Bill O'Reilly its time for gun control

[Fanatical Meat]

You guys keep acting like a semi automatic rifle is the problem. Very, VERY few people are killed each year by so called "assault rifles". Will you anti-gunners feel better when we're burying the dead that were blown up by fertilizer bomb laden vehicles or handguns? You're misplacing your anger towards the tool, and banning it will achieve nothing, as similar "assault weapons" bans have achieved in the past. Once again, only law abiding citizens will lose rights, and the anti-gun left will cheer as we lose freedoms.

Here's the thing. After the Oklahoma bombing its much harder and tracked who buys large amounts of fertilizer. Funny thing is like guns nearly everyone agreed something had to change it was too easy to build a big bomb. Things changed, can't make the same statement for guns.

 

[Venix]

As previously mentioned "A well regulated militia" is the noun clause, by definition a subject.

"This is trivial to verify: A nominative absolute can be removed without affecting the sentence's grammatical correctness, whereas removing a noun clause renders the sentence ungrammatical. Let's see what happens:"

"being necessary to the security of a free state, ... ".

Also previously mentioned this is pedantry meant to highlight yours. The original subject/predicate illustration is a simplified analogy of relationships in a sentence; it makes no difference there to call it absolute/independent or predicate/subject instead except be unnecessarily confusing.

I'm sure you're glad the inconsequential parts are now resolved while nobody else has any idea wtf is going on.

lol, you don't even know what a clause is.

A noun clause is a clause.
A clause minimally consists of a noun and a verb.
"A well regulated militia" does not contain a verb.
It is not a clause.
It is not a noun clause.

Is that simple enough for you to understand, or do I also need to define some of those big tough words like "noun" and "verb"?

 

[Artdeco]

It's not absolute. It's just unlikely in the extreme due to the nature of this government and the people it serves. Do you imagine the members of the military turning on the average people of this country willingly? Unwillingly?

When does caution tip the scales into paranoia? And where is the wisdom in channeling resources (time, money, etc.) into preparation for very unlikely events?

Do you have an asteroid bunker these days? Do you advise people to invest in those places that want to build and supply them for people?

Actually, I'm (literally) invested in the status quo for my future, locked into making $13K this week, (if they stay above the strike price) selling covered calls, it's shaping up to be a good month... But whatever you need to believe is fine with me. I'm actually set to make thousands if a gun ban happens. An M16 is going for $25K right now, don't think AR's will appreciate that quickly, or that much, but they'll appreciate in value. As soon as an AR I'm getting for a friend in Hawaii shows up, I need to go pick up 5 from my FFL guy, it's a fun hobby, like Legos for law abiding adults. I picked up a few thousand shares of Ruger & S&W too, just sold covered calls on them this morning.

 

[glenn1]

It's not absolute. It's just unlikely in the extreme due to the nature of this government and the people it serves. Do you imagine the members of the military turning on the average people of this country willingly? Unwillingly?

When does caution tip the scales into paranoia? And where is the wisdom in channeling resources (time, money, etc.) into preparation for very unlikely events?

Do you have an asteroid bunker these days? Do you advise people to invest in those places that want to build and supply them for people?

It hasn't stopped you from channeling resources into restrictions designed ostensibly for the very unlikely event of mass shootings. Even people trying to make the mass shooting phenomenon seem as big as possible (see link below) came up with 869 dead in mass shootings since 1966, or 17 persons/year. If you plotted "mass shootings" in the tables of Leading Causes of Death it probably wouldn't reach the top 1,000 or maybe even 10,000th most frequent cause.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/mass-shootings-in-america/

 

[SlowSpyder]

Sigh.

Your logic is flawed.

Poor legislation is the reason the previous bans didn't achieve anything. It left enough loopholes that the gun industry drove new and adjusted guns to their customers right through them. A properly written ban on assault weapons could have actual impact.

The nonsense that criminals would still get them... has been covered many many times. If you dry up the supply demand will shift to other easier-to-get options, like handguns or shotguns. Those options are dramatically less likely to be used to kill 50 people inside of a few minutes by a crazy lone gunman.

The more impedance we add to those who want to carry out violence and terrorism, the less likely those acts will be carried out. People are rarely so determined to do anything that they will overcome a great number of barriers to their impulses.

What I think should happen is background checks on each and every gun sale, private and new / retail. I think over time that'll make an impact. Silly laws like capacity bans, gun free zones (victim zones), grips regulations, suppressor bans, etc., are all feel good do nothing laws. None of that stuff matters, what does matter is keeping guns out of the hands of those who wish to use them to do us harm.

Here's the thing. After the Oklahoma bombing its much harder and tracked who buys large amounts of fertilizer. Funny thing is like guns nearly everyone agreed something had to change it was too easy to build a big bomb. Things changed, can't make the same statement for guns.

Fertilizer isn't the only really easy to get explosive...

The best chance for stopping bad guys with guns is more good guys with guns, and of course stopping them from getting guns in the first place by making logical changes that help keep guns out of bad guys' hands. I'm ok with that, but we have to try and keep guns away from the bad guys without harming some 80,000,000+ law abiding gun owners' rights.

And again, how much more regulation do guns need given that there are much bigger killers of people out there that are regulated far less?

 

[bshole]

It's not absolute. It's just unlikely in the extreme due to the nature of this government and the people it serves. Do you imagine the members of the military turning on the average people of this country willingly? Unwillingly?

That will happen when civilization crumbles and falls away. Being alive during that time period will be unpleasant in the extreme. It truly is silly trying to "prepare" for such a thing. It is beyond unlikely to occur in our lifetime barring an unimaginable catastrophe.

 

[piasabird]

Ban all Gun shows and make people sell guns only through brick and mortar gun dealers with surveillance cameras.

 

[SlowSpyder]

It hasn't stopped you from channeling resources into restrictions designed ostensibly for the very unlikely event of mass shootings. Even people trying to make the mass shooting phenomenon seem as big as possible (see link below) came up with 869 dead in mass shootings since 1966, or 17 persons/year. If you plotted "mass shootings" in the tables of Leading Causes of Death it probably wouldn't reach the top 1,000 or maybe even 10,000th most frequent cause.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/mass-shootings-in-america/

This is exactly what I'm getting at. There are other common things in society that kill us FAR more than guns, and no one cares. The 'gun problem' in this country is much bigger in the media than reality. Don't get me wrong, innocent people die from guns (and many other things) in this country, and that shouldn't happen and we need to work toward that not happening. But taking away our 2nd amendment rights is NOT the answer to this issue.

For comparison, choking on pen caps kill about 100 people a year... Time for an assault pen cap ban!

 

[piasabird]

What part of gun rights falls under this right shall not be affringed? It should be as easy to buy a Gun as it is to vote.

 

[Artdeco]

That will happen when civilization crumbles and falls away. Being alive during that time period will be unpleasant in the extreme. It truly is silly trying to "prepare" for such a thing. It is beyond unlikely to occur in our lifetime barring an unimaginable catastrophe.

So the obvious thing to do is make guns illegal, got it.

Which knives do you approve for me to own? I really like my carving knife, but like my guns, it hasn't killed anyone, but in the name of public safety I should surrender it.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Ban all Gun shows and make people sell guns only through brick and mortar gun dealers with surveillance cameras.

All the guns shows I've been in the Houston area only allow dealers with FFLs to be in the venue. They even patrol the parking lots to ensure no private sales are taking place.

 

[piasabird]

Often Gun Bans list specific Gun Models or things like black color, or a flash suppressor and then all the Gun Manufacturer has to do is come out with new models, designer colors, and just slight changes to keep people happy and legal.

In the past almost anyone could get a license to sell guns out of their house or through a gun range or private gun club or organization. The problem is there is no way to monitor and control people that sell guns and ammunition in the dark of night and behind closed doors. So all the gun laws are doing is hurting people who just want a firearm for sport, protection, hunting, and self defense.

 

[Artdeco]

Ban all Gun shows and make people sell guns only through brick and mortar gun dealers with surveillance cameras.

All sales where I live are required to go through a background check, if your state doesn't do it, write your state representative.

There is no "gun show loophole" even in states that allow unregulated private sales.

 

[bshole]

So the obvious thing to do is make guns illegal, got it.

Which knives do you approve for me to own? I really like my carving knife, but like my guns, it hasn't killed anyone, but in the name of public safety I should surrender it.

It may have not killed anything but has served it a single useful purpose for you? That is a serious question. If you didn't have a gun, how would that really affect your life? Would your life be less rich without a gun? Your happiness and contentment is really dependent on a gun? Doesn't that strike you as a little sad?

 

[Artdeco]

It may have not killed anything but has served it a single useful purpose for you? That is a serious question. If you didn't have a gun, how would that really affect your life? Would your life be less rich without a gun? Your happiness and contentment is really dependent on a gun? Doesn't that strike you as a little sad?

I'm making quite a bit of money on their stocks, Ruger and S&W have had a great week, did you know an M16 goes for a minimum of $25K? I'm actually an opportunist with a concealed carry permit.

The gun company stock prices go up every time Obama et al mention further expansion of the gun laws. Hillary and Barak are quite literally the best gun salesmen on the planet.

https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:RGR&authuser=1&ei=h8BqV6mSO8fUjAG1hYX4Cg

https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:SWHC&authuser=1&ei=csBqV8GTOMa72AbH1gY




BOO!!!

 

[Londo_Jowo]

It may have not killed anything but has served it a single useful purpose for you? That is a serious question. If you didn't have a gun, how would that really affect your life? Would your life be less rich without a gun? Your happiness and contentment is really dependent on a gun? Doesn't that strike you as a little sad?

So, have you sold your guns?

 

[SlowSpyder]

All the guns shows I've been in the Houston area only allow dealers with FFLs to be in the venue. They even patrol the parking lots to ensure no private sales are taking place.

All sales where I live are required to go through a background check, if your state doesn't do it, write your state representative.

There is no "gun show loophole" even in states that allow unregulated private sales.

The gun shows around here aren't like that. Maybe it is my state's laws, I don't know. I've seen and been part of private sales, two strangers exchange cash for a gun, no background check.

 

[bshole]

So, have you sold your guns?

Got rid of my S&W Chiefs Special .45 caliber. The other two are hunting rifles. I will get rid of them when they pry my cold dead....... oops... actually I have no plans of getting rid of them. If the government requires me to get rid of them, I will. It will hurt a little because the Remington .700 is worth about $2k with the Leupold scope. It really is a magnificent gun.

 

[Artdeco]

Got rid of my S&W Chiefs Special .45 caliber. The other two are hunting rifles. I will get rid of them when they pry my cold dead....... oops... actually I have no plans of getting rid of them. If the government requires me to get rid of them, I will. It will hurt a little because the Remington .700 is worth about $2k with the Leupold scope. It really is a magnificent gun.

I just put together a 338 Lapua, spent more on the scope than 99% of the guns I've owned, and I bought it used.

 

[Artdeco]

The gun shows around here aren't like that. Maybe it is my state's laws, I don't know. I've seen and been part of private sales, two strangers exchange cash for a gun, no background check.

Individual states can regulate more, but that's currently the federal law, private sales are allowed without a background check. ATF has done some stings, 2 out of 100 private sales wouldn't have passed a background check.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Got rid of my S&W Chiefs Special .45 caliber. The other two are hunting rifles. I will get rid of them when they pry my cold dead....... oops... actually I have no plans of getting rid of them. If the government requires me to get rid of them, I will. It will hurt a little because the Remington .700 is worth about $2k with the Leupold scope. It really is a magnificent gun.

Since you seem to not be a very big fan of guns and I live close to you, I'll be happy to take that off your hands so you can have a safer gun free home. 🙂

 

[bshole]

Since you seem to not be a very big fan of guns and I live close to you, I'll be happy to take that off your hands so you can have a safer gun free home. 🙂

Here it is in all of it's magnificence (10 years ago). Notice the gold ring on the Leupold scope. Best fucking scope I ever used. Friggin unreal.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Those kids were around an evil gun and are ok today? 🙂 Really nice looking rifle.

 

[jackstar7]

I wish gun-enthusiasts or profiteers could divorce a lot of the nonsense rhetoric from their worthwhile discussion.

I am open to some of the arguments being made on behalf of the 2nd Amendment, but all the stupid jab thrown around really undercut my engagement.

But I suppose P&N is gonna P&N.

 

[BxgJ]

It's not absolute. It's just unlikely in the extreme due to the nature of this government and the people it serves. Do you imagine the members of the military turning on the average people of this country willingly? Unwillingly?

When does caution tip the scales into paranoia? And where is the wisdom in channeling resources (time, money, etc.) into preparation for very unlikely events?

Do you have an asteroid bunker these days? Do you advise people to invest in those places that want to build and supply them for people?

This is a good point. When some say 'we'll fight the govt if they come to take (some or all of) our guns!', the typical response is 'yeah those (insert your favorite derogatory term here) people can't stand up to the US military'. Neither of these statements are helpful, or even accurate given current conditions.

First, the govt isn't coming to take your guns. There may be more regulations, but that won't trigger a revolution. People have to be pushed quite far before they will risk all in such a manner. And we have multiple outlets to address their grievances, elections, amendments to the constitution, even federalism helps in this regard.

To address the second comment, we have to suppose that the people have been pushed far enough that the situation could even occur. It's not the case now, nor in the foreseeable future. But if it were, at some future point, why would the members of the military not be affected? They are citizens, likely with diverse opinions on the subject at hand. More likely there would be some on both sides.

What frustrates me about this situation is that congress is just unable to act at all so far, even though some things, like strengthening background checks, should be easy to get through.