Sign in to follow this  
Plenipotentiary Tom

Florida Gun Ban Proposed

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, jocal505 said:

I read your damn links today, and lost respect for myself for spending my time on your typically silly tripe. I'll do better tomorrow.

You might start by actually trying to follow your "I play it straight" masturbatory post for just 1 day.

A whole day of not changing the topic, actually posting the links you claim to have, etc.

Imagine how surprised everyone will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2018 at 6:32 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:


OK. From the topic post, as I said:

You'll have to ask a real ammosexual like badlat for other models.

I look at proposed laws and comment on how they would affect my life and the guns that I own. I don't know a lot about other models. Never knew what a SCAR was until badlat started talking about his.

But I doubt they wrote that section just for my gun. Obviously, the authors have other models in mind.

The feinstein sponsored bill seems to give an exception to tubalar magazines, the clause you quoted above does not. Is it incomplete of is there 2 different bills?

Share this post


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

The feinstein sponsored bill seems to give an exception to tubalar magazines, the clause you quoted above does not. Is it incomplete of is there 2 different bills?

Check the thread title: Florida gun ban.

This thread is about a state proposal. Feinstein is a US Senator.

But since I live in FL, each is a proposal that would affect my life if passed. The FL proposal is worse because it includes both my assault weapon and my wife's and because it requires confiscation upon our deaths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because happy has melted my brain with his sheer idiocy, I read the first 10 posts. You dont seem to think the Florida law will make it? Is that correct?

Share this post


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

Because happy has melted my brain with his sheer idiocy, I read the first 10 posts. You dont seem to think the Florida law will make it? Is that correct?

That's correct, at least for now.

You asked earlier for other examples of assault weapons with fixed magazines. Here's one:

http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/1996/a339-95-opn.html

As you can see, guns like my .22 have been classified as "assault weapons" for decades up in New Jersey. The BIG PROBLEM that people around here seem to have with it is not that such a classification is ridiculous, it's that I point it out.

So if the point of your question is to reassure me that it can't happen here in FL, don't bother. It can and the people who want me to shut up (and never seem to want the other side to shut up) seem to support that outcome.

We have lots of vocal FL voters here. They'll speak up if they see something with which they disagree. And they apparently see no such thing in this thread.

Share this post


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

That's correct, at least for now.

You asked earlier for other examples of assault weapons with fixed magazines. Here's one:

http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/1996/a339-95-opn.html

As you can see, guns like my .22 have been classified as "assault weapons" for decades up in New Jersey. The BIG PROBLEM that people around here seem to have with it is not that such a classification is ridiculous, it's that I point it out.

So if the point of your question is to reassure me that it can't happen here in FL, don't bother. It can and the people who want me to shut up (and never seem to want the other side to shut up) seem to support that outcome.

We have lots of vocal FL voters here. They'll speak up if they see something with which they disagree. And they apparently see no such thing in this thread.

Gun threads here are becoming rather boring, with the previously zealous either giving up or not participating. 

In general,  you and I have major differences of opinions on guns. At the personal level, you seem like a reasonable responsible gun owner with passion. I'm good with that.

My opinion is obviously irrelevant but calling .22's 'assault weapons' is pretty stupid. I owned a ruger 10.22 when they were legal here. Bought an over the counter 50 rd magazine for shits and giggles. Contemplated getting a file out....

They would make a great 'assault weapon' but to group rimfire rifles with centrefire rifles is ludicrous. Even our laws recognise this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All rimfires are not created equal.

I mentioned in the Stoopid thread that we're going to do some shooting out here over Memorial Day.

I still have our old iPhone 3's and iPhone 4s's. I plan to shoot one of each model with a .22 and the other with a .17 HMR.

My prediction is that there will be a hole from the .22 shots and the phones hit by the .17 HMR will explode. That's what happens when I shoot oranges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have some air rifles that are pretty quiet but I would hesitate to shoot one in a neighborhood. My favorite is a Beeman R10 in .20 that I bought back in the 80's. I got the version with the short barrel and open sights. No one does that. The point of getting a Beeman at the time was to get the long barrel and a good scope. I didn't want to lug all that weight around and am not careful enough with scopes.

I have used it to kill squirrels and rabbits and am sure I could kill a coon with it but haven't ever done it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As kids, we used to shoot  a .177 air rifle in the back yard.

Occasionally dad would get out his 10.22 with his home made silencer. Using shorts, it was quieter than the air rifle but the shorts didn't have enough  oomph to cycle the action. 

All this in a suburban back yard.

 

Share this post


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

You might start by actually trying to follow your "I play it straight" masturbatory post for just 1 day.

A whole day of not changing the topic, actually posting the links you claim to have, etc.

Imagine how surprised everyone will be.

Hi bpm. 

  • How did you like all the Patrick J. Charles?
  • You must prefer one of the six Libertarian authors by now, so which one?
  • When will your posts gain some content?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Lying Malarky said:

(To Tom) At the personal level, you seem like a reasonable responsible gun owner with passion. I'm good with that.

@Uncooperative Tom .  Reasonable, my sweet ass.

Mr. Malarky, how do you feel about opening up the machine gun registry? How do you feel about dismissing peer reviewed science? How do you feel about denying the ban on federal funding for gun violence research?  These points of view are held by Tom, and they are delusional.

What do you have to say about a person who quotes both John Lott and Gary Kleck? How do you explain a Second Amendment hotshot who won't weigh in on Joyce Lee Malcolm? Tom is a passionate guy with no foundation.

 

 

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

When will your posts gain some content?

Perhaps when your "Palmer" claims gain some "proof" Not WaPo articles about Mr. Palmer, but links to the legal rulings that you claimed happened in that case.

But thanks for playing, Joe. Just like admitting you owned an AW, expecting you to live up to your "I play it straight" post is just reaching to far.

Share this post


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

Perhaps when your "Palmer" claims gain some "proof" Not WaPo articles about Mr. Palmer, but links to the legal rulings that you claimed happened in that case.

But thanks for playing, Joe. Just like admitting you owned an AW, expecting you to live up to your "I play it straight" post is just reaching to far.

If you think I owned an AW, you belong to a unique little cult. And it makes you a wanker too, IMO. You seem to be an insatiable grouser, basically. At least you have my sympathy over how Palmer folded. Here is the guncite.com version,  my good man. Follow the links, it's all there I think.

 http://www.guns.com/2015/12/16/federal-appeals-court-voids-win-over-good-cause-requirement-for-d-c-carry-permits/

The Palmer case was a shocker for me, but Boothy was so happy he wanted to wipe out three dozen ganstas the first day. LMFAO.

Share this post


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

If you think I owned an AW, you belong to a unique little cult. And it makes you a wanker too, IMO. You seem to be an insatiable grouser, basically. At least you have my sympathy over how Palmer folded. Here is the guncite.com version,  my good man. Follow the links, it's all there I think.

 http://www.guns.com/2015/12/16/federal-appeals-court-voids-win-over-good-cause-requirement-for-d-c-carry-permits/

The Palmer case was a shocker for me, but Boothy was so happy he wanted to wipe out three dozen ganstas the first day. LMFAO.

