Liberal sites drop gun control topic when shooter id was announced

[SP33Demon]

Ohh get ahold of yourself.

WWYBYWB? Mosh? TFP? is that you?

 

[Brovane]

Huh, AWB expired in 2004.

CA has had a 'Assault Weapon' ban in place since 2000. Apparently the long guns that the press is calling 'Assault Weapons' were still purchased in CA despite this ban. So of course it leads the obvious question of how a national 'Assault Weapon' ban would help prevent these type of shooting incidents.

 

[SP33Demon]

Guess what, it's already becoming moot as people can 3d print their own. You gun control folks going to go full authoritarian on us and ban people from manufacturing too just in case someone wants to machine something that will scare you? Or ban the machines?

http://gizmodo.com/3d-printed-guns-are-only-getting-better-and-scarier-1677747439

Dammit glenn, don't let the libs know about that. They're going to take away our 3D printers now.

 

[Moonbeam]

Funny enough, I have been watching a lot of gun videos since the shooting happened for no other reason, I guess, than that I am rather fond of firearms, in a craftsmanship sort of way. They are like works of art to me. I have the same fascination with blades and recently bought a set of Japanese knives for my new kitchen. Everybody who has used them so far has cut themselves. They are sharp like nothing I've ever seen.

I have learned so far, from the videos, that my concern that I have a 9mm Colt combat commander instead of a 45 caliber, is not something I should worry about, that some who are really into the subject, prefer the 9mm. Now I will sleep better at night even though the gun is 100 miles away where I usually stay.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Wow, this made it to seven pages without a shred of evidence from the topic starter. A++ trolling.

Not to mention that the New York Times has a gun control editorial on its front page, the first time since 1920 that it put an editorial on page 1.

 

[shortylickens]

With that thought process, just throw up your hands and have anarchy. Why make a black market of hard to find items, just make them all readily available. Got it

Congrats on your delicious logical fallacy.

 

[Chidoro]

Congrats on your delicious logical fallacy.

Congrats on yours. Truth hurts, doesn't really matter whether you agree

 

[OverVolt]

Everytime something like this happens guns hit a new sales record.

I'm pretty sure the message is falling on deaf ears while many people move to protect themselves.

If you ever had rare occasion to need one by the time you realize it, it'll be far too late. Thats how you get Darwin'd boys.

 

[fskimospy]

Everytime something like this happens guns hit a new sales record.

I'm pretty sure the message is falling on def ears while many people move to protect themselves.

If you ever had rare occasion to need one by the time you realize it, it'll be far too late. Thats how you get Darwin'd boys.

Speaking of Darwinism, you realize that owning a gun is associated with a higher risk of death overall, right? Guess that's how you get Darwined, huh.

 

[Darwin333]

Would you prefer "military rifle"?

In any case, the core premise of this thread is nonsense and based on nothing. There are a host of references to gun control at the moment on salon and huff. I fully expect Democrats and liberals of all stripes will use this case as an illustration of the need for gun control (they certainly were doing so on CNN last night, after the identity of Farook was revealed), and Republicans will call for prayer and reject any law that would in any way restrict the rights of anyone - even suspected terrorists - to buy guns. The same old dance will continue unabated.

TH, why exactly did you post this thread? I find your behavior just beguiling, the great majority of the time. On the one hand, you're hypersensitive to personal slights (hence your desire to get "closure" with a high school teacher who hurt your feelings despite your being in your mid-40s). On the other, you're a consistently shrill partisan troll who thinks nothing of casting pointless partisan stones in the wake of a tragedy. I just find the dichotomy hard to process. In the meantime, I literally can't recall a single post of yours in this forum that was encouraging, thoughtful, or intended to inspire discussion. For all practical purposes, your only role on this forum is as a conversational black hole.

With the amount of rounds they fired I have got to assume that they were not using rifles that were legal to own in California. They might have been purchased legally and then illegally modified which isn't that hard to do with most weapons (be they "battle rifles" or not). From a purely legal standpoint it would be far easier to use pistols for mass shootings in Cali than legal "battle rifles". Pistols are much quicker to reload than Cali legal "battle rifles" because with pistols you push a button that came stock on the weapon and the magazine drops out and you pop another one in. With Cali legal "battle rifles" you have to use a separate tool to release the magazine and pop in another. Even using the common "bullet button" it takes a decent amount of time to drop the mag versus the stock feature on a pistol and both can legally hold the same amount of rounds.

