Sign in to follow this  
Contumacious Tom

Florida Gun Ban Proposed

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:


If you want to talk to me about the proposal to ban and confiscate my .22, this is the thread to do it.

Every thread is the place to do it. Now into our second year, and this is just fine with Pooplius. Should I bait him to continue, boys?

FOUR MORE YEARS FOUR MORE YEARS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jocal505 said:

I keep getting attacked by a yapper doggie. My socks are fraying after weeks of this. You strike me as bitter, mean, and empty. I'm still waiting for you to present something worth considering. Are you a young whippersnapper perhaps? if so you might gain substance eventually, depending.

Still waiting for quotes that support Henderson's dissent in Wrenn.

Deflection and pop-psych are not the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Still waiting for quotes that support Henderson's dissent in Wrenn.

 

Why? lt's your turn, if you aren't a time waster. You haven't addressed the key points of that dissent when they were presented to you.  (You only equated dissent with loser. Not very bright.)

You began with the position I didn't know the case, yet I find 70 entries in a file named Wrenn. I have learned nothing about Wrenn from you so far. To start out, can you define castle doctrine?

Do you deny being a yapper dog figure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

You haven't addressed the key points of that dissent when they were presented to you.

You mean your "core holding"? (In a dissent, which is, well, not how the courts work)

The one I've asked about multiple times already?

I would think you would jump at the chance to back up Henderson - but I guess Scalia really didn't say what Henderson claims he did. I mean, she did say "implied" as a CYA. Maybe if she wishes hard enough, the ruling in Heller will change to what she dreams it says.

Or is the ruling still new enough that your favorite lawyers haven't had a chance to tell you how to interpret it yet?

Go back to post 530 or so and start rereading if you need to refresh your memory.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bpm57 said:

You mean your "core holding"? (In a dissent, which is, well, not how the courts work)

The one I've asked about multiple times already?

I would think you would jump at the chance to back up Henderson - but I guess Scalia really didn't say what Henderson claims he did. I mean, she did say "implied" as a CYA. Maybe if she wishes hard enough, the ruling in Heller will change to what she dreams it says.

Or is the ruling still new enough that your favorite lawyers haven't had a chance to tell you how to interpret it yet?

Go back to post 530 or so and start rereading if you need to refresh your memory.

 

Where is your argument? I'm not sure of your position, since it is unstated. You could always just share your Wrenn takeaway, or your Lautenberg takeaway somewhere. Or you could keep barking out the window at the passers by, standing on the back of the sofa, like a weiner dog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, jocal505 said:

(bpm57:) You mean your "core holding"?

Pooplius is your fearless leader. and he once went OCD on "core lawful purpose." 

 

Quote

(In a dissent, which is, well, not how the courts work)

The argument, won or lost in the case of Wrenn, is over whether to expand castile doctrine to the great outdoors, after proper historical study. The argument is neither won nor lost at this point, Heller and even Wrenn pointed that out.

The significance of Wrenn , IMO, is that my side won the first three (very tough) rounds, then folded after losing round four (Wrenn). The decision applies only to DC, and whoops, it spelled out the need for proper historical review, elsewhere. 

This "core purpose" discussion will continue, and has popped up in another case. This is why, and it's from Wrenn, as it fashionably quotes Heller...

Quote

 “the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home. Id. at 628.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad news. Here is the term "core lawful purpose" used in full context, within Heller. It mentions home, twice, but not outdoors.

Quote

We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. The District argues that we should interpret this element of the statute to contain an exception for self-defense. See Brief for Petitioners 56–57. But we think that is precluded by the unequivocal text, and by the presence of certain other enumerated exceptions: “Except for law enforcement personnel … , each registrant shall keep any firearm in his possession unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless such firearm is kept at his place of business, or while being used for lawful recreational purposes within the District of Columbia.” D. C. Code §7–2507.02. The nonexistence of a self-defense exception is also suggested by the D. C. Court of Appeals’ statement that the statute forbids residents to use firearms to stop intruders, see McIntosh v. Washington, 395 A. 2d 744, 755–756 (1978).28

NEXT: OVER AND OUT, bye bye from Antonin, baby

Here's the summary, the finale if you will, of Heller, written by Scalia of course

Quote

 But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.

My points:

  1. The Wrenn decision's force of "may issue" onto DC may be on thin ice, legally, as a precedent 
  2. The coin toss about outdoor guns will be, and should be, resolved by FF history 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jocal505 said:

This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

Odd, I don't see the word "home" in this sentence.

Unless you feel that a disassembled firearm is useful for self-defense. I note that DC law allowed you to have it assembled at a "place of business", so I guess you could in theory protect yourself with a firearm at work, but not at home. Of course, with no self-defense exceptions, it would of been an interesting trip through the courts.

3 hours ago, jocal505 said:

The Wrenn decision's force of "may issue" onto DC may be on thin ice, legally, as a precedent 

DC will just change their rules in an unacceptable way, Joe, and the same case will be back in court in a few years. DC will just keep swinging until they get the ruling they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, bpm57 said:
3 hours ago, jocal505 said:

This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

Odd, I don't see the word "home" in this sentence.

Who said it needs to be? That's your central talking pont, the flag on your flagship. Nice Dick.

 

4 hours ago, jocal505 said:

“the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home. Id. at 628.

  Since you got lost in a few posts, home is to be found right here, superseding outdoor rights:

Quote

“the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home. Id. at 628.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

Odd, I don't see the word "home" in this sentence.

Unless you feel that a disassembled firearm is useful for self-defense. I note that DC law allowed you to have it assembled at a "place of business", so I guess you could in theory protect yourself with a firearm at work, but not at home. Of course, with no self-defense exceptions, it would of been an interesting trip through the courts.

DC will just change their rules in an unacceptable way, Joe, and the same case will be back in court in a few years. DC will just keep swinging until they get the ruling they want.

DC will merely regulate parts of the city better, they say. And crime guns will be stolen from the cars in that area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jocal505 said:

“the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home. Id. at 628.