Do you even read your links, Joe? That is a ruling in Wrenn. You _assured_ us that the DA in _Palmer_ "vacated" the judge. What happened in Wrenn was a 3 judge Court of Appeals panel did something. Not what you described, or even the same case. Would you like to try again?

20 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

The Palmer case was a shocker for me, but Boothy was so happy he wanted to wipe out three dozen ganstas the first day. LMFAO.

Cite? Remember Joe, you "play it straight", we expect you to live up to the same cite requirements you hold everyone else to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
2 hours ago, Lying Malarky said:

Bought an over the counter 50 rd magazine for shits and giggles. Contemplated getting a file out....

File for what????  

Share this post


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

Do you even read your links, Joe? That is a ruling in Wrenn. You _assured_ us that the DA in _Palmer_ "vacated" the judge. What happened in Wrenn was a 3 judge Court of Appeals panel did something. Not what you described, or even the same case. Would you like to try again?

Cite? Remember Joe, you "play it straight", we expect you to live up to the same cite requirements you hold everyone else to.

Like I said, follow the links to confirm the matter, as I related it. Without knowing the article, I punched two buttons in it and got plenty about Palmer. See below. Enjoy. 

I'm glad you are inquisitive, and that you are involved around here. But I can't do your reading for you, on a subject you've whined about for a week. You are the tenderfoot who suggested I didn't know Wrenn...which was just Palmer II, pressed by the same Libertarian actors.

Quote

“Plaintiffs, as well as the majority of law-abiding citizens, who fail to satisfy the District of Columbia’s ‘good reason/proper reason’ requirement because they cannot ‘show a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community’ or that they are engaged in a ‘type of employment that requires the handling of cash or other valuable objects that may be transported upon [their] person,’ are unable excursive their fundamental right to bear arms for self-defense under the Second Amendment,” wrote U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. in a 23-page opinion from his bench in New York.

“Thus, the Court concludes that the District of Columbia’s ‘good reason/proper reason’ requirement impinges on Plaintiff’s Second Amendment right to bear arms,” said Scullin, who issued a preliminary injunction against Lanier and the city from enforcing the requirement.

Scullin, a 1991 nomination to the bench by President George H. W. Bush, was the same judge who, in his July 2014 ruling in the Palmer case, struck down the District of Columbia’s ban on carrying guns outside the home which resulted in the city adopting its new concealed carry plan.

Gun rights advocates greeted...

http://www.guns.com/2015/05/19/saf-wins-injunction-over-good-cause-requirement-for-d-c-concealed-carry-permits/

 

Share this post


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

You are the tenderfoot who suggested I didn't know Wrenn...which was just Palmer II, pressed by the same Libertarian actors.

The fact that you still don't understand that Wrenn was a different law then Palmer doesn't speak well to your understanding of either case.

It might help if you read your own links.

1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

Scullin, a 1991 nomination to the bench by President George H. W. Bush, was the same judge who, in his July 2014 ruling in the Palmer case, struck down the District of Columbia’s ban on carrying guns outside the home which resulted in the city adopting its new concealed carry plan.

It is almost like the information you need can be found right there.

1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

Like I said, follow the links to confirm the matter, as I related it.

If I want to read Fantasy, Joe, I can think of better things then your misunderstanding of US courts.

The simple _fact_ is that Scullin was not removed from the Palmer case, the "DA" did not "vacate" Scullins ruling in Palmer, and no matter how hard you wish for it, Wrenn is not Palmer.

How about what Judge Kollar-Kotelly thinks about Palmer and Wrenn being the same thing?

MINUTE ORDER (paperless). This case has been reassigned in light of the decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which vacated the preliminary injunction previously issued by Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., in this case. In light of the reassignment, Defendants’ #33 Motion for Case Reassignment and Plaintiffs’ #34 Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Defendants’ Motion for Case Reassignment are DENIED AS MOOT. The Court will provide the parties an opportunity to provide additional briefing on the motion for preliminary injunction. Accordingly, the parties shall file a Joint Status Report by no later than FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2016, at NOON, indicating whether they intend to file supplemental briefing. If they do, they shall include a proposed schedule for expedited briefing in light of the time constraints for resolving a motion for a preliminary injunction under local civil rule 65.1. As a final matter, the Court notes this case pertains to a different statute than the one that was at issue in Judge Scullin’s decision in Palmer v. DC (09-cv-1482). Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 2/9/2016.

http://michellawyers.com/wrenn-et-al-v-distsrict-of-columbia-et-al/

Share this post


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

If you think I owned an AW, you belong to a unique little cult.

I don't think Pelleteri did either, but neither my or your opinion matter. NJ judges say he did.

NJ certainly has one of the oldest definitions for AW codified into state law - why would you ignore it?

Share this post


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

@Uncooperative Tom .  Reasonable, my sweet ass.

Mr. Malarky, how do you feel about opening up the machine gun registry? How do you feel about dismissing peer reviewed science? How do you feel about denying the ban on federal funding for gun violence research?  These points of view are held by Tom, and they are delusional.

What do you have to say about a person who quotes both John Lott and Gary Kleck? How do you explain a Second Amendment hotshot who won't weigh in on Joyce Lee Malcolm? Tom is a passionate guy with no foundation.

 

 

 

A person who likes guns isn't necessarily a nutter. 

Tom is just passionate, like you. I disagree with tom on many aspects of gun control,  just like I disagree with you.

 

If either one of you two get kicked,  you respond accordingly.  That's just how it is.

Share this post


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

A person who likes guns isn't necessarily a nutter. 

Tom is just passionate, like you. I disagree with tom on many aspects of gun control,  just like I disagree with you.

 

If either one of you two get kicked,  you respond accordingly.  That's just how it is.

Your points are accepted, However, one guy is based on vetted history and research. The other guy is winging it.

Share this post


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

Your points are accepted, However, one guy is based on vetted history and research. The other guy is winging it.

And this guy is happy to live under Australian gun laws.

Share this post


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

Your points are accepted, However, one guy is based on vetted history and research. The other guy is winging it.

Yet things like this never come up in briefs written by your approved historians.

As one English court would soon declare, “[a] man has a clear right to protect
himself when he is going singly or in a small party upon the road where
he is traveling or going for the ordinary purposes of business,” though
there is “no right to carry arms to a public meeting, if the number of
arms which are so carried are calculated to produce terror and alarm . .
. .” King v. Dewhurst, 1 St. Tr. 529, 601–02 (Lancaster Assize 1820)
 

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Wrenn_Appellants-Reply-Brief.pdf

pg 22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 hours ago, bpm57 said:

If I want to read Fantasy, Joe, I can think of better things then your misunderstanding of US courts.

WHINER BABY

I gave you a guncite article covering Palmer. I found a source, slanted for your elk, on a topic of your choosing, mate. Let the record show that the CATO executive, Tom Palmer, could not protect his from mobs in D.C. based on shall issue.