 

[Darwin333]

How about simplifying it then - if you tried to take away guns, the people with them would fight back and probably win considering their numbers. Gun control isn't happening, won't happen, and the more you mention it the more guns get sold.

Only way the people win is if they seriously and very quickly organize. A "family" with a fuckton of guns still isn't going to win against SWAT. Where do all of the gun owners go to "make a stand"? Gotta be some sort of compound or something, a house full of guys with guns blasting at the police is just going to get rammed with their bulletproof vehicles and shot to shit.

Or does the populace take the fight to the police and storm police stations?

Don't get me wrong, I know why the 2nd was penned and I agree with it. I'm just curious how all this would go down in the society we live in today especially considering how selfish we have become. I lived though a SHTF scenario and we had a few small organized groups in the suburbs but for the most part it was every man for himself.

How do you even get the message out to gun owners to meet at XYZ compound without SWAT raiding it before any significant amount of people show up? Or even simpler just arresting people one at a time on their way in?

 

[BurnItDwn]

Everytime something like this happens guns hit a new sales record.

I'm pretty sure the message is falling on def ears while many people move to protect themselves.

If you ever had rare occasion to need one by the time you realize it, it'll be far too late. Thats how you get Darwin'd boys.

Our country has too much of a "fight fire with fire" mentality.

That said, I agree that the "assault weapons bans" and "magazine capacity" laws are stupid .. The constitution does not specify certain types of firearms. Of course "arms" of 2015 can be quite a bit more deadly than the arms of 1787 when the constitution was written.

That said, I think the focus needs to be on 1.) sealing up cracks/loopholes in distribution of the arms. and 2.) ensuring gun owners know how to properly secure their arms against theft

Maybe 'welfare for gun owners' type system, give gun owners rebates or free delivery or something for using a bigass 800+ pound gun safe to keep them secure from theft... use tax dollars to protect the interests of gun owners while also protecting the public interest?

 

[sm625]

They will never drop the gun control topic even after all legal guns are banned and 5000 people a year are being killed by a constant flow of inner city thugs and islamic radicals who are using their welfare checks to buy illegal guns. I kind of wish they would succeed in banning guns just to see what kind of crap they spew as the nation gets overrun. I think they would ban cash next. No cash = no illegal purchases. Such brilliant liberal logic, nothing could go wrong with that eh?

 

[SP33Demon]

Only way the people win is if they seriously and very quickly organize. A "family" with a fuckton of guns still isn't going to win against SWAT. Where do all of the gun owners go to "make a stand"? Gotta be some sort of compound or something, a house full of guys with guns blasting at the police is just going to get rammed with their bulletproof vehicles and shot to shit.

Or does the populace take the fight to the police and storm police stations?

Don't get me wrong, I know why the 2nd was penned and I agree with it. I'm just curious how all this would go down in the society we live in today especially considering how selfish we have become. I lived though a SHTF scenario and we had a few small organized groups in the suburbs but for the most part it was every man for himself.

How do you even get the message out to gun owners to meet at XYZ compound without SWAT raiding it before any significant amount of people show up? Or even simpler just arresting people one at a time on their way in?

Uhh you think an entire police force has the resources to arrest an entire armed city? lmao, keep smoking that good shit. They had to call in the freaking National Guard for a few thousand idiots in Baltimore. Imagine if the entire city was enraged. Also, ever heard of a flash mob crime spree? If police can't even stop those, good luck stopping a militia flash mob.

 

[OverVolt]

Our country has too much of a "fight fire with fire" mentality.

That said, I agree that the "assault weapons bans" and "magazine capacity" laws are stupid .. The constitution does not specify certain types of firearms. Of course "arms" of 2015 can be quite a bit more deadly than the arms of 1787 when the constitution was written.

That said, I think the focus needs to be on 1.) sealing up cracks/loopholes in distribution of the arms. and 2.) ensuring gun owners know how to properly secure their arms against theft

Maybe 'welfare for gun owners' type system, give gun owners rebates or free delivery or something for using a bigass 800+ pound gun safe to keep them secure from theft... use tax dollars to protect the interests of gun owners while also protecting the public interest?

You guys are weird. Guns are 100 year old tech. Nothing has really changed since the invention of automatic pistols like the 1911. Something like the AR15 doesn't hold a candle to .30-06 from back in the day. You can only buy single fire/semi-auto as a civilian. I'm just not seeing it.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Uhh you think an entire police force has the resources to arrest an entire armed city? lmao, keep smoking that good shit. They had to call in the freaking National Guard for a few thousand idiots in Baltimore. Imagine if the entire city was enraged. Also, ever heard of a flash mob crime spree? If police can't even stop those, good luck stopping a militia flash mob.

militia flash mob? really?

 

[glenn1]

militia flash mob? really?

I think the point is that how firearm owners react is going to be greatly dependent on how the proposed law goes into effect. Will it be an organized resistance like the Whiskey Rebellion that's centrally organized and subject to direct military action? Will the feds attempt door-to-door searches and confiscations thus creating massive amounts of Ruby Ridge type standoffs? Will it be something like Prohibition where the law is widely flouted and just drives sales underground, with similar increases in organized criminal activity to support it? Or would law enforcement and the military just refuse to follow orders or the exact opposite and Tiananmen Square reluctant gun owners to the cheers of gun control supporters?

Either way I find it baffling that many of the same supporters of gun control think that firearm owners will just roll over and accept this turn of events, when they at the same time hold that women would in no way accept abortion bans and would result to having them in back alleys. Evidently in their minds gun owners are passive conformists who would passively accept loss their rights while women are rebellious lawbreakers who would die fighting for theirs.

 

[BurnItDwn]

You guys are weird. Guns are 100 year old tech. Nothing has really changed since the invention of automatic pistols like the 1911. Something like the AR15 doesn't hold a candle to .30-06 from back in the day. You can only buy single fire/semi-auto as a civilian. I'm just not seeing it.

You have just confused me.

Im talking about guns made before vs after the constitution. The 1911 is very clearly after the constitution was written. Essentially, look at todays guns vs remington repeater era arms.. But, that really was just a comparison.

My point, what I said was that there should not be magazine capacity limits and there should not be any bans on 'assault weapons'.

I simply suggest that more effort be made to keep them out of the hands of dangerous criminals.

Sane-non-criminals should be allowed to own whatever guns they want provided they keep them secure and learn how to handle them safely. If you have a big secure vault and you want to own belt driven fully auto things like a minigun and an m60 and a browning 50 cal, then I see no problem. I certainly have no problem with folks owning an AR or an AK either. Just people need to keep their guns under lock and key, keep them safe so that some jackhole doesnt steal them and then go commit armed robberies with them.

 

[Kwatt]

I think the point is that how firearm owners react is going to be greatly dependent on how the proposed law goes into effect. Will it be an organized resistance like the Whiskey Rebellion that's centrally organized and subject to direct military action? Will the feds attempt door-to-door searches and confiscations thus creating massive amounts of Ruby Ridge type standoffs? Will it be something like Prohibition where the law is widely flouted and just drives sales underground, with similar increases in organized criminal activity to support it? Or would law enforcement and the military just refuse to follow orders or the exact opposite and Tiananmen Square reluctant gun owners to the cheers of gun control supporters?

Either way I find it baffling that many of the same supporters of gun control think that firearm owners will just roll over and accept this turn of events, when they at the same time hold that women would in no way accept abortion bans and would result to having them in back alleys. Evidently in their minds gun owners are passive conformists who would passively accept loss their rights while women are rebellious lawbreakers who would die fighting for theirs.

I believe passive non-compliance will be the best path.
If a law were to be passed calling for everyone to turn in their firearms. Just don't do it. Let them come and pick them up and arrest you.

Do not bond or bail out. Do not plea down. Go to a jury trial. If found guilty do not agree to probation. And when you come up for parole at the parole meeting tell them you intend to buy more as soon as you can.

If just 10 million gun owners quit paying taxes and become inmates the cost of the trials and confinement will quickly add up.

The only way the "justice" works now is due to pleading down and accepting probation. Plead down = no trial(lower cost), accept probation and pay the fees till your probation is over(profit).

Also file a lot of appeals that is another cost to the "justice" system.


.

 

[SP33Demon]

militia flash mob? really?

Truly proving your intelligence. I bring up the Baltimore "riots" and this^^ is what you post. lmao