White House to Push Gun Control

[zinfamous]

yup.

the gun lobby loves nothing more than a Democrat in the white house.

they publicly foment the fears of a world without guns, getting the crazies out in the streets to buy buy buy! before all your guns disappear.

yet, nothing ever changes, except the love that the NRA and gun lobbyists have for democrats, because they make them wealthy, an their public rebuke of such politicians to fuel the profits.

 

[irishScott]

yup.

the gun lobby loves nothing more than a Democrat in the white house.

they publicly foment the fears of a world without guns, getting the crazies out in the streets to buy buy buy! before all your guns disappear.

yet, nothing ever changes, except the love that the NRA and gun lobbyists have for democrats, because they make them wealthy, an their public rebuke of such politicians to fuel the profits.

It doesn't help when the Democrats prove their point. Hence the subject of this thread.

 

[Darwin333]

No. I am not talking about what I think here, I am talking about what most people do. I don't think a typical 22LR would have many saying it's an assault rifle though.

So society might deem an untypical 22LR as an assault weapon? Exactly what is a typical 22LR and exactly what is it about the untypical one that could make it an assault weapon?

You aren't getting my point which is typical to those that believe proper terminology saves the day.

Proper terminology doesn't save the day, that is simply foolish. Look, I am horrible at proper English and spelling. Spellcheck can't even save my ass at times, so I am by no means some sort of grammar nazi of the gun world. With that said, if someone repeatedly corrects me when I use where when I should have used were I (gasp) figure out the proper way to use them. It is called learning, I might have slept during my high school English classes but I still have the capability to learn and I do. The day is not saved because I used the proper were/where but if I have been repeatedly corrected in a thread about the use of them it does make me look a bit less ignorant. That is MY point, purposely sounding ignorant does nothing but detract from any other point you are trying to make. Sort of like right now, we aren't debating whatever real point you were trying to make, we are debating you sounding ignorant. Was that really your goal?

The really sad part is I have been drawn into this ignorant argument. I would really appreciate a detailed answer to my first question but undoubtedly you will concentrate on the latter.

Lets be more specific, is this an assault weapon?

Why or why not?

 

[alkemyst]

So society might deem an untypical 22LR as an assault weapon? Exactly what is a typical 22LR and exactly what is it about the untypical one that could make it an assault weapon?



Proper terminology doesn't save the day, that is simply foolish. Look, I am horrible at proper English and spelling. Spellcheck can't even save my ass at times, so I am by no means some sort of grammar nazi of the gun world. With that said, if someone repeatedly corrects me when I use where when I should have used were I (gasp) figure out the proper way to use them. It is called learning, I might have slept during my high school English classes but I still have the capability to learn and I do. The day is not saved because I used the proper were/where but if I have been repeatedly corrected in a thread about the use of them it does make me look a bit less ignorant. That is MY point, purposely sounding ignorant does nothing but detract from any other point you are trying to make. Sort of like right now, we aren't debating whatever real point you were trying to make, we are debating you sounding ignorant. Was that really your goal?

The really sad part is I have been drawn into this ignorant argument. I would really appreciate a detailed answer to my first question but undoubtedly you will concentrate on the latter.

Lets be more specific, is this an assault weapon?

Why or why not?

Dude AGAIN you are fucking missing the point.

I am not telling you what I think, I am telling you how AVERAGE JOE AMERICAN looks at things.

and yes most would say your picture is an assault rifle, even with you defending the definition of it.

I don't think you understand your own argument.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Gun nerds are the worst gun nuts.

 

[Darwin333]

Dude AGAIN you are fucking missing the point.

I am not telling you what I think, I am telling you how AVERAGE JOE AMERICAN looks at things.

and yes most would say your picture is an assault rifle, even with you defending the definition of it.

I don't think you understand your own argument.

What about this one?

http://www.impactguns.com/store/026495077501.html

 

[alkemyst]

What about this one?

http://www.impactguns.com/store/026495077501.html

I would say most people would think that was a BB gun.

Again I don't know why you are asking me these questions.

 

[BoberFett]

I would say most people would think that was a BB gun.

Again I don't know why you are asking me these questions.

Because as is usually the case for fear mongering Democrats, regulation gets tossed around based on emotion rather than fact.

 

[alkemyst]

Because as is usually the case for fear mongering Democrats, regulation gets tossed around based on emotion rather than fact.

You are an idiot if you think this is a bipartisan deal after the Patriot Act passed and then the TSA crap got pushed through.

Now everyone that wanted these things are all crying "IT WASN'T SUPPOSED TO AFFECT ME!"

The bipartisan system was the original bloods vs crips.

 

[zinfamous]

It doesn't help when the Democrats prove their point. Hence the subject of this thread.

how so?

tell me how a democratic president has taken away your guns.

 

[zinfamous]

Because as is usually the case for fear mongering Democrats, regulation gets tossed around based on emotion rather than fact.

I thought it was the fear-mongering Republicans spreading the fear that Democrats will take your guns?

wait, what are we talking about?

 

[irishScott]

how so?

tell me how a democratic president has taken away your guns.

You mean like the assault weapons ban under Clinton?

 

[shortylickens]

I thought it was the fear-mongering Republicans spreading the fear that Democrats will take your guns?

wait, what are we talking about?

Republican: The democrats did take your guns for 10 years.
Democrat: Cannot honestly say that banning guns did anything to crime rates except that it just happened to occur at the same time crime went up.

I'd say on this one issue, GOP had a better argument based on both logic and facts. Democrats only have a strong emotional based argument and even that is filled with holes cuz you can always argue the opposite with emotion.