Quote

MINUTE ORDER (paperless). This case has been reassigned in light of the decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which vacated the preliminary injunction previously issued by Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., in this case. In light of the reassignment, Defendants’ #33 Motion for Case Reassignment and Plaintiffs’ #34 Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Defendants’ Motion for Case Reassignment are DENIED AS MOOT. 

Shall issue in D.C. was also the matter covered in Wrenn. 

Share this post


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

I gave you a guncite article covering Palmer. I found a source, slanted for your elk, on a topic of your choosing, mate. Let the record show that the CATO executive, Tom Palmer, could not protect his from mobs in D.C. based on shall issue.

You gave a source.. about Wrenn. You made up a wonderful bit of fantasy, and claimed all sorts of things _about Palmer_ I'm asking about _Palmer_ not Wrenn. No matter how much you wish, Joe, they are not the same case. Palmer was done in district court in december of 2014. It was dismissed from Appeals court April 2015. Do you see the word "Palmer" in the article and decide it must be about the case?

The minute order quote.. that you cut, and put meaningless BOLD in.. was in Wrenn. Note that it even says "in this case".

And oddly enough, the DC Appeals court doing something is not what you claimed happened. You claimed the DA vacated Scullins and sent him back to his retirement home. In Palmer. Not Wrenn. I can't find anything in either case that describes changing the judge that way.

But DC did get their way in Wrenn, not that it mattered by the end of the case.

7 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Shall issue in D.C. was also the matter covered in Wrenn.

Which only makes it the same case in your mind.

And just yours.

Because you claim to know everything about Palmer and Wrenn, Joe, I'll let you figure out why they are not the same case. Hell, I've even given you the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Lying Malarky said:

As kids, we used to shoot  a .177 air rifle in the back yard.

Occasionally dad would get out his 10.22 with his home made silencer. Using shorts, it was quieter than the air rifle but the shorts didn't have enough  oomph to cycle the action. 

All this in a suburban back yard.

 

We never shot anything but slingshots in suburbia, except the one time a friend and I shot a 30/30 into his swimming pool. We wanted to see what would happen to the bullet. It mushroomed. We didn't get caught but I was pretty sure we would. Stupid teenager tricks.

My dad used his .22 with those "primer only" loads to shoot squirrels in his yard in his last house. Pretty quiet even with no silencer and not very powerful. It was semi-rural, with nearby neighbors but they had cows and horses and everyone had at least a few acres. No one ever objected.

 

Share this post


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

We never shot anything but slingshots in suburbia, except the one time a friend and I shot a 30/30 into his swimming pool. We wanted to see what would happen to the bullet. It mushroomed. We didn't get caught but I was pretty sure we would. Stupid teenager tricks.

My dad used his .22 with those "primer only" loads to shoot squirrels in his yard in his last house. Pretty quiet even with no silencer and not very powerful. It was semi-rural, with nearby neighbors but they had cows and horses and everyone had at least a few acres. No one ever objected.

 

A 30/30 in the pool sounds like reasonable kid behavior.

How did we ever survive. ...

 

On tv, American suburbia seems to not show fences etc.

Our houses have a 6ft high fence around them. As kids, we used to jump them pretty regularly. Other adults generally rarely popped their heads over.

Normally,  no one really interferred in each others backyard. Probably explains our domestic violence rates.....

Share this post


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

In 1768, John Hancock needed permission to shoot the guns of his militia in Boston.


And in about 1979, we shot a 30/30 into a suburban swimming pool. We knew it was wrong but did it anyway.

I still think it was wrong and still disapprove of firing guns in cities. How does that disapproval relate to TeamD plans to ban and confiscate (assault weapons, our .22's)?

Share this post


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


And in about 1979, we shot a 30/30 into a suburban swimming pool. We knew it was wrong but did it anyway.

I still think it was wrong and still disapprove of firing guns in cities. How does that disapproval relate to TeamD plans to ban and confiscate (assault weapons, our .22's)?

Wankerville, more of.

Share this post


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

Your points are accepted, However, one guy is based on vetted history and research. The other guy is winging it.

I actually agree with this and consider reading the cases under discussion to be research. I've done it. Joe hasn't and is winging it.

Share this post


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

I actually agree with this and consider reading the cases under discussion to be research. I've done it. Joe hasn't and is winging it.

THE POLITICAL ANARCHY 'WINGING IT" TEST ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT:

Was Joyce Lee Malcolm winging it in Heller, or not? Do you support The Standard Model, or not, Tom?

Share this post


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

Was Joyce Lee Malcolm winging it in Heller, or not?

Get back to me when you've read Miller, Heller, and McDonald decisions at the very least and we might be able to discuss it. I don't want to once again quote those cases and have you ask what my source is because you haven't read them. Read them.

Share this post


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

I actually agree with this and consider reading the cases under discussion to be research. I've done it. Joe hasn't and is winging it.

 Are you sure you read Miller?

Quote

Miller was adjudicated because Miller was a fighting age male, as you admit elsewhere.

Just not true and I never said it.

I can cite you all over the place saying it. If you read Miller, then you proceeded to mis-represent it. Not cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom Ray, Nov. 4, 2016:

I think they heard his case because they knew that "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense"described him.

 

 

Share this post


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

Do you support The Standard Model, or not, Tom?

Tom likes silly questions which others won't answer. THIS QUESTION COVERS THE BASICS. If Tom can't discuss The Standard Model, and its details, then Tom is playing flim-flam with Joe.

Share this post


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

likes silly questions which others won't answer

Kind of like your inability to find rulings about things that you claimed happened?

Share this post


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

Kind of like your inability to find rulings about things that you claimed happened?

WHINER BABY AT IT AGAIN

Sounds like a pretty broad butthurt, it's kinda lacking in specifics. 

Share this post


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

WHINER BABY AT IT AGAIN

Sounds like a pretty broad butthurt, it's kinda lacking in specifics. 

Good to see you can't stay away from your normal form for even 1 day, Joe. Remember this bit of masturbatory fiction you dropped on us just a few days ago?

If it suggested that you were actually going to act as outlined, perhaps you might want to get started.

If not, well, I'm sorry that you landed on your head a few to many times jumping over cars. Maybe after the 1st "landing" you should of reconsidered how wise it was to do it.

Share this post


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

Good to see you can't stay away from your normal form for even 1 day, Joe. Remember this bit of masturbatory fiction you dropped on us just a few days ago?

If it suggested that you were actually going to act as outlined, perhaps you might want to get started.

If not, well, I'm sorry that you landed on your head a few to many times jumping over cars. Maybe after the 1st "landing" you should of reconsidered how wise it was to do it.

Around 2013, it took me more than a year just to find and present the current research. In the background, a stream of disinformation and half-truths flowed from Pooplius. In the background,  I was jumped by twenty guys I didn't know, and whose positions I couldn't delineate. The research became my foundation, as I started chasing down the positions of the social sciences. Neither the research, nor the social sciences supported gun rights. Then I checked out the history.

My name is Joe and I just went straight up the middle. I became a pretty strong voice, based on the empirical understanding (of research, social science, and history)...the stuff which the SA Gun Club requested, and said it would consider.