I know that you are slow to catch on, Joe, but continuing to quote Henderson doesn't help you any.

She took 2 sentences and combined them to say what she wanted. Shocking, I know. But not unexpected, given her long held opinions about 2A rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2018 at 2:57 AM, bpm57 said:

Well, you forgot his other option, which is to string together impressive sounding words - but the result comes out like a bad google translation.

I'm telling you.... I'm more and more convinced that the jocal login is nothing more than a bad bot created by the Brady Foundation or more likely the NRA to discredit the anti-gun movement.  Its like that rant generator where you put in a couple of words and the bot generates a rant based on them.  Here, watch this:

Quote

 

Before Tom Ray starts ripping tendons and ligaments with his typical knee-jerk reaction to my posts, he should realize that we must inspire each other with a soulcraft of integrity, courage, and empathy. To organize my discussion, I suggest that we take one step back in the causal chain and encourage open, civic engagement. The salient point here is that I am deliberately using colorful language in this post. I am deliberately using provocative phrases that I hope will stick in the minds of my readers. I do ensure, however, that my words are always appropriate and accurate and clearly explain how the online disinhibition effect perfectly explains why Tom is so keen to tell everyone that aspheterism and factionalism are identical concepts. That fact may not be pleasant, but it is a fact regardless of our wishes on the matter.

We must learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically correct thing to do but because we need to rally the troops to condemn his hypocrisy. Note that any such campaign involves four basic steps: negotiation, self-purification, direct action, and collection of the facts to determine whether Tom claims to have read somewhere that his homilies are our final line of defense against tyrrany. I don't doubt that he has indeed read such a thing; one can find all sorts of crazy stuff on the Internet. More reliable sources, however, tend to agree that nothing unites people like a common enemy. That's why I would encourage everybody to take some shots of their own at Tom by reprimanding him for pushing our efforts two steps backward. Imagine people everywhere embracing Tom's claim that children should belong to the state. The idea defies the imagination.

Tom recently claimed that truth is merely a social construct. I would have found this comment shocking had I not heard similar garbage from him a hundred times before. I avouch that I sometimes use the hypocorism, “nocuous braggadocios”, when referring to him and his spokesmen. Deal with it. I condemn his gross and systematic violations of human rights. I'm not just talking about the arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, torture, and summary executions but also about my previous observation that only the impartial and unimpassioned mind will even consider that there are legitimate conflicts of interest in any society. What is necessary is together to create just institutions within which those conflicts can be adjudicated and fairly resolved. Before this effort can commence, though, we must recognize that Tom receives most of his knowledge from “Cæsarism for Dummies”. (Yes, the Tom Ray Foundation's latest report on noisome irreligionism is filled with fabrications, half-truths, innuendo, and guilt by association, but that's a different story.) I'll finish this post by instructing you not to blindly accept my words or those of others as truth. Investigate, discriminate, and question everything not proven. Only by doing so can you determine for yourself that everything Tom Ray writes is larded with indiscriminate name dropping, the quality and quantity of which would embarrass the most shameless mover and shaker at your average literary cocktail party.

 

Sound familiar???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2018 at 7:38 AM, jocal505 said:
On 2/7/2018 at 7:03 AM, bpm57 said:

Joe, why is it that any case that involves CATO, SAF, GOA, or the NRA is made to sound like it is some evil conspiracy, yet the involvement of Bloomberg's alphabet soup of groups is never cast in the same tone?

One side is fighting senseless gun deaths regulations. The other is promoting them.

FIFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2018 at 7:53 AM, jocal505 said:
Quote

Defensive Gun Uses (2,018) Up 27% in four years

Number of Home Invasions (2481) Down 5% over four years

 

We already had a gun problem. It's getting worse, measurably, in double digit numbers.

I would say the number of DGUs being up and the number of home invasions being down is more a sign of the "gun culture" actually working as intended rather than something that is a bad thing.  Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2018 at 8:01 AM, jocal505 said:

I claim to have self-educated myself

Allow myself to introduce..... myself.  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2018 at 6:29 PM, jocal505 said:

(We all have noticed that Joe avoids hard, set opinions. And this is not acceptable in the Land of Camden and Pelletieiri, not at all.)

You pretty much loathe me for my clear opinions.  While Pooplius, your leader in the Deep South, stokes your fears and misunderstandings. You are at least half sharp IMO. MLK would transform you from your library.

Yep, the jocal login is definitely a random word generator bot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Since you got lost in a few posts, home is to be found right here, superseding outdoor rights:

Quote

“the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home. Id. at 628.

Hey fuckknuckle Joe - you DO understand that the word MOST != ONLY, right?  That phrase specifically says then that there are also acute needs for self defense outside of the home, but they just don't happen as often as in the home.  Keep wishing it said something else.  And you know what they say about "wishing"..... Wish in one hand, shit in the other - see which one fills up first.

Edit:  I'm not sure why I even bother.  I'm talking to a bot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 11:43 PM, jocal505 said:
On ‎8‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 10:58 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:


If you want to talk to me about the proposal to ban and confiscate my .22, this is the thread to do it.

Every thread is the place to do it. Now into our second year, and this is just fine with Pooplius. Should I bait him to continue, boys?

FOUR MORE YEARS FOUR MORE YEARS

 

I reckon it's fucking sad how some states in the US have tougher gun laws than the English with these .22 assault rifles, do you think your founding fathers wanted the US to have tougher gun laws than the UK?

Quote

Ruger cannot bill to or ship 15-round magazines to the following states and cities: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Washington DC. ILLINOIS: Cook County, Buffalo Grove, Dolton, Hazel Crest, Highland Park, Homewood, Melrose Park, and Oak Park. DO NOT ORDER THIS PRODUCT if you live in these locations.

http://shopruger.com/BX-15-22-Caliber-15-Round-Magazine/productinfo/90463/

 

Look at what those in the UK can own with these scary semi auto .22lr assault rifles- http://uk.businessinsider.com/guns-you-can-legally-buy-in-the-uk-2016-4//?r=AU&IR=T/#you-can-even-get-an-uzi-in-22lr-8

The Poms aren't scared of semi auto .22lr assault rifles why are the bedwetting gun grabbers in the USA scared of them?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I'm more and more convinced that the jocal login is nothing more than a bad bot created by the Brady Foundation or more likely the NRA to discredit the anti-gun movement. 

Read the threads. No bot could enjoy this situation as much as I do. And I'm not through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

...acute needs for self defense outside of the home, but they just don't happen as often as in the home

Oh but they do. The greatest threat that women have comes from men they know. Ladies need self defense in the home all the time, from intimate partners. Hmmm. The actual danger for women is worse in the home than on the streets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Ladies need self defense in the home all the time

Even in the shower? I thought saying that women should be able to defend themselves was one of the bad things I did. Now you're doing it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said you don't promote moar gunz. Yet you promote guns for ladies in showers, without prompting.

This was a touchy subject on your end days ago, with bigly drama. Is it drama time again or something? 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/10/2018 at 12:39 AM, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

these .22 assault rifles

My name is Mo. As you can see, I've been brainwashed by Pooplius. There are several of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

You said you don't promote moar gunz.

I'm not even familiar with the Moar Gun Co.

Do they make squirrel assault weapons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I'm not even familiar with the Moar Gun Co.

Do they make squirrel assault weapons?

Ask BJ about Moar, if you want some more of him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

You said you don't promote moar gunz. Yet you promote guns for ladies in showers, without prompting.

This was a touchy subject on your end days ago, with bigly drama. Is it drama time again or something? 
 

Does taking a self defense gun to the shower require moar gunz?  Or can she use one of her current ones??  I wasn’t sure what the grabber rule are. 

And if she does take a handgun to the shower with her, is that called a “water pistol”?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/9/2018 at 7:54 PM, bpm57 said:

I know that you are slow to catch on, Joe, but continuing to quote Henderson doesn't help you any.

I haven't finished with Henderson's insights. I only hit the first two talking points from the seven-page Wrenn dissent. You did not field either talking point. Get on it. Or just present your understanding of any legal baseline for outdoor gun rights by CC or OC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jocal505 said:

I haven't finished with Henderson's insights

You mean you haven't finished listing all of DCs reasons they should rehear it en banc? If I wanted to reread those, Joe, I'd just read their appeal again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Se7en said:
50 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Do you have any thoughts on the proposal by legislators in our state to ban and confiscate my old .22 in response to incidents like this one?

Yes.

its a fucking good idea.

Draw a line in the sand, and stick to it even though it is completely arbitrary and stupid.

Id rather that Tom, who I suspect Id get along with just fine, has to buy another rifle with slightly smaller mag capacity, rather than have my kids shot at school.

I'm still not sure how replacing my rifle with a different one would reduce school shootings.

On 1/12/2017 at 6:36 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

And this part covers my dad's old .22 rifle because the tube magazine holds more than ten rounds.

 

Quote
d. Any semiautomatic pistol or any semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition;

 

 

And I'm not even sure where to find a .22 with a tube magazine holding 10 rounds or less. I've never seen such a gun.

So the answer I'm getting from you is: replace your gun with one that doesn't exist. Yes, I can see how that might reduce school shootings, but can't see how it's replacing my gun. Because the replacement doesn't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I'm still not sure how replacing my rifle with a different one would reduce school shootings.

So the answer I'm getting from you is: replace your gun with one that doesn't exist. Yes, I can see how that might reduce school shootings, but can't see how it's replacing my gun. Because the replacement doesn't exist.

Getting rid of yours would reduce school shootings because it implies that your country has got rid of all guns of high calibre or large magazines.

Im pretty sure you played a pop quiz game with us where you showed two .22s. Yours, and another one with a slightly smaller under barrel mag. And you were asking us all to pick which was the assault rifle?

I've also shot a .22 with a 6 round mag in the stock, plus any number of them with 10 round removeable mags. So I suspect you are being disingenious suggesting that you couldn't find another .22 to replace yours with. You could always learn to shoot straight and just have a single shot bolt action. I managed to cope with one as a kid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Se7en said:

Getting rid of yours would reduce school shootings because it implies that your country has got rid of all guns of high calibre or large magazines.

Im pretty sure you played a pop quiz game with us where you showed two .22s. Yours, and another one with a slightly smaller under barrel mag. And you were asking us all to pick which was the assault rifle?

I've also shot a .22 with a 6 round mag in the stock, plus any number of them with 10 round removeable mags. So I suspect you are being disingenious suggesting that you couldn't find another .22 to replace yours with. You could always learn to shoot straight and just have a single shot bolt action. I managed to cope with one as a kid.

Your first statement is questionable because so few gun owners are Cooperative when these confiscation programs are passed.

Are the shooters' guns really certain to be among the 15% owned by Cooperative individuals who sign up for confiscation? I think they just might come from the 85%.

This is the pic you're asking about:

marlin-assault-rifles.jpg

And it's really true that I haven't seen another .22 with a tube mag of only ten rounds.

As for the ones with 10 round removable magazines like my wife's assault weapon, those are targeted for confiscation too, as the topic post points out. It's a bit disingenuous to suggest I could replace my rifle after a ban with another one that's covered by the same ban, isn't it?

I've repeated many times that my favorite gun is my single shot .17HMR. It's a hoot. And I can shoot it almost as straight as the single shot .22 that my brother bought when he was in 8th grade. I like them both and know how to shoot them pretty well. But that doesn't mean I want my gun and my wife's gun banned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

 

As for the ones with 10 round removable magazines like my wife's assault weapon, those are targeted for confiscation too, as the topic post points out. It's a bit disingenuous to suggest I could replace my rifle after a ban with another one that's covered by the same ban, isn't it?

Come on;

if its a removeable magazine, would it take more than an hour on a lathe to cut it doen and remanufacture the end cap? Make it whatever capacity you need to.

If your favourite rifle is single shot, why not draw the line there? No more semi autos at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I'd like to hear your thoughts, if any, on the FL legislators who want to DO SOMETHING.

Do you think that making sure my grandson can't inherit my old .22 will reduce school shootings? How? And by how many per year?

I'd happily turn in my great-grandfather's .22 that I inherited if it meant school-aged kids could go to school without fear of being gunned down.

I think they already can go to school without fear of being gunned down if they're rational. They should be much more afraid of the ride to and from school. Yet even that (far greater) risk is considered acceptable.

So do you believe that the topic bill would reduce the danger to kids? I don't think making people like you and me hand in old .22s would mean school-aged kids could go to school without fear of being gunned down. Too many of us are Uncooperative and won't happily hand in our guns.

If you truly believe that handing in your gun would mean safer kids, why not do it today? And don't be like badlat and sell it. Give it to the government as the topic bill requires. Why wait for the government to tell you to do it if you already know it is the right thing to do?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Se7en said:

Come on;

if its a removeable magazine, would it take more than an hour on a lathe to cut it doen and remanufacture the end cap? Make it whatever capacity you need to.

If your favourite rifle is single shot, why not draw the line there? No more semi autos at all.

The Canadians are going to be pissed if we quit manufacturing the ten round mag for their favorite .22.

My basic answer to your question is that I don't think a giant government ban/confiscation program covering all semi-auto's is at all realistic. We have an unfortunate history of prohibition programs generating troublesome black markets instead of actually making things unavailable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

This is the pic you're asking about:

...I keep it handy, in the database I claim not to have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

And I'm not even sure where to find a .22 with a tube magazine holding 10 rounds or less. I've never seen such a gun.

So the answer I'm getting from you is: replace your gun with one that doesn't exist. Yes, I can see how that might reduce school shootings, but can't see how it's replacing my gun. Because the replacement doesn't exist.

This is mental masturbation. ^^^^ Backflips with the brain. This is the rut you are in Tom, while bawling and being shrill... and begging for the guns of others. 

Nice holding pattern, as our nations gets a clue about the gun outcomes generated by Heller.

It's been a rough twelve years Tom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2018 at 8:24 AM, bpm57 said:

You mean you haven't finished listing all of DCs reasons they should rehear it en banc? If I wanted to reread those, Joe, I'd just read their appeal again.

I mean to repeat my question, which you avoid. Did you not repeatedly call for Wrenn discussion?

Quote

Joe: I haven't finished with Henderson's insights. I only hit the first two talking points from the seven-page Wrenn dissent. You did not field either talking point. Get on it. Or just present your understanding of any legal baseline for outdoor gun rights by CC or OC.

This matter will be discussed again, since outdoor gun rights are TBD. So, on this very subject, why do you avoid factual discussion of history? 

Hello? Historic reality to Dead Eye Dick, come in Deadeye...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, d'ranger said:

Dear Clueless Tom - I don't know any reasonable person advocating banning anything 22lr.  That you use it makes you just as big a disingenuous fucktard as Jack.  


If you read the topic post, you might learn of a few legislators proposing to ban various .22's.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Uncooperative Tom said:


If you read the topic post, you might learn of a few legislators proposing to ban various .22's.

 

If you are looking for a reason I am sure you can find one, as Eva Dent.   Your solution? No restrictions, that's pure sooper genius. Meanwhile any fucked up person can armor up for less than a grand with enough fire power to successfully murder lots of innocent people.  Don't you sleep better knowing your neighbor Jack has multiple Bushmasters?  I mean I am sure you could hold him off with your nasty squirrel gun.

I would oppose restrictions on 22lr fwiw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

If you are looking for a reason I am sure you can find one, as Eva Dent.   Your solution? No restrictions, that's pure sooper genius. Meanwhile any fucked up person can armor up for less than a grand with enough fire power to successfully murder lots of innocent people.  Don't you sleep better knowing your neighbor Jack has multiple Bushmasters?  I mean I am sure you could hold him off with your nasty squirrel gun.

I would oppose restrictions on 22lr fwiw.

Glad we at least agree on a bit of the topic post.

You're wrong about my solution, of course. I've never advocated "no restrictions" and wouldn't. It's as silly as Ed Lada's "complete confiscation" program, which I notice hasn't generated any negative reaction from you so far.

Anyway, glad you understand why I might oppose an assault weapon ban. It does exactly what you said is unreasonable: ban my wife's .22 and mine.

If grabberz were more reasonable, we might find common ground. If there were more like yourself who can say something when they go too far (at least some of the time) we might. Oh well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

The Canadians are going to be pissed if we quit manufacturing the ten round mag for their favorite .22.

My basic answer to your question is that I don't think a giant government ban/confiscation program covering all semi-auto's is at all realistic. We have an unfortunate history of prohibition programs generating troublesome black markets instead of actually making things unavailable.

No, the Canadians are not nearly as loony about guns as you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Glad we at least agree on a bit of the topic post.

You're wrong about my solution, of course. I've never advocated "no restrictions" and wouldn't. It's as silly as Ed Lada's "complete confiscation" program, which I notice hasn't generated any negative reaction from you so far.

Anyway, glad you understand why I might oppose an assault weapon ban. It does exactly what you said is unreasonable: ban my wife's .22 and mine.

If grabberz were more reasonable, we might find common ground. If there were more like yourself who can say something when they go too far (at least some of the time) we might. Oh well.

Since you label any move to restrict weapons sales as gungrabberz your reasonable comment is laughable.  The inability of the 2A folks to support some form of gun control could well lead to a total ban.  It's how shit goes down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

Since you label any move to restrict weapons sales as gungrabberz your reasonable comment is laughable.  The inability of the 2A folks to support some form of gun control could well lead to a total ban.  It's how shit goes down.

Likewise, D - the prohibitionists collective refusal to provide ironclad guarantees that any legislated restriction won't be mis-applied to situations beyond which the statute was intended to address contributes greatly to the recalcitrance on the part of the pro-rights crowd to casually accept proposals of any restrictions.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:


If you read the topic post, you might learn of a few legislators proposing to ban various .22's.