 

[Zebo]

yup.

the gun lobby loves nothing more than a Democrat in the white house.

they publicly foment the fears of a world without guns, getting the crazies out in the streets to buy buy buy! before all your guns disappear.

yet, nothing ever changes, except the love that the NRA and gun lobbyists have for democrats, because they make them wealthy, an their public rebuke of such politicians to fuel the profits.

Nothing crazy about exercising a right. Fools buy at peaks though.

What I'd like to see is profit margins of dealers/manufactures when Democrats get in power. Indeed I bet they are hating Obama all the way to the bank.

 

[zinfamous]

You mean like the assault weapons ban under Clinton?

what about flamethrowers? still easier to get than an assault rifle. (even in Cali)


all I'm saying is...so what? you still have your guns, right?

anyway, I get that it's an argument based on emotion, that it generally does nothing to curtail the trade in illegal guns. What I don't get is the yahoos at the time arguing that they need their assault rifles to hunt. I know that isn't the only argument counter to such a ban...but I also think that if you have a woefully ill-equipped police force going up against a criminal population that has easier access to these guns, then you have a problem. --I said easier, not impossible.

I think the better argument comes when you start to question what is an assault rifle. It seems to be inadequately detailed.

regardless, you still have your guns.

anyway, I think I'll bow out, in honor of my homey nick1985's banning. He can't properly attack me anymore.

 

[irishScott]

what about flamethrowers? still easier to get than an assault rifle. (even in Cali)


all I'm saying is...so what? you still have your guns, right?

anyway, I get that it's an argument based on emotion, that it generally does nothing to curtail the trade in illegal guns. What I don't get is the yahoos at the time arguing that they need their assault rifles to hunt. I know that isn't the only argument counter to such a ban...but I also think that if you have a woefully ill-equipped police force going up against a criminal population that has easier access to these guns, then you have a problem. --I said easier, not impossible.

I think the better argument comes when you start to question what is an assault rifle. It seems to be inadequately detailed.

regardless, you still have your guns.

anyway, I think I'll bow out, in honor of my homey nick1985's banning. He can't properly attack me anymore.

Woefully ill-equipped? That depends on where you go. My University police force has access to some extremely nice tricked out Bushmaster AR-15s riding in patrol cars. And the crime in my area is minimal.

And I'm all for taking guns out of the hands of criminals. In fact I'm for gun and ammo licensing in theory. The issue is I know a lot of gun control advocates who wouldn't care if the US had zero gun crime and zero illegal guns, they'd still see guns as a pox on society and would strive to eliminate them. These people are the real danger, and they're usually the ones proposing and promoting gun control legislation. Look at the the Attorney General of New Jersey who denied permits to a part-time Sheriff and a kidnap victim, among other people, just because they didn't demonstrate a "demonstrable need". In fact she openly stated that law abiding citizens carrying guns were a threat to the public. And she's a freaking attorney general.

That's why I get all on edge when gun control legislation comes along. People who would deny the innocent their right to self defense out of some delusional public "service" need to be contained, and the public educated. The gun control advocates come out swinging whenever there's a crisis like Arizona, why can't the other side?

 

[Orignal Earl]

I actually don't think I've ever encountered someone that actually owned a handgun that called a magazine a "clip." Even those with passing interest are quickly corrected, and then use the correct terminology from then on.

But if you want to continue to defend being wrong, more power to you. Makes you look smrt.

I've never met anyone who called it a magazine. Could be part geographical thing too

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I fully support a federal ban on "it's a magazine not a clip" snobbery.

 

[Darwin333]

I would say most people would think that was a BB gun.

Again I don't know why you are asking me these questions.

I am asking the question because both guns are functionally the exact same thing with basically the exact same capabilities. .22LR semi-auto rifles with 10 round detachable magazines.

The only difference is the one you would consider an assault rifle simply has some cosmetic add ons that make it look "scary". Banning something because it looks scary is fucking stupid, that is my point and I truly appreciate your assistance in making it.

 

[Orignal Earl]

I've never met anyone who called it a magazine. Could be part geographical thing too

I've thought about this a bit more.
Normal gun people have and like their guns after generations of hunting and passing the clip mistake made in ww2
gun nerds have all their info from books

 

[Orignal Earl]

The only difference is the one you would consider an assault rifle simply has some cosmetic add ons that make it look "scary". Banning something because it looks scary is fucking stupid, that is my point and I truly appreciate your assistance in making it.

The big scary black thing is getting so old on here.
Especially when you consider so many gun nerds buy them really for the big scary effect
"my gawd Billy do you really need that horrible thing"
"look mom, its my god given right to own it and one day you will
thank me for having it"
"well will you at least pick your nun chucks up off the floor and make your bed?"
"ughhhhh yes mom"

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Saw a bumper sticker today that said "Gun control = using both hands" :biggrin:

 

[irishScott]

I fully support a federal ban on "it's a magazine not a clip" snobbery.

Snobbery? Interesting.

Chip McCormick seems to sell "mags"
http://www.cmctactical.com/default.htm

Promag sells many "magazine" related items
http://www.promagindustries.com/

The Official Glock page describes its "magazines"
http://www.glock.com/english/index_magazines.htm

Need I go on?

 

[irishScott]

The big scary black thing is getting so old on here.
Especially when you consider so many gun nerds buy them really for the big scary effect
"my gawd Billy do you really need that horrible thing"
"look mom, its my god given right to own it and one day you will
thank me for having it"
"well will you at least pick your nun chucks up off the floor and make your bed?"
"ughhhhh yes mom"

So if you own a "black" gun you're automatically a weapon obsessed gun nerd? Please. That's false gun control stereotype 101.

 

[irishScott]

I've thought about this a bit more.
Normal gun people have and like their guns after generations of hunting and passing the clip mistake made in ww2
gun nerds have all their info from books

Meanwhile the industry, all of it, calls them magazines.