Share this post


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

Tom Ray, Nov. 4, 2016:

On 11/4/2016 at 12:21 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:
On 11/4/2016 at 11:17 AM, Raz'r said:

 

  On 11/4/2016 at 10:30 AM, Publius Johnson said:

You don't much care for the rest of the quotation, do you?

 

  Quote
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

 

 

The Supreme Court is familiar with the concept of "standing" in a case. Are you?

 

They clearly thought the amendment applied to Miller or they would not have heard his case.

 

So I'll ask you the question SloopJonB won't answer: what militia do you think Miller was a part of?

 

I think they heard his case because they knew that "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" described him.

 

The way I read that, only able bodied males have the 2nd amendment rights.

you don't mean THAT, do you?

 

 

No more than I mean only white, land-owning men when I talk about voting rights.

 

 

 

I know you and Mitch want my quote to mean something I did not intend when taking an excerpt from the passage I quoted.

That's why you won't do what I did and quote the whole thing with a link back for context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2018 at 9:42 AM, Lying Malarky said:

Gun threads here are becoming rather boring, with the previously zealous either giving up or not participating. 

In general,  you and I have major differences of opinions on guns. At the personal level, you seem like a reasonable responsible gun owner with passion. I'm good with that.

My opinion is obviously irrelevant but calling .22's 'assault weapons' is pretty stupid. I owned a ruger 10.22 when they were legal here. Bought an over the counter 50 rd magazine for shits and giggles. Contemplated getting a file out....

They would make a great 'assault weapon' but to group rimfire rifles with centrefire rifles is ludicrous. Even our laws recognise this.

I've been saying that calling ordinary .22's like mine "assault weapons" is pretty stupid for quite some time.

Very few here seem to agree. Instead, they think I'm stupid for saying so and they try to convince me of this by telling me to shut up.

"Shut up" is not a very convincing argument and no other argument has been offered, so I still think that calling our .22's "assault weapons" is pretty stupid.

Share this post


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

I know you and Mitch want my quote to mean something I did not intend when taking an excerpt from the passage I quoted.

That's why you won't do what I did and quote the whole thing with a link back for context.

Look, shithead, you fibbed about Miller, many many times. Now you need to correct it. Miller does not relate to gun rights for The People, under any guise, no matter how often you repeat it.

 

 

What's with your hangup on Miller, anyway, in 2018? This gun rights matter has now snowballed far beyond Miller's status in 1938. Miller will never be significant, except as a classic pre-Heller benchmark, one based on militia rights (not people's rights)

This is a weird, myopic, and personal Pooplius crusade, because Miller has zip to do with the idea that the Second Amendment considers or influences the gun rights of The People. The discussion is a personal obsession, which can go nowhere. 

Seriously Tom, what's up with the endless, half-baked Miller content?

Share this post


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

"Shut up" is not a very convincing argument and no other argument has been offered, so I still think that calling our .22's "assault weapons" is pretty stupid.

Atta boy, Tom. If you think this crap is working, lay in on nice and thick, everywhere, for the duration. :unsure:

Share this post


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

I became a pretty strong voice, based on the empirical understanding

And yet keeping Miller, MacDonald, Castile, Castleman, Heller, Palmer, and Wrenn straight seems to be beyond you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, mikewof said:
14 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

 So the best way to avoid bans on (assault weapons, ordinary .22's) would be for those of us who oppose them to shut up and let them happen without comment, huh?

Sounds like a genius plan. Weird that so many grabberz here want me to shut up when I'm being so darn helpful.

No, the best way to avoid the gun control freight train that is coming your way is to acknowledge that many of the "gun grabberz" are gun owners who have had a belly full of the obstructionism you promote.


There are lots of people here who claim they actually oppose bans on (assault weapons, our .22's) but they mostly tell me to shut up when I object to them.

We have lots of Floridians here on the forum but supporters of this legislation are darn hard to find in this thread.

I don't care. I'm not JBSF and don't give a shit what the cool kids here think of me or whether they're tired of hearing about how fucking stupid TeamD gun bans are. They'll hear it from me until they quit being stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Publix Doesn't Want My Business
 

Quote

 

Moments before the protest began, Publix released a statement apologizing for putting its employees and customers "in the middle of a political debate" and announcing a suspension of corporate political donations as it reevaluates its donation process.

"At Publix, we respect the students and members of the community who have chosen to express their voices on these issues. We regret that our contributions have led to a divide in our community," the statement read.

 

Yeah, their contributions, not the TeamD effort to ban and confiscate (assault weapons, our .22's), are responsible for the divide. If only people like me would bend over and be quiet, the fucking could proceed without any divisions at all in our community.

If only...

Winn Dixie deli isn't as good but is a whole lot closer. Also, being not as good, it's not as crowded, so you're less likely to have three different employees walk into the back of the store without so much as looking at me standing at the Deli counter. That happened the other day and I told the manager about it on my way out. He said, "What kind of sandwich did you want, sir?"

I held up the bag of sandwich makings I had just purchased and said, "This kind, to go. Bye."

Too bad that was my last Publix experience. They've been a good store for a long time.

 

Share this post


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

Publix Doesn't Want My Business
 

Yeah, their contributions, not the TeamD effort to ban and confiscate (assault weapons, our .22's), are responsible for the divide. If only people like me would bend over and be quiet, the fucking could proceed without any divisions at all in our community.

If only...

Winn Dixie deli isn't as good but is a whole lot closer. Also, being not as good, it's not as crowded, so you're less likely to have three different employees walk into the back of the store without so much as looking at me standing at the Deli counter. That happened the other day and I told the manager about it on my way out. He said, "What kind of sandwich did you want, sir?"

I held up the bag of sandwich makings I had just purchased and said, "This kind, to go. Bye."

Too bad that was my last Publix experience. They've been a good store for a long time.

They're the best grocery in the country, your loss.

And you've cut off your nose to spite your face, but you probably don't know why yet, so I'll explain it to you ...

Publix is employee-owned. They're the largest employee-owned company in the USA. The political decisions that the company makes are representative of the past and present workers of the company, nobody else is allowed to own Publix stock. 

Rather than recognize the impending perception shift that is obviously brewing from regular people in their attitudes on guns, you've chosen to block that reality out of your head, and lose your chance to discuss it with the owners of that company, the baggers, cashiers and deli managers of Publix. They're the owners of the company, they can change the company's political policy.

Yes, Publix.screws up. But unlike Winn Dixie or some of the others, every employee owner has the ability and latitude to make you a happy customer. Your complaint with their political policies and their worker attitudes that left you with a bag of sandwich parts can be changed at the employee-level.

If you switch to a small, mom-and-pop grocery though, that could be even better than Publix, and they do still exist.

Share this post


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

... they're tired of hearing about how fucking stupid TeamD gun bans are. They'll hear it from me until they quit being stupid.

You've managed to convince yourself that you alone knows truth, and anyone who doesn't know your truth knows only lies. Good luck with that, it doesn't tend to end well.

Share this post


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

... they're tired of hearing about how fucking stupid TeamD gun bans are. They'll hear it from me until they quit being stupid.

You've managed to convince yourself that you alone knows truth, and anyone who doesn't know your truth knows only lies. Good luck with that, it doesn't tend to end well.

No I think at least one other person here on the forum gets it.

On 5/18/2018 at 9:42 AM, Lying Malarky said:

My opinion is obviously irrelevant but calling .22's 'assault weapons' is pretty stupid.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

No I think at least one other person here on the forum gets it.

I'm not sure that you really get it though.

The term "assault weapon" means nothing to me since it seems to be used out of convenience, the way a 20-cent automotive pencil becomes a $5 marine pencil and then becomes a $15 aviation pencil.

0.22 guns kill a lot of people, why not call the long 0.22 guns "assault rifles" and the shorter 0.22 guns "assault handguns" and call medical errors that kill some 250,000 people every year "assault medicine" and call drunk or texting drivers behind the wheel "assault drivers"?

You don't like the label because you seem to see the writing on the wall that certain guns are going to increasingly become regulated and you prefer the net be cast as narrowly as possible. Too bad, Normy. It doesn't matter how many people guns kill, the reality is that the new generation wants significantly increased scrutiny to them. You think that it's not accurate to call certain guns "assault" and others not, but the whole idea of even being selective with these definitions with guns is silly. Take yer medicine Normy, you helped build this "selective truth" nonsense.

The gun community and industry has blocked common sense from every turn for so long, that the chickens are now how to roost, and you guys have to deal with the nonsensical fallout from the nonsense bomb that you exploded high up in the profit atmosphere.

You want to know why the automotive and medical industries don't have to deal with this bullshit Normy? Because they insisted that their policies and their communications and direction be made by people qualified for the jobs. The gun industry preferred that down-home "gosh durn it, I'm a 'Murican" emotionalism define policy itself, and now you -- an intelligent gun consumer -- has to deal with that? Don't blame everyone else Normy, blame yourself for not keeping a lid on the stupidity in your own community. The fact that you're quoting some guy who goes by the moniker "Lying Malarky" should perhaps ring some little bell over that weathered piece of plywood that what I'm writing here has some merit.

Share this post


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

You want to know why the automotive and medical industries don't have to deal with this bullshit Normy?

Probably because nobody wants to talk about the 35+K who die each year in MV crashes. Just call it an "accident" and all the carnage becomes acceptable.

Also, when somebody decides to drive a MV through a crowd, the only blame falls on the driver, not the maker of the vehicle, or the place that sold/rented the vehicle to that driver.

But guns? Somehow that doesn't apply. It is almost like the "unbiased" "news reporters" have an agenda.

Share this post


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

Probably because nobody wants to talk about the 35+K who die each year in MV crashes. Just call it an "accident" and all the carnage becomes acceptable.

Also, when somebody decides to drive a MV through a crowd, the only blame falls on the driver, not the maker of the vehicle, or the place that sold/rented the vehicle to that driver.

But guns? Somehow that doesn't apply. It is almost like the "unbiased" "news reporters" have an agenda.

The car makers and medical device makers continuously work to improve the user-safety of their products, and it shows in the death statistics of their products. But the gun makers have no financial incentive to make a safer product. Rather their financial incentive is to make a deadlier product. 

When though the DGU stat apparently has no connection with DoJ stats, the industry does very well selling highly lethal products to buyers who have only the most remote chance of ever using them in an actual defensive way. If the lightning rod manufacturers sold personal lightning rods built to be strapped to the user's back all day, we would laugh. But the gun industry does it and we applaud them as uniquely American.

Share this post


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

The car makers and medical device makers continuously work to improve the user-safety of their products, and it shows in the death statistics of their products. But the gun makers have no financial incentive to make a safer product. Rather their financial incentive is to make a deadlier product. 

When though the DGU stat apparently has no connection with DoJ stats, the industry does very well selling highly lethal products to buyers who have only the most remote chance of ever using them in an actual defensive way. If the lightning rod manufacturers sold personal lightning rods built to be strapped to the user's back all day, we would laugh. But the gun industry does it and we applaud them as uniquely American.

Mike, what is inherently unsafe about a gun?  My carry gun like most of the guns that cops carry does not have a safety but a stiff trigger.  It is not going off accidentally.  Driving and any medical procedure have inherent risks.  How many shooting incidents are due to a design or manufacturing flaw?  People get shot because someone pulled a trigger.  I'm sure more kids are dying due to opioid abuse and how's that war going?  I have zero idea what point you are trying to make.   

How do you make a gun safer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

Mike, what is inherently unsafe about a gun?  My carry gun like most of the guns that cops carry does not have a safety but a stiff trigger.  It is not going off accidentally.  Driving and any medical procedure have inherent risks.  How many shooting incidents are due to a design or manufacturing flaw?  People get shot because someone pulled a trigger.  I'm sure more kids are dying due to opioid abuse and how's that war going?  I have zero idea what point you are trying to make.   

How do you make a gun safer?

It's similar to medical instruments, that you're usually not making the instrument/gun itself safer, but that the manufacturers work with the industry to make the process around that instrument safer.

It seems that you're suggesting that the gun industry itself should be disconnected from the culture around their products, and that's a mistake because the culture IS their customers, in the same way that the users of medical instruments are the same people who can make their use safer.

A very simple example is the Red Flag Law proposals, one of which was just stalled in my own state and aimed to prevent emotionally ill people from having access to their guns. Some friendly PA gun guys looked at that proposal and said "yeah, but the problems with it are this, and that." Okay, then maybe those are real problems, but the bigger problem was that the laws had to be built in a vacuum without the active cooperation of the gun manufacturers and the gun communities. Yeah, the law failed because they didn't like it, even though they supported it in theory. Well, where the fuck were they in the beginning when the bill could have been written rationally, with broad support?

It doesn't take any particular talent to read a law and say "yeah, this isn't going to work because of X, Y, and Z." It takes work and talent to say "let's find a way to get guns away from emotionally ill people and do it in a way that doesn't remove rights from others."

Your question above, not the one in bold, but the one about "shooting incidents are due to a design or manufacturing flaw?" is what I'm describing here. Why look for loopholes of how you can't make this work? Why not work to find a way to decrease shootings across the board, from crimes, to law enforcement to eager-beaver homeowners who blast their children after sneaking in through a window or six years olds who accidentally shoot themselves?

This is what I'm describing ... the new generation just doesn't give a rat's ass about these fucking word games anymore. They're intelligent enough to know that the gun community should be working to fix these problems in a way that doesn't blame everyone else, and they have the organizational capacity to change these laws soon enough. If you don't find a way to work with them, they'll find a way to work without you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It's similar to medical instruments, that you're usually not making the instrument/gun itself safer, but that the manufacturers work with the industry to make the process around that instrument safer.

It seems that you're suggesting that the gun industry itself should be disconnected from the culture around their products, and that's a mistake because the culture IS their customers, in the same way that the users of medical instruments are the same people who can make their use safer.

A very simple example is the Red Flag Law proposals, one of which was just stalled in my own state and aimed to prevent emotionally ill people from having access to their guns. Some friendly PA gun guys looked at that proposal and said "yeah, but the problems with it are this, and that." Okay, then maybe those are real problems, but the bigger problem was that the laws had to be built in a vacuum without the active cooperation of the gun manufacturers and the gun communities. Yeah, the law failed because they didn't like it, even though they supported it in theory. Well, where the fuck were they in the beginning when the bill could have been written rationally, with broad support?

It doesn't take any particular talent to read a law and say "yeah, this isn't going to work because of X, Y, and Z." It takes work and talent to say "let's find a way to get guns away from emotionally ill people and do it in a way that doesn't remove rights from others."

Your question above, not the one in bold, but the one about "shooting incidents are due to a design or manufacturing flaw?" is what I'm describing here. Why look for loopholes of how you can't make this work? Why not work to find a way to decrease shootings across the board, from crimes, to law enforcement to eager-beaver homeowners who blast their children after sneaking in through a window or six years olds who accidentally shoot themselves?

This is what I'm describing ... the new generation just doesn't give a rat's ass about these fucking word games anymore. They're intelligent enough to know that the gun community should be working to fix these problems in a way that doesn't blame everyone else, and they have the organizational capacity to change these laws soon enough. If you don't find a way to work with them, they'll find a way to work without you.

Mike, I'm not picking a fight and appreciate your thoughtful response.  

Do car companies sell cars to people that couldn't qualify for a gun?  What kind of background checks does a dealer do before I drive the new car off the lot?  I can kill a lot more people with my car than my gun.  I hope you can feel my frustration but I don't see an easy solution to any crazy person wanting to kill people.  Bombs, cars, guns, etc., it's hard to predict/prevent.  Cheers.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

Mike, I'm not picking a fight and appreciate your thoughtful response.  

Do car companies sell cars to people that couldn't qualify for a gun?  What kind of background checks does a dealer do before I drive the new car off the lot?  I can kill a lot more people with my car than my gun.  I hope you can feel my frustration but I don't see an easy solution to any crazy person wanting to kill people.  Bombs, cars, guns, etc., it's hard to predict/prevent.  Cheers.  

The car industry is jammed with those kind of checks. My elderly relative lost his license when his eyesight wasn't good enough, my teenage daughters had to take extensive training, mandatory 1 years learner's permit, mandatory behind-the-wheel instruction, online tests, a verified log book and behind the wheel tests before they could drive. On the other hand, I bought a 7.62 x 54 rifle with nothing more than a credit card, a few days wait and my signature.

You could drive that new car off the lot without a license, because the dealer won't check, assuming you pay cash. But that's also because unlicensed drivers of new cars hasn't been a significant problem. Good luck renting a car without an active license, where unsafe drivers HAS been a problem.

And yes, let's not worry about a "crazy person wanting to kill people" yet ... instead let's go after the low-hanging fruit; things like children accidentally shooting themselves, domestic squabbles that break out the firearms, law enforcement shooing innocents, criminals that get hold of black market weapons.

What you've written above is equivalent to the nuclear power plant operator saying "there is no rational way that we can protect this nuclear power plant from a meteor strike, so let's not protect it from operator error either."

Share this post


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

The car industry is jammed with those kind of checks. My elderly relative lost his license when his eyesight wasn't good enough, my teenage daughters had to take extensive training, mandatory 1 years learner's permit, mandatory behind-the-wheel instruction, online tests, a verified log book and behind the wheel tests before they could drive. On the other hand, I bought a 7.62 x 54 rifle with nothing more than a credit card, a few days wait and my signature.

You could drive that new car off the lot without a license, because the dealer won't check, assuming you pay cash. But that's also because unlicensed drivers of new cars hasn't been a significant problem. Good luck renting a car without an active license, where unsafe drivers HAS been a problem.

And yes, let's not worry about a "crazy person wanting to kill people" yet ... instead let's go after the low-hanging fruit; things like children accidentally shooting themselves, domestic squabbles that break out the firearms, law enforcement shooing innocents, criminals that get hold of black market weapons.

What you've written above is equivalent to the nuclear power plant operator saying "there is no rational way that we can protect this nuclear power plant from a meteor strike, so let's not protect it from operator error either."

Ok, I resent your last two paragraphs.  You're very confused.  A domestic abuse convicted person  can buy a car and there's no check for that.  Can he buy a gun in my state, no.  A DUI offender assuming he has a license can buy a car, can he buy a gun, no.  Children shooting themselves or other children is on the owner of the gun.  Am I for mandatory and very strict penalties for gun owners who do not properly secure their weapons, FUCK YES!!  If you need it when you sleep/live, wear a holster and don't put it under the mattress or pillow.  Domestic abuse disqualifies you from buying a gun in my state, sorry if yours is in the dark ages.  Again, tell me how you propose to solve even the low-hanging fruit issues.  You impress me as someone who screams at the rain but isn't smart enough to put on a jacket.  Have a great holiday

I really wish you were as smart as you think you are and not so long-winded.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

Ok, I resent your last two paragraphs.  You're very confused.  A domestic abuse convicted person  can buy a car and there's no check for that.  Can he buy a gun in my state, no.  A DUI offender assuming he has a license can buy a car, can he buy a gun, no.  Children shooting themselves or other children is on the owner of the gun.  Am I for mandatory and very strict penalties for gun owners who do not properly secure their weapons, FUCK YES!!  If you need it when you sleep/live, wear a holster and don't put it under the mattress or pillow.  Domestic abuse disqualifies you from buying a gun in my state, sorry if yours is in the dark ages.  Again, tell me how you propose to solve even the low-hanging fruit issues.  You impress me as someone who screams at the rain but isn't smart enough to put on a jacket.  Have a great holiday

I really wish you were as smart as you think you are and not so long-winded.

You wrote that you're not looking for a fight, but it reads that you're looking for a fight. I already gave you an example of the low-hanging fruit, the gun community could have been involved and proactive in my state's Red Flag Law proposal instead of just shooting it down in twelfth hour.

A domestic abuser can buy a car probably because there is scant evidence that keeping that person from driving is going to do f-all to keep him or her from abusing domestically, or from escalating his abuse. But a DUI offender is prevented from driving until his debt is paid, because there is a connection there. And yes, children "shooting themselves is on the owner of the gun" and that's exactly what I'm describing. Your community is so eager to shift blame that it often less-than-willing to address its community problems.

People wandering out of their lane and and causing an accident is "on the driver" but the industry addressed the problem anyway. Your approach above reminds me why my high school coach made the whole team run laps when anyone on the team didn't accept responsibility for a fuck-up, even if it actually had nothing at all to do with them, and the coach knew it. It's a team, not a collection of individuals. That gun owner that allows his child to shoot another child hurts all of you, it isn't just "on the owner" as you write.

And to your last graf, I've been shooting guns and for over forty years. I've probably given at least as much thought to this as you have.

Share this post


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

You wrote that you're not looking for a fight, but it reads that you're looking for a fight. I already gave you an example of the low-hanging fruit, the gun community could have been involved and proactive in my state's Red Flag Law proposal instead of just shooting it down in twelfth hour.

A domestic abuser can buy a car probably because there is scant evidence that keeping that person from driving is going to do f-all to keep him or her from abusing domestically, or from escalating his abuse. But a DUI offender is prevented from driving until his debt is paid, because there is a connection there. And yes, children "shooting themselves is on the owner of the gun" and that's exactly what I'm describing. Your community is so eager to shift blame that it often less-than-willing to address its community problems.

People wandering out of their lane and and causing an accident is "on the driver" but the industry addressed the problem anyway. Your approach above reminds me why my high school coach made the whole team run laps when anyone on the team didn't accept responsibility for a fuck-up, even if it actually had nothing at all to do with them, and the coach knew it. It's a team, not a collection of individuals. That gun owner that allows his child to shoot another child hurts all of you, it isn't just "on the owner" as you write.

And to your last graf, I've been shooting guns and for over forty years. I've probably given at least as much thought to this as you have.

And nowhere in all that text have you proposed a solution.  You're a joke.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

And nowhere in all that text have you proposed a solution.  You're a joke.  

I proposed a solution, you didn't read apparently.

As I wrote, (third time) my state's Red Flag Law was killed this year. That would have passed had the gun community been proactive about writing a Red Flag bill that they supported. How can you read what I wrote and not see a solution there?

Share this post


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

I proposed a solution, you didn't read apparently.

As I wrote, (third time) my state's Red Flag Law was killed. That could have passed had the gun community been proactive about writing a Red Flag bill that they supported. How can you read what I wrote and not see a solution there?

And what state and how the hell am I supposed to know what that is?  I likely would agree with it.  I am not a gun nut and would turn mine in if I thought it would make a difference, it won't. 

Share this post


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

The car industry is jammed with those kind of checks. My elderly relative lost his license when his eyesight wasn't good enough, my teenage daughters had to take extensive training, mandatory 1 years learner's permit, mandatory behind-the-wheel instruction, online tests, a verified log book and behind the wheel tests before they could drive.

That is nice, but none of that is required to 1) own a car or 2) drive a car on private property. It certainly doesn't stop the car from being stolen and then misused.

23 minutes ago, mikewof said:

That would have passed had the gun community been proactive about writing a Red Flag bill that they supported.

Well, if the anti-gun cheerleaders in your state are anything like they are in NJ, then they ignored anyone trying to make the bill acceptable.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, mikewof said:

You don't like the label because you seem to see the writing on the wall that certain guns are going to increasingly become regulated and you prefer the net be cast as narrowly as possible.

I don't like the BS of calling my .22 a weapon of war when everyone knows it's not.

I'm amused by the TeamD taboo that keeps people from speaking the truth and keeps them reminding me that my .22 can kill.

An honest approach would be for TeamD to simply say they want to ban semiautomatic weapons. If that's not true and my .22 is somehow a special semiauto that deserves banning, I'd like to know why and I'd like to know which semiauto might be acceptable if mine is not. It seems to me to be just about the most innocuous semi-auto that anyone can own.

13 hours ago, mikewof said:

Don't blame everyone else Normy, blame yourself for not keeping a lid on the stupidity in your own community. The fact that you're quoting some guy who goes by the moniker "Lying Malarky" should perhaps ring some little bell over that weathered piece of plywood that what I'm writing here has some merit.

I blame TeamD to not keeping a lid on the stupidity of calling my .22 a weapon of war.

I don't put much stock in screen names and don't know who I was quoting. Another anonymous stranger gets kind of annoyed when I quote my agreement with him, but here goes anyway:

On 2/15/2018 at 12:06 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:
On 2/15/2018 at 12:03 PM, 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.

 

On 2/15/2018 at 12:23 PM, d'ranger said:

I would oppose restrictions on 22lr fwiw.


I agree with TeamD Ranger, even if he no longer agrees with me on that issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:
18 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:
18 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

Flooding the streets with guns is the only way to make us safe.

Who here is suggesting to flood the streets with gunz to make us safe????

All you people that are doing the bidding of the NRA instead of protecting our kids.


How would banning and confiscating my .22 protect our kids?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for starters we wouldn't have to listen to your continued bleating about it .

Share this post


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

for starters we wouldn't have to listen to your continued bleating about it .

You may be able to find some threads with other topics this morning...

But you'll probably continue to avoid them.

Share this post


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

You may be able to find some threads with other topics this morning...

But you'll probably continue to avoid them.

Pretty difficult, seeing has you decided to take a shit in a load of them this morning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mad said:

Pretty difficult, seeing has you decided to take a shit in a load of them this morning. 

I have offered links to a dozen or so non-gun threads to those who complain that I talk about nothing else.

I thought it would be funny to make them wade through a bunch of them to find a thread in which to launch their usual false complaint.

Don't worry. Those threads are all about things other than guns and will soon sink off the front page again.

Share this post


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

I have offered links to a dozen or so non-gun threads to those who complain that I talk about nothing else.

I thought it would be funny to make them wade through a bunch of them to find a thread in which to launch their usual false complaint.

Don't worry. Those threads are all about things other than guns and will soon sink off the front page again.

And managed to plaster them with references your to your never ending .22 campaign!

its like watching a petulant child let loose with a computer. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, mad said:

And managed to plaster them with references your to your never ending .22 campaign!

its like watching a petulant child let loose with a computer. 

Yeah that's really going to disrupt the flow of conversation among forum participants in the Kelo v New London thread or the asset forfeiture thread, to name a couple of examples.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/26/2018 at 4:10 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

They'll hear it from me until they quit being stupid.

Tom will punish the stupid, about assault weapons, our ,22's, until they get smart.

 2 hours ago, mad said:

its like watching a petulant child let loose with a computer. 

Tom needs some new moves, he;s in a rut which suits him. He needs new reading material, IMO.

Share this post


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

Tom will punish the stupid, about assault weapons, our ,22's, until they get smart.

 2 hours ago, mad said:

its like watching a petulant child let loose with a computer. 

Tom needs some new moves, he;s in a rut which suits him. He needs new reading material, IMO.

Thanks for the constructive criticism, Joe.

Nice to hear from someone who can discuss a variety of subjects instead of just guns, isn't it, mad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Cal20sailor said:

And what state and how the hell am I supposed to know what that is?  I likely would agree with it.  I am not a gun nut and would turn mine in if I thought it would make a difference, it won't. 

It wouldn't make a difference if you turned in your gun, it would make a difference if -- with your knowledge of your community -- you supported things like a Red Flag Law. It's unlikely that your state has one. The change I'm suggesting is one that comes from the gun community, not from the we-don't-want-to-get-shot community. I'm no longer part of your community, regardless my guns and my abilities. I lost that when this whole mess became political and I took the wrong/right side of the issue.

Share this post


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

It wouldn't make a difference if you turned in your gun, it would make a difference if -- with your knowledge of your community -- you supported things like a Red Flag Law. It's unlikely that your state has one. The change I'm suggesting is one that comes from the gun community, not from the we-don't-want-to-get-shot community. I'm no longer part of your community, regardless my guns and my abilities. I lost that when this whole mess became political and I took the wrong/right side of the issue.

I thought you were "neutral" on the main TeamD gun control goal of banning (assault weapons, ordinary .22's).

Which side are you on?

Share this post


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

I don't like the BS of calling my .22 a weapon of war when everyone knows it's not.

I'm amused by the TeamD taboo that keeps people from speaking the truth and keeps them reminding me that my .22 can kill.

An honest approach would be for TeamD to simply say they want to ban semiautomatic weapons. If that's not true and my .22 is somehow a special semiauto that deserves banning, I'd like to know why and I'd like to know which semiauto might be acceptable if mine is not. It seems to me to be just about the most innocuous semi-auto that anyone can own.

I blame TeamD to not keeping a lid on the stupidity of calling my .22 a weapon of war.

First off, I've no problem with your gun discussions, they're often interesting. It's just that you've become something of a one-note-sonata with this 0.22 thing. ("One-note-sonata", damn I'm a good writer occasionally.)

Second, please put the zero in front of the decimal. There is no reason why a love of small calibre weapons should have you violate effective math typography. The zero goes in front of the decimal for a specific reason. 

Third, the whole "TeamD" thing is new for you, you used to be somewhat more apolitical. I think that was one of your strengths.

Finally, a 0.22 is a highly lethal weapon. Mammas all over the planet are crying at this moment for their dead darling boys and girls who were killed by 0.22s. (I borrowed that line from Shane MacGowan.)

 

Share this post


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

Thanks for the constructive criticism, Joe.

Nice to hear from someone who can discuss a variety of subjects instead of just guns, isn't it, mad?

Let's discuss race relations, in depth. Let's discuss the hopeful, tranquil goals of the founding fathers. Let's discuss CATO's track record. 

Share this post


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

I thought you were "neutral" on the main TeamD gun control goal of banning (assault weapons, ordinary .22's).

Which side are you on?

You're rapidly de-neutralizing me. 

Assuming you aren't around to do that, here's my favored bans ... no legal concealed weapons except for special cases of law enforcement. No semi-auto handguns or rifles except for hunters who have a verified medical condition, and then there needs to be some kind few-second delay between shots. Open carry of long guns legal in all 50 states and territories. Ban on any concealable handgun.

There y'go, I'm right back where I was years ago, my views are mostly consistent.

Share this post


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

First off, I've no problem with your gun discussions, they're often interesting. It's just that you've become something of a one-note-sonata with this 0.22 thing. ("One-note-sonata", damn I'm a good writer occasionally.)

Second, please put the zero in front of the decimal. There is no reason why a love of small calibre weapons should have you violate effective math typography. The zero goes in front of the decimal for a specific reason. 

Third, the whole "TeamD" thing is new for you, you used to be somewhat more apolitical. I think that was one of your strengths.

Finally, a 0.22 is a highly lethal weapon. Mammas all over the planet are crying at this moment for their dead darling boys and girls who were killed by 0.22s. (I borrowed that line from Shane MacGowan.)

 

Mike, you are entirely  correct that, all along, gun supporters needed to be a part of the solution. Since they made other choices, they now have credibility problems to overcome, plus the mayhem problem to overcome.

 

16 hours ago, Cal20sailor said:

  I am not a gun nut and would turn mine in if I thought it would make a difference, it won't. 

How do you figure? Because ditching your gun is a basic. Were you going to store it beyond the ecology, or what?

Share this post


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

That is nice, but none of that is required to 1) own a car or 2) drive a car on private property. It certainly doesn't stop the car from being stolen and then misused.

Well, if the anti-gun cheerleaders in your state are anything like they are in NJ, then they ignored anyone trying to make the bill acceptable.

Given that probably less than 0.1% of traffic accidents occur from unlicensed drivers on private property, I think we're okay.

As for the "anti-gun cheerleaders", why did they need to champion the Red Flag Law alone? Why wasn't the gun community proactive in writing that bill?

Share this post


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

You're rapidly de-neutralizing me. 

Assuming you aren't around to do that, here's my favored bans ... no legal concealed weapons except for special cases of law enforcement. No semi-auto handguns or rifles except for hunters who have a verified medical condition, and then there needs to be some kind few-second delay between shots. Open carry of long guns legal in all 50 states and territories. Ban on any concealable handgun.

There y'go, I'm right back where I was years ago, my views are mostly consistent.

Sounds like you've been consistently on the grabber side with respect to the thread topic.

After all, I have no medical condition that requires me to use my .22, which hasn't ever been used for much hunting. So you're a consistent supporter of banning my assault weapon. And an assault weapon owner yourself. What's your medical condition again? Where do you hunt? And for what?

Your "few second delay" idea sounds a lot like a "smart" gun. Meaning: not all that smart.

Share this post


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

As for the "anti-gun cheerleaders", why did they need to champion the Red Flag Law alone? Why wasn't the gun community proactive in writing that bill?

Because in NJ, with (D) control of governor, house, and senate, if they want the bill they will pass it. The current goldman-sachs governor has said all along that he will sign any anti gun bill.

48 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Given that probably less than 0.1% of traffic accidents occur from unlicensed drivers on private property, I think we're okay.

That is your answer? After going on about how much training is required, you decide to attack my observation that way? Looks like the "training" isn't nearly enough.

For all the "improvements" in car safety, deaths are going up every year - millions of injuries - few hundred billion in costs - yet any talk about "doing something" (ie banning) is just met with a snort. I guess the car lobby is just that powerful.

Share this post


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

Because in NJ, with (D) control of governor, house, and senate, if they want the bill they will pass it. The current goldman-sachs governor has said all along that he will sign any anti gun bill.

That is your answer? After going on about how much training is required, you decide to attack my observation that way? Looks like the "training" isn't nearly enough.

For all the "improvements" in car safety, deaths are going up every year - millions of injuries - few hundred billion in costs - yet any talk about "doing something" (ie banning) is just met with a snort. I guess the car lobby is just that powerful.

The auto safety increase has been measurably huge since the fifties. Something like thirty to fifty percent. So there's that.

And what's wrong with "doing something" in this situation?

Share this post


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

Because in NJ, with (D) control of governor, house, and senate, if they want the bill they will pass it. The current goldman-sachs governor has said all along that he will sign any anti gun bill.

That is your answer? After going on about how much training is required, you decide to attack my observation that way? Looks like the "training" isn't nearly enough.

For all the "improvements" in car safety, deaths are going up every year - millions of injuries - few hundred billion in costs - yet any talk about "doing something" (ie banning) is just met with a snort. I guess the car lobby is just that powerful.

Except that you made that up. The efforts of the industry and government have helped to cause vehicle fatalities drop most every year, even while total miles driven continues to increase every year.

USA_annual_VMT_vs_deaths_per_VMT.png

Your argument is awesome as long as it doesn't matter that it's based on a complete lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites