm models by name, and other semi-automatic firearms that possessed two or more from a set certain features:[11]

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher mount

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Detachable magazine.

That law confused people who do not know firearms. It also made political supporters of Clinton a lot of money by importing weapons such as the M1 Carbine which met the ridiculous criteria but in no way was ever considered an assault rifle. I asked this very question of an ATF agent at that time who agreed with me and further stated the agency is not at all concerned with that rifle. The imported M1 carbines brought increasingly higher prices by the restriction on imports. Pure profit to the importers. Increased prices for all pre-ban variants of other firearms too. It was never about safety. It was always about money.

Cosmetic features[edit]
Gun control advocates and gun rights advocates have referred to at least some of the features outlined in the federal Assault Weapon Ban of 1994 as cosmetic. The NRA Institute for Legislative Action and the Violence Policy Center both used the term in publications they released in September 2004 when the ban expired.[13][14] In May 2012, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence said, “the inclusion in the list of features that were purely cosmetic in nature created a loophole that allowed manufacturers to successfully circumvent the law by making minor modifications to the weapons they already produced.”[15] The term was repeated in several stories after the 2012 Aurora shooting and Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.[16][17]

ER,

Had to leave earlier so couldn’t fully address your comment on the M1 Carbine until now. The carbine was not intended for front line fighting. It was for support troops that might find themselves in a fight. It replaced the side arm issued to these troops since it had far greater accuracy at much greater range. Since it weighed much less than the M1 Garand and the Thompson submachine gun many troops went out of their way to acquire one in the field. The M1A1 was a carbine with a folding stock only which was reserved for paratroops. The M2 Carbine was the full auto version. Since minor mods were required to enable the M1 Carbine to fire full auto many were later converted as well.

You blew past quite a few points there, automatic weapons are exactly that automatic weapons The were illegal long before the assault weapons ban. Spears swords and axes were all assault weapons too. When that ban was put in place an AR 15 was a M16 minus the automatic sear which can still be bought online starting at about 25 bucks.The bans purpose was to stop psychopaths from “playing army” and going to war with the public. I think a little honest research would net some telling numbers on just how much good that ban did.Take a look at mass shootings data while the ban was in place and then compare it to the last 12 years.

No you don’t understand. Why do you think full automatic weapons are illegal? Even the Firearms Act of 1934 didn’t make full auto weapons illegal. Full auto weapons are Class 3. I’ve mentioned this before a few times. Fill out the paperwork and pay your $200 Class 3 fee and you can buy your machine gun, silencer, grenade launcher etc. Most people I know who have Class 3 bought for an investment since most people can’t afford to feed it the ammo. Silencers are the most useful but their price is still very high.

BTW the AR-15s made DURING the ban still were functionally the same semi-auto rifle. The pistol grip was modified and smaller capacity mags were the norm for civilian sales, though pre ban high capacity mags would still fit those rifles made during the ban. However all pre ban AR-15s were still legal to buy and sell.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 5 months ago by bnw.