 

Give it up, Tom. Find some okay content for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, d'ranger said:
16 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Glad we at least agree on a bit of the topic post.

You're wrong about my solution, of course. I've never advocated "no restrictions" and wouldn't. It's as silly as Ed Lada's "complete confiscation" program, which I notice hasn't generated any negative reaction from you so far.

Anyway, glad you understand why I might oppose an assault weapon ban. It does exactly what you said is unreasonable: ban my wife's .22 and mine.

If grabberz were more reasonable, we might find common ground. If there were more like yourself who can say something when they go too far (at least some of the time) we might. Oh well.

Since you label any move to restrict weapons sales as gungrabberz your reasonable comment is laughable.  The inability of the 2A folks to support some form of gun control could well lead to a total ban.  It's how shit goes down.

The topic law doesn't just restrict sales.

It creates a closed registry. If I were to register my gun (which I'm far too Uncooperative to do), I would be the last person to legally own it in this state.

Since it's such an old POS, it's not worth enough to export to another state like Badlat's assault weapon. Shipping and FFL fees would eat the whole value and more. So the legal option remaining for my heirs would be to hand it over to the state without compensation.

When the only legal option for a gun is to hand it over to the state without compensation, I call that gun confiscation. Delayed confiscation, but confiscation all the same. So I call people who write such proposals grabberz. It think it's far more accurate than calling people who want to keep owning .22's like mine "gun nuts."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Likewise, D - the prohibitionists collective refusal to provide ironclad guarantees that any legislated restriction won't be mis-applied to situations beyond which the statute was intended to address contributes greatly to the recalcitrance on the part of the pro-rights crowd to casually accept proposals of any restrictions.  

I'm concerned that the topic law would be applied as intended and used to ban and confiscate our .22's.

Or, at least, the .22's owned by the 10-20% of the population that is likely to be Cooperative.

In my case, the (possibly unintended) result would be to make me the owner of an illegal, unregistered assault weapon. Just like scores of thousands up in CT.

I don't want to be a felon and I don't want my .22 confiscated either. So I oppose this assault weapons ban.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, dacapo said:

.22lr  lethal to mmm, say about 150 yards.... bullet drop approx. 6-10 inches depending on wind (from personal experience) and the ave. shooter couldn't hit the broadside of a barn with a .22lr round longer than 150 yards with any accuracy and at around 250 yards. would cause an injury but it would be luck to kill at this range.  While, a .223 bullet travelling at this higher velocity will be lethal up to approx. 4-600 yards.   tumble through it's target and cavitate, putting an exit hole about the size of a golfball.  the tumbling inside the organs is not the only issue.  The high velocity sets up  pressure vibrations that turn the surrounding tissue to liquid..it may miss the arterial vein but the that artery will still explode

 

a .22lr round will NOT go through a solid door or concrete block....the .223 Can

 

which is why if Tom wants to keep his heirloom .22 gun, i have no issue

 


You might not have an issue but d'ranger thinks I'm disingenuous for even bringing up the fact that legislators in my state want to ban and confiscate my gun. It's just not something that honest people talk about, apparently. Honest people simply shut up and tolerate whatever gun control might come along without boring everyone with the details.

Besides,

10 hours ago, Kirwan said:

-          Send the discussion down a rabbit hole… 22LR ballistics (ignoring that it can still kill a person)


That's the usual reaction when I want to talk about what my state legislators actually want to do. People like Kirwan support banning my .22 as an "assault weapon" because it can kill.

This is also why almost no one here says anything is wrong with Ed Lada's "confiscate them all by whatever means" approach to gun control. Guns are lethal so therefore only governments should have them. And of course that means any gun, along with slingshots, stun guns, pellet guns, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:


You might not have an issue but d'ranger thinks I'm disingenuous for even bringing up the fact that legislators in my state want to ban and confiscate my gun. It's just not something that honest people talk about, apparently. Honest people simply shut up and tolerate whatever gun control might come along without boring everyone with the details.

Besides,


That's the usual reaction when I want to talk about what my state legislators actually want to do. People like Kirwan support banning my .22 as an "assault weapon" because it can kill.

This is also why almost no one here says anything is wrong with Ed Lada's "confiscate them all by whatever means" approach to gun control. Guns are lethal so therefore only governments should have them. And of course that means any gun, along with slingshots, stun guns, pellet guns, etc.

Tom...

 

1.  how close is the Fla. Legislature to enacting this ban?  We are talking State Legislature, not  the Governor (who won;t sign that bill I';ll wager) 

2. do you think the Fla. politicians who are in the pockets of the NRA will ever let that happen?

3. with the recent shooting, I'd be more worried about other guns

 

(serious questions....is it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:


You might not have an issue but d'ranger thinks I'm disingenuous for even bringing up the fact that legislators in my state want to ban and confiscate my gun. It's just not something that honest people talk about, apparently. Honest people simply shut up and tolerate whatever gun control might come along without boring everyone with the details.

Besides,


That's the usual reaction when I want to talk about what my state legislators actually want to do. People like Kirwan support banning my .22 as an "assault weapon" because it can kill.

This is also why almost no one here says anything is wrong with Ed Lada's "confiscate them all by whatever means" approach to gun control. Guns are lethal so therefore only governments should have them. And of course that means any gun, along with slingshots, stun guns, pellet guns, etc.

Find one quote where I call your .22 an assault weapon, or where I call for a ban of any kind.  You can't, you lying sack of shit.  

Keep your little .22, I'm sure you enjoy the ejaculatory pleasure of popping it off.  Please don't kill anyone with it.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, dacapo said:

Tom...

 

1.  how close is the Fla. Legislature to enacting this ban?  We are talking State Legislature, not  the Governor (who won;t sign that bill I';ll wager) 

2. do you think the Fla. politicians who are in the pockets of the NRA will ever let that happen?

3. with the recent shooting, I'd be more worried about other guns

 

(serious questions....is it

1. Very far, I hope.

2. I sincerely hope they will not. If passage of this bill starts to seem likely to me, I'll join the NRA, give until it hurts, and buy as many assault weapons as I can in private sales. I don't want those things to happen and would prefer to talk about it first so that they don't. I know that talking about legislative proposals here in PA is considered dishonest, so I apologize.

3. I'm worried about the ones I own because I want to keep owning them. Which other ones should I worry about?

 

18 hours ago, Kirwan said:

Find one quote where I call your .22 an assault weapon, or where I call for a ban of any kind.

What was your point in saying, "Send the discussion down a rabbit hole… 22LR ballistics (ignoring that it can still kill a person)?"

Lethality is the main reason for banning assault weapons. You brought up lethality. After a connection has been made thousands of times, I guess it is appropriate for me to apologize for making the same connection one more time. Sorry 'bout that.

And just like d'ranger and many others here, you were making that comment to discourage me from talking about the proposal to ban and confiscate my gun. Sorry, I'm going to talk about the proposal to ban and confiscate my gun. And I'm not really sorry I will discuss it. Only sorry that stupid grabberz keep proposing it so that I must.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

1. Very far, I hope.

2. I sincerely hope they will not. If passage of this bill starts to seem likely to me, I'll join the NRA, give until it hurts, and buy as many assault weapons as I can in private sales. I don't want those things to happen and would prefer to talk about it first so that they don't. I know that talking about legislative proposals here in PA is considered dishonest, so I apologize.

3. I'm worried about the ones I own because I want to keep owning them. Which other ones should I worry about?

 

What was your point in saying, "Send the discussion down a rabbit hole… 22LR ballistics (ignoring that it can still kill a person)?"

Lethality is the main reason for banning assault weapons. You brought up lethality. After a connection has been made thousands of times, I guess it is appropriate for me to apologize for making the same connection one more time. Sorry 'bout that.

And just like d'ranger and many others here, you were making that comment to discourage me from talking about the proposal to ban and confiscate my gun. Sorry, I'm going to talk about the proposal to ban and confiscate my gun. And I'm not really sorry I will discuss it. Only sorry that stupid grabberz keep proposing it so that I must.

17 kids this time. Fuck your 2nd amendment.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, d'ranger said:

My prediction: We have two courses in our future - one is to enact reasonable and effective controls over purchases of weapons whose only purpose is to kill/maim large numbers of people. The AR15 is the poster gun for that group.  If nothing happens (the mass shootings will continue) and the populace will eventually react and may well demand a total ban.  This will of course enrage Unca Tom as he and his wife will then lose their beloved .22s, I hope it doesn't happen but if it does Tom and the rest of the slippery slope "they're gonna take our guns" crowd will have no one but themselves to blame.

I know that very few people around here denounce the calls by Ed Lada, Sloop, and others for a complete ban and confiscation of all guns by whatever means, but I think support in the general population for such measures is nowhere near as high as it is here. The idea that anyone but a few lefty extremists will demand a total ban is ludicrous.

In any case, a complete ban would be as effective as our past efforts at prohibition programs: serving only to cause more problems with the resulting black market.

If you hope the .22 ban in this thread doesn't happen, why curse me and call me a liar for bringing it up? If people like us who oppose such measures don't speak out, who will?

And how does my willingness to say that this ban should not be passed make me responsible if it is passed? I think those who support it are responsible, along with those like yourself who denounce people who oppose it and those who oppose it but lack the courage of their convictions to say so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Sean said:
23 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

If they do start to support banning assault weapons like my old .22 in my state, I will join the NRA, give until it hurts, and buy as many truly scary rifles in private sales as I can find. I may even sell boats to do it. There are millions like me, which is why Bloomberg has to out$pend the NRA to have any hope of winning.

So yes, it would get my attention, though not in a way that would be likely to please you.

Knock yourself out.

What if it went from "support" to law that passed constitutional muster? Would you turn in your scary old .22 and all the rest of the now illegal "tools" you bought?

No. First of all, this is a delayed confiscation program, so my heirs would be required to turn it in, not me. California is the one with the immediate confiscation program.

But I would be like about 85% of assault weapon owners up in CT and would be Uncooperative about registering my assault weapon. Since its existence is already public knowledge, I would also acquire a few more guns in private sales and would never mention them in public. OK, more than a few. I know how the prices will skyrocket after a ban and would buy extras to sell.

Basically, if grabberz are going to continue with the idea that my old .22 is a battlefield weapon that must be banned, I will resist that effort because I disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

No. First of all, this is a delayed confiscation program, so my heirs would be required to turn it in, not me. California is the one with the immediate confiscation program.

But I would be like about 85% of assault weapon owners up in CT and would be Uncooperative about registering my assault weapon. Since its existence is already public knowledge, I would also acquire a few more guns in private sales and would never mention them in public. OK, more than a few. I know how the prices will skyrocket after a ban and would buy extras to sell.

Basically, if grabberz are going to continue with the idea that my old .22 is a battlefield weapon that must be banned, I will resist that effort because I disagree.

Well, we now know beyond doubt what sort of person you are. I hope you don’t “disagree” with the laws against murder and mayhem. 

Have a nice day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sean said:

Well, we now know beyond doubt what sort of person you are. I hope you don’t “disagree” with the laws against murder and mayhem. 

Have a nice day. 

If failure to sign up for a confiscation program indicated murderous intent, don't you think CT would have a bit of a problem with the scores of thousands of assault weapon owners who haven't signed up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

POS time, with Tom Ray. Same old deal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

If you hope the .22 ban in this thread doesn't happen, why curse me and call me a liar for bringing it up? If people like us who oppose such measures don't speak out, who will?

And how does my willingness to say that this ban should not be passed make me responsible if it is passed? I think those who support it are responsible, along with those like yourself who denounce people who oppose it and those who oppose it but lack the courage of their convictions to say so.

Why? Because you are the opposite of those you complain about. A total ban has less chance than a snowball in hell yet every conversation you fixate on your .22  with the conclusion that you oppose any change in gun law.  Something is going to happen and you can either help or get run over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

Why? Because you are the opposite of those you complain about. A total ban has less chance than a snowball in hell yet every conversation you fixate on your .22  with the conclusion that you oppose any change in gun law.  Something is going to happen and you can either help or get run over.

That's your conclusion, not mine.

I talk about my gun and my wife's because I think that reasonable people don't consider them assault weapons. But legislators in my state do, and Diane Feinstein agrees with respect to my wife's .22.

Pointing out when they are being unreasonable is intended to help. If you're puzzled about why people aren't flocking to support her latest attempt to DO SOMETHING, perhaps it's because lots of them don't consider a Ruger 10-22 to be an assault weapon and don't think I should have to go to town to get a background check before letting someone fire it in my back yard, as she also proposes. "They must be stupid people who hate kids" isn't the only possible reason to oppose such a bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

That's your conclusion, not mine.

I talk about my gun and my wife's because I think that reasonable people don't consider them assault weapons. But legislators in my state do, and Diane Feinstein agrees with respect to my wife's .22.

Pointing out when they are being unreasonable is intended to help. If you're puzzled about why people aren't flocking to support her latest attempt to DO SOMETHING, perhaps it's because lots of them don't consider a Ruger 10-22 to be an assault weapon and don't think I should have to go to town to get a background check before letting someone fire it in my back yard, as she also proposes. "They must be stupid people who hate kids" isn't the only possible reason to oppose such a bill.

I promise to not post in this thread again since I don't, never have and most likely never will live in Florida.  If you have supported some form of restrictions on guns I missed it ( in fairness I try to avoid 2A threads like the plague or the flu).  There are people who advocate for a total ban on guns, I can respect their views while also realizing it ain't going to happen, at least not in my lifetime.  There are people who oppose any change and for that I can only shake my head as change is coming and if they aren't helping they will just make it worse. 

Not that long ago I again considered buying a .223 AR type rifle and decided it made less sense than buying another boat.  And something else I don't need to worry about keeping secured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

I promise to not post in this thread again since I don't, never have and most likely never will live in Florida.  If you have supported some form of restrictions on guns I missed it ( in fairness I try to avoid 2A threads like the plague or the flu).  There are people who advocate for a total ban on guns, I can respect their views while also realizing it ain't going to happen, at least not in my lifetime.  There are people who oppose any change and for that I can only shake my head as change is coming and if they aren't helping they will just make it worse. 

Not that long ago I again considered buying a .223 AR type rifle and decided it made less sense than buying another boat.  And something else I don't need to worry about keeping secured.

Yes, you've missed my support for attempts to disarm domestic violence offenders, my opposition to the SYG law, and probably others. Instead of asserting that I support no laws, you could have asked.

I can't respect those who advocate a total ban on guns any more than I can respect Zero Tolerance advocates of any other form of prohibition and I'm glad it won't happen here any more than it has happened anywhere else in the world.

I don't know of anyone who opposes any change. The moronic ones among my elk say in earnest what (I think) Gouv says to make a point: no gun laws are constitutional. I agree they're not helpful. Gouv is trying to make a point and I think it's unnecessary but he's not a moron and I'm not including him in the unhelpful elk.

I only occasionally consider buying an AR type gun, mostly when I'm posting on here. But the feeling always goes away and is overwhelmed by the desire to buy more boats and boaty stuff as soon as I go outside. So at least we agree on one thing!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, d'ranger said:

I promise to not post in this thread again since I don't, never have and most likely never will live in Florida. 

Fair enough, but if you want to talk more about how you

On 2/15/2018 at 12:03 PM, d'ranger said:

don't know any reasonable person advocating banning anything 22lr. 


Then we can discuss DiFi's law that covers my wife's Ruger 10-22. Since you don't follow the gun threads, I should let you know that I classified it under things that are Stoooopid and put it here but Jeff felt it deserved a new thread, which is here.

The Stooopid thread has the actual text of the part of the law covering my wife's .22.

I agree with you that DiFi is not a reasonable person, but she is a powerful US Senator and what she proposes is relevant to the discussion IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Fair enough, but if you want to talk more about how you


Then we can discuss DiFi's law that covers my wife's Ruger 10-22. Since you don't follow the gun threads, I should let you know that I classified it under things that are Stoooopid and put it here but Jeff felt it deserved a new thread, which is here.

The Stooopid thread has the actual text of the part of the law covering my wife's .22.

I agree with you that DiFi is not a reasonable person, but she is a powerful US Senator and what she proposes is relevant to the discussion IMO.

same crap a few hundred times? how did you  get tossed out of two private high schools?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mid said:

Untitled.jpg.8299df783f507c327f4daf765aabe112.jpg

 

I'm glad to see that our legislature doesn't think BJ and I caused this shooting by owning our .22's. I don't think I caused it. It's uncertain whether BJ thinks he caused it and continues to do the thing he thinks caused it. He won't say whether he's that kind of monster or not, he just thinks I am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/02/2018 at 2:40 AM, d'ranger said:

I should add that I didn't realize I was posting in the FL gun thread.  All this shit just runs together. 

Tom likes to drag his responses around to play games. You have to double check when he quotes you to make sure the context is correct because he likes to change it then abuse your assumption you were continuing a different discussion than the one your post came from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

 

I'm glad to see that our legislature doesn't think BJ and I caused this shooting by owning our .22's. I don't think I caused it. It's uncertain whether BJ thinks he caused it and continues to do the thing he thinks caused it. He won't say whether he's that kind of monster or not, he just thinks I am.

BJ can't fit a long gun in his mailbox.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

BJ can't fit a long gun in his mailbox.

 

You can if you fold it enough times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Saorsa said:
10 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

 

I'm glad to see that our legislature doesn't think BJ and I caused this shooting by owning our .22's. I don't think I caused it. It's uncertain whether BJ thinks he caused it and continues to do the thing he thinks caused it. He won't say whether he's that kind of monster or not, he just thinks I am.

BJ can't fit a long gun in his mailbox.

Bah. The deaths of kids in a neighboring state created a legislative emergency affecting the entire state of New York, such that they couldn't just follow the normal rules of debate and amendment on the SAFE Act.

There are airplanes. If he's really causing the deaths of kids by owning his .22, he can fly back here and destroy it or give it to the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Tom likes to drag his responses around to play games. You have to double check when he quotes you to make sure the context is correct because he likes to change it then abuse your assumption you were continuing a different discussion than the one your post came from.

Correct, about ambushes into other threads, and correct about Tom quoting partial shit out of context. He just grabs some phrase, and speechifies in some other setting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Righty_tighty_lefty_dumbas said:

Hey boy how you feeling about FL not even talking about guns? Yeah working in your favor? Not so much!

FL looks pretty bad right now.

I'm unsure what you are claiming.  But FL has an angry legislator calling out Marion Hammer, by name, in public.  And  the survivor kids got Trump's attention., and broad media attention.  The Gunshine State needs to sort things out.

FL gun control.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sean said:

Well, it’s Florida -

2358C826-FD00-41F9-A8A2-F0B996D2CD44.jpeg

97216CFA-E311-471F-B4BE-A88779188B98.jpeg


Too bad we have Puritans in the R party who want to censor sexual expression. Would be nice to get a few libertarians in there to rein that shit in.

But I'm glad to see that our legislature isn't interested in making extraordinary procedural moves to ban and confiscate our .22's. That means I still don't have to join the NRA and can continue devoting discretionary income to the fleet instead of political contributions.

Thanks for that bit of good news, Sean!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Florida decreed AW's for all school officers yesterday. What a fine mark of achievement. Feeling pretty heady this morning, @Uncooperative Tom?

florida.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Mid said:

Over here Tom , your very own thread , knock yourself out  :D


I think one that actually links to and comments on the law in question is a bit better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2018 at 1:40 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:


Too bad we have Puritans in the R party who want to censor sexual expression. Would be nice to get a few libertarians in there to rein that shit in.

But I'm glad to see that our legislature isn't interested in making extraordinary procedural moves to ban and confiscate our .22's. That means I still don't have to join the NRA and can continue devoting discretionary income to the fleet instead of political contributions.

Thanks for that bit of good news, Sean!

Tom loves to make fun of grieving students. Makes him feel all tough or something. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2018 at 11:39 AM, jocal505 said:

AW's for all school officers yesterday.

Cite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read this article in The Atlantic,

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

It's by an ER radiologist who claims that the damage from the higher-velocity AR-15 causes a lot more internal damage than lower-power weapons. In one case, she mentioned that one of the victims in Parkland didn't even have the organ that was hit, it was just shreds, and the patient died.

It's interesting for me, because I have read different things, for instance that low-power weapons are actually more dangerous because the projectile is more likely to bounce around internally. This radiologist's take doesn't agree with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, mikewof said:

I just read this article in The Atlantic,

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

It's by an ER radiologist who claims that the damage from the higher-velocity AR-15 causes a lot more internal damage than lower-power weapons. In one case, she mentioned that one of the victims in Parkland didn't even have the organ that was hit, it was just shreds, and the patient died.

It's interesting for me, because I have read different things, for instance that low-power weapons are actually more dangerous because the projectile is more likely to bounce around internally. This radiologist's take doesn't agree with that.

We've had arguments about this around here. Jeff is on the flick now, but strongly objected to this doctor's premises. I presented doctor descriptions with cites, Jeff djust oubled down. Five or more operations are needed for survivors. Flesh transfers are needed. Aw's are not a leading cause of spinal paralysis. Rep. Scalise had two operations, just for infection. These wounds are on a new level of gunshot injury.

From your article:

Quote

Routine handgun injuries leave entry and exit wounds and linear tracks through the victim's body that are roughly the size of the bullet. If the bullet does not directly hit something crucial like the heart or the aorta, and they do not bleed to death before being transported to our care at a trauma center, chances are, we can save the victim. The bullets fired by an AR-15 are different; they travel at higher velocity and are far more lethal. The damage they cause is a function of the energy they impart as they pass through the body. A typical AR-15 bullet leaves the barrel traveling almost three times faster than, and imparting more than three times the energy of, a typical 9mm bullet from a handgun. An AR-15 rifle outfitted with a magazine cartridge with 50 rounds allows many more lethal bullets to be delivered quickly without reloading.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:


I think one that actually links to and comments on the law in question is a bit better.

Would you call the law major legislation? You make sweeping insinuations about the WA law, and it's under the radar in the SAF's home town, Bellevue. I checked.

This is made-up shit Tom. AND boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

We've had arguments about this around here. Jeff is on the flick now, but strongly objected to this doctor's premises. I presented doctor descriptions with cites, Jeff djust oubled down. Five or more operations are needed for survivors. Flesh transfers are needed. Aw's are not a leading cause of spinal paralysis. Rep. Scalise had two operations, just for infection. These wounds are on a new level of gunshot injury.

From your article:

I'm sorry that JBSF is on the flick, he's a friendly fellow.

Off the subject of guns, but I didn't want to start a thread about it, I also read this article in The Atlantic about women with autism.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/02/women-camouflaging-autism/553901/

The most interesting bit to me is that autistic girls are more likely to mask their autism by being social and spending time around the other girls, while a tell for autism in boys is that they tend to play alone. The article suggests that autism may be just as common in men as women, but it isn't diagnosed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

The metal detectors are also escalation. So are police APC's. All this for gunz? All this for violence?

So the only armed protection you find acceptable is for politicians and courts?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mikewof said:

I'm sorry that JBSF is on the flick, he's a friendly fellow.

Simple Jeff's head must have exploded, because he began to insinuate pedo.

Yes, he can be friendly, but he weaponizes the race issue, and uses rape as a two bit Jeffie offense. Repeatedly.

Quote

JBSF Posted 06 June 2015 - 09:50 PM

Joke-awf thinks women should just lay there and take it while they are being raped and killed. To do anything to protect themselves would mean they are bloodthirsty vigilantes. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bpm57 said:

So the only armed protection you find acceptable is for politicians and courts?

 

Got a cite bro?